بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH,

THE ALL-BENEFICENT, THE ALL-MERCIFUL

The first of two volumes of the renowned and comprehensive text on Islamic political theory by Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi, dealing with the importance of recognizing Islam as the basis of any just political theory, methods of implementing such a theory by the government, and comparing and contrasting this Islamic system with the system predominant in most Western ans secular nations.

قال اللهُ تعالی:

إِنّما یُرِیدُ اللّهُ لِیُذْهِب عنْکُمُ الرِّجْس أهْل الْبیْتِ ویُطهِّرکُمْ تطْهِیرًا

Indeed, Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O People of the Household, and purify you with a thorough purification.

(Sūrah al-Aḥzāb 33:33)

Prophetic traditions, mentioned in both Sunnī and Shī'īte most reliable reference books of Hadīth and Tafsīr (Quranic Exegesis), have confirmed that this holy verse was revealed to exclusively involve the five individuals of the Cloak; namely, Muhammad, ‘Alī, Fātīmah, al- Hasan, and al- Husayn, peace be upon them, to whom the term ‘Ahl al-Bayt (People of the House)’ is solely dedicated.

For instance, refer to the following reference books:

(1) Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), al-Musnad, 1:331; 4:107; 6:292, 304. (2) Sahīh Muslim (d. 261 AH), 7:130. (3) Al-Tirmidhī (d. 279 AH), Sunan, 5:361 et al. (4) Al-Dulabī (d. 310 AH), al-Dhurriyyah at-Tāhīrah an-Nabawiyyah, p. 108. (5) An-Nassa’i (d. 303 AH), al-Sunan al-Kubrā' 5:p108, 113. (6) al- Hakīm al-Nayshābūrī (d. 405 AH), al-Mustadrak ‘alā as-Sa hīhayn, 2:416, 3:133, 146, 147. (7) al-Zarkāshī (d. 794 AH), al-Burhān, pp. 197. (8) Ibn Hājar al-Asqalānī (d. 852), Fath al-Barī Sharhh Sahīh al-Bukhārī, 7:104. (9) Al-Kulaynī (d. 328 AH), Usūl al-Kāfī, 1:287. (10) Ibn Bābaūyah (d. 329 AH), al-Imāmah wa’l-Tabsirah, pp. 47, H. 29. (11) Al-Maghribī (d. 363 AH), Da’aa’im al-Islām, pp. 35, 37. (12) As-Sadūq (d. 381 AH), al-Khisāl, pp. 403, 550. (13) At-Tūsī (d. 460 AH), al-Amaalī, H. 438, 482, 783.

For more details, refer to the exegesis of the holy verse involved in the following reference books of tafsīr: (1) At-Tabarī (d. 310 AH), book of Tafsīr. (2) Al-Jassās (d. 370 AH), Ahkām al-Qur’an. (3) Al-Wahīdī (d. 468 AH), Asbāb an-Nuzūl. (4) Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH), Zād al-Masīr. (5) Al-Qurtubī (d. 671 AH), al-Jāmī’ li-ahkām al-Qur’an. (6) Ibn Kathīr (d. 774 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (7) Al-Tha'albī (d. 825 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (8) As-Suyūtī (d. 911 AH), al-Durr al-Manthūr. (9) Ash-Shawkanī (d. 1250 AH), Fath al-Qadīr. (10) Al-'Ayyāshī (d. 320 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (11) Al-Qummī (d. 329 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (12) Furt al-Kūfī (d. 352 AH), Book of Tafsīr; in the margin of the exegesis of verse 4:59. (13) Al-Tabrīzī (d. 560 AH), Majma‘al-Bayān, as well as many other reference books of Hadith and Tafsīr.

p: 2

ISLAMIC

POLITICAL THEORY

Volume 1

(Legislation)

p: 3

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صلی الله علیه و آله:

إنِّی تَارِکٌ فِیکُمُ الثَّقَلَیْنِ: کِتَابَ اللهِ وَعِتْرَتِی أهْلَ بَیْتِی، مَا إنْ تَمَسَّکْتُمْ بِهِمَا لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدِی أبَداً، وَإنَّهُمَا لَنْ یَفْتَرِقَا حَتَّی یَرِدَا عَلَیَّ الْحَوْضَ.

The Messenger of Allah (s) said:

“Verily, I am leaving among you two precious things [Thaqalayn]: The Book of Allah and my progeny [‘itrah], the members of my Household [Ahl al-Bayt]. If you hold fast to them, you shall never go astray. These two will never separate from each other until they meet me at the Pond [hawd] (of Kawthar).”

Some of its references:

Al­Hakim an­Nayshaburi, Al­Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn (Beirut), vol. 3, pp. 109-110, 148, 533.

Muslim, As-Sahih, (English translation), book 31, hadiths 5920-3.

At­Tirmidhi, As-Sahih, vol. 5, pp. 621-2, hadiths 3786, 3788; vol. 2, p. 219.

An-Nassa’i, Khasa’is ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, hadith 79.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Al-Musnad, vol. 3, pp. 14, 17, 26; vol. 3, pp. 26, 59; vol. 4, p. 371;

vol. 5, pp. 181-182, 189-190.

Ibn al­Athir, Jami ‘al­Usul, vol. 1, p. 277.

Ibn Kathir, Al­Bidayah wa’n­Nihayah, vol. 5, p. 209.

Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, vol. 6, p. 199.

Nasir ad-Din al-Albani, Silsilat al-Ahadith as-Sahihah (Kuwait: Ad-Dar as-Salafiyyah), vol. 4, pp. 355-358.

p: 4

ISLAMIC POLITICAL THEORY

Volume 1

(Legislation)

Professor Muḥammad Taqī Miṣbāḥ Yazdī

Translator

Mansoor Limba

Cultural Affairs Department

The Ahl al-Bayt(‘a) World Assembly

p: 5

نام کتاب: نظریه سیاسی اسلام جلد ١

نویسنده: استاد محمّد تقی مصباح یزدی

مترجم: منصور لیمبا

زبان ترجمه: انگلیسی

Islamic Political Theory (Legislation) Volume 1-2

Author: Professor Muḥammad Taqī Miṣbāḥ Yazdī

Translator and typesetter: Mansoor Limba

Project supervisor: Translation Unit, Cultural Affairs Department, The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly (ABWA)

Editor: Sayyidah Effat Shah

Publisher: ABWA Publishing and Printing Unit

First Printing: 2008

Printed by: Laylā Press

Copies: 5,000

ISBN: 978-964-529-454-8

© The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly (ABWA)

www.ahl-ul-bait.org

info@ahl-ul-bayt.org

p: 6

JURISDICTION OF RELIGION....56

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT....57

UNIVERSALITY OF RELIGION....59

SESSION 5....61

FREEDOM IN ISLAM (PART 1) ....61

PRIVATE REALMS OF KNOWLEDGE AND RELIGION....61

SKEPTICISM ON ALLEGED CONTRADICTION BETWEEN RELIGIOUS RULE AND FREEDOM....61

PROPAGATING THE ABOVE SKEPTICISM THROUGH A RELIGIOUS TUNE....62

REPLYING TO THE ABOVE SKEPTICISM....63

REASON BEHIND THE UNIQUENESS OF THE QUR’ANIC APPROACH....64

PROPAGATING THE SKEPTICISM THROUGH AN EXTRA-RELIGIOUS APPROACH....68

HUME’S SKEPTICISM AND THE FIRST REPLY TO THE ABOVE SKEPTICISM....68

SECOND REPLY—ABSOLUTENESS AND LIMITLESSNESS OF FREEDOM....69

SKEPTICISM ON ALLEGED CONTRADICTION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AND MAN’S DIVINE VICEGERENCY [KHILĀFAH] ....70

REPLY TO THE ABOVE SKEPTICISM....70

SESSION 6....73

FREEDOM IN ISLAM (PART 2) ....73

EXPRESSING SKEPTICISM ON THE FOUNDATION OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MAN....73

REPLY TO THE ABOVE SKEPTICISM....74

EXPRESSING THE ABOVE SKEPTICISM THROUGH A DIFFERENT APPROACH....76

REPLY TO THE ABOVE SKEPTICISM....76

DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD IN THE PAST....77

FOLLOWING GOD AND FREEDOM....80

SESSION 7....83

FREEDOM: ITS LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES....83

ISLAMIC POLITICAL THEORY AND SKEPTICISM ON ALLEGED RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM....83

DIFFERENT OUTLOOK ON CONCEPT OF FREEDOM....84

FREEDOM AS NOT ABSOLUTE AND REJECTION OF FREEDOM’S PREDOMINANCE OVER RELIGION....85

NEED TO OBSERVE THE VALUES AND SANCTITIES OF EVERY SOCIETY....87

ILLEGITIMATE MOTIVES IN EXERCISING FREEDOM....88

LIMITS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION....89

NEED TO EXPLAIN CONCEPT AND MANIFESTATION OF TERMS....89

SESSION 8....91

AN ELUCIDATION OF THE STRUCTURE AND FORM OF GOVERNMENT....91

p: 8

STATUS OF ELEMENTAL AND EVIDENTIAL DEFINITION....91

ISLAM AND THEORY OF SEPARATION OF POWERS....92

1. Legislative power....92

2. Judicial power....93

3. Executive power....93

SKEPTICISM ON ALLEGED IMPOTENCE OF ISLAM IN SOCIAL ADMINISTRATION....94

TYPES OF LAWS AND NECESSITY OF ENACTING VARIABLE LAWS95

1. The constitution....95

2. Laws ratified by parliament....95

3. Laws ratified by cabinet....96

MEANING OF ISLAMIC NATURE OF LAWS....96

PROCESS OF LEGISLATION IN THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT....98

LEGAL STATUS DELEGATED IN THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT....99

SESSION 9....103

AN EXAMINATION OF THE STATUS OF LAWS IN THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM....103

PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC POLITICAL THEORY....103

1. Law....103

STATUS OF NATURAL LAWS AND STATUTORY LAWS....104

2. Laws possessing divine and religious source....106

NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ESSENTIALS OF RELIGION....107

ISLAM’S FIXED PRINCIPLES AND PRECEPTS....108

FIXED ESSENTIAL LAWS AND DECISIVE CONCEPTS OF THE QUR’AN....110

REMOVING SKEPTICISM ON THE EXISTENCE OF CONTRADICTORY INTERPRETATIONS OF ISLAM....111

QUESTIONING ISLAM’S CAPABILITY OF MEETING ALL HUMAN NEEDS....112

1. Examining the theoretical dimension of questions....112

2. Examining the practical dimension of questions....113

SESSION 10....115

LAW AND THE DIFFERENCE IN OUTLOOK AND ORIGIN....115

EXIGENCY OF DISCUSSING LAW AT THE PRESENT STAGE....115

TWO CONTRADICTORY VIEWS DETERMINING DOMAIN OF LAWS....116

STATUS OF LAW IN DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS....116

BASIS OF CREDIBILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS....117

REAL, INTRINSIC LAWS AND STATUS OF MAN’S FREEWILL....118

LEGISLATIVE AND DIVINE LAWS THAT GUARANTEE MAN’S FELICITY AND PERFECTION....120

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND MORAL LAWS....123

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAMIC AND LIBERAL APPROACH....124

SESSION 11....127

CRITERION OF CREDIBILITY OF LAW....127

EXIGENCY OF DELVING INTO MAJOR POLITICAL ISSUES....127

p: 9

SCOPE AND CRITERION OF CREDIBILITY OF LAW....128

1. Justice theory....129

2. Providing for social needs....129

3. Will of the people....130

OBJECTION TO THE FIRST VIEW....131

SUPERIORITY OF ISLAMIC LAWS....131

INAPPLICABILITY OF THE SECOND VIEW....132

DEFECTS OF THE THIRD VIEW AND EXTENT OF NEEDS ACCORDING TO ISLAM....133

THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION AND SUPERIOR STATION OF SPIRITUAL INTERESTS....135

THE DIFFERENT VIEWS OF ISLAM AND THE WEST ON VALUES....137

THE BEST LAW ACCORDING TO ISLAM AND THE DANGER OF ECLECTICISM....137

INTELLECTUAL ECLECTICISM IN REALM OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT....138

CONCEPT OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM....140

MAGNIFICENCE OF SERVITUDE TO GOD AND ITS CONFLICT WITH ABSOLUTE FREEDOM....142

THE WEST AND ELIMINATION OF ALLEGED CONTRADICTION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION....144

STATION OF PEOPLE’S WILL IN LIBERALISM AND ISLAM....145

DEMOCRACY AND LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IN ISLAM AND THE WEST....146

AN ADMONITION TO THE YOUTH....149

SESSION 13....151

FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THE APPROACH TO LAW BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE WEST....151

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAW AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM....151

LAW IN THE HUMANIST AND LIBERAL APPROACH....152

THE ONSLAUGHT OF WESTERN CULTURE AND ITS CONFRONTATION WITH ISLAMIC CULTURE....153

THE CLERGY AND STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF ISLAMIC CULTURE....154

NATURE OF LAW AND ITS SPECIAL FUNCTION IN ISLAM AND LIBERALISM....155

RELATIVITY OF LEGITIMATE FREEDOM....157

TENSION BETWEEN ISLAM AND LIBERALISM....157

LEGISLATION IN ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY....159

THE BINDING LAW IN THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT....160

SESSION 14....163

THE WEST’S MATERIALISTIC APPROACH TO LAW....163

A REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS....163

NATURAL LAW SCHOOL....164

SCOPE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE WEST....165

EMERGENCE OF CONTRADICTIONS ON SCOPE OF FREEDOM....166

SCOPE OF FREEDOM IN HUMAN RIGHTS....167

PROBLEMS OF CATEGORIZING FREEDOM IN THE WEST....168

ISLAMIC LAW’S CONCERN FOR SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL INTERESTS....169

p: 10

PREEMINENCE OF SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS INTERESTS OVER MATERIAL INTERESTS....171

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONDITIONS AND SCOPE OF FREEDOM IN ISLAM AND LIBERALISM....172

SESSION 15....175

THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT, CHALLENGES AND CULTURAL PLOTS....175

A REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS....175

THE CLERGY AND ITS CRUCIAL DUTY OF GUIDANCE....175

PROMOTION OF DESTRUCTIVE WESTERN FREEDOM IN THE NATIONAL PRESS....177

“ISLAMIC PROTESTANTISM” AS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST ISLAM....179

REAL MEANING OF NATURAL RIGHT....180

TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION AS THE ONLY AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION OF ISLAM....181

LEGITIMATE FREEDOM....183

RELIGION AND LAW AS RESTRAINERS OF FREEDOM....184

NECESSITY OF RESTRAINING FREEDOM....186

SESSION 16....189

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIVINE AND ATHEISTIC CULTURE IN THE REALM OF LAW AND FREEDOM....189

ROLE OF CHOICE, AWARENESS AND OBSERVANCE OF LAW IN ATTAINING THE GOAL....189

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORAL AND LEGAL LAWS....190

DIVINE AND ATHEISTIC CULTURES AND THEIR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON LAW....192

THREE PILLARS OF WESTERN CULTURE....192

FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WESTERN AND ISLAMIC CULTURE....194

DIFFERENCE IN APPROACH BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE WEST ON DETERMINING SCOPE OF FREEDOM....197

SESSION 17....201

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOUS LEGISLATIVE LORDSHIP [RUBŪBIYYAT-E TASHRĪ‘Ī], AND SOVEREIGNTY AND LEGISLATION....201

NECESSITY OF DETERMINING THEMATIC PRINCIPLES....201

DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY AND LEGISLATIVE LORDSHIP....203

MEANING OF PURE MONOTHEISM....205

RIGHTEOUS REFERENCE AUTHORITIES OF LEGISLATION AND SOVEREIGNTY IN ISLAM....206

REASONS BEHIND GOD’S LEGISLATIVE MONOPOLY....210

p: 11

SESSION 18....215

REQUISITES OF LEGISLATION AND ITS STATION IN ISLAM....215

LEGISLATOR’S QUALIFICATIONS AS EXCLUSIVE TO GOD....215

OBJECTION ON THE NECESSITY OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES’ PLURALITY....216

REPLY TO THE FIRST OBJECTION....217

SECOND OBJECTION: ABSENCE OF GOD’S WILL IN LEGISLATION....218

REPLY TO THE SECOND OBJECTION....218

MAN’S MASTERY OVER HIS DESTINY....221

LACK OF CONTRADICTION BETWEEN MASTERY OF MAN AND SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD....223

SESSION 19....227

DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF ISLAM IN THE REALM OF POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT....227

THREE VIEWS ON DETERMINING THE SPECIAL FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT....227

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SPECIAL FUNCTION OF THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT AND THAT OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS....229

ISLAM’S VIEW ON THE ESSENCE OF HUMAN SOCIETY....230

NECESSARY QUALITIES OF THE LEGISLATOR....231

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAMIC LAWS AND LIBERAL LAWS....233

SESSION 20....237

A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE STATION OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT....237

AN ORGANIC PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIETY....237

ISLAMIC APPROACH ON ORGANIC PERSPECTIVE OF SOCIETY....238

WAYS OF COMPARING SOCIETY TO THE HUMAN BODY....239

ELUCIDATING THE STATION OF GOVERNMENT IN SOCIETY THROUGH THE ORGANIC PERSPECTIVE....241

REAL BENEFIT AND HARM AS THE BEDROCK OF LAW....243

SESSION 21....245

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY (PART 1) ....245

LAW ENFORCERS’ NEED FOR THE PERMISSION OF GOD....245

MEANING OF DEMOCRACY AND ITS FUNCTIONAL SHIFTS....247

MEANING OF DEMOCRACY TODAY....249

HEGEMONIC SYSTEM’S EXPLOITATION OF NEW CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY....250

ISLAM’S IDEAL FORM OF DEMOCRACY....251

SESSION 22....255

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY (PART 2) ....255

SECULAR DEMOCRACY AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNING....255

FALLACY IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION OF SECULAR SYSTEM....256

ADVANCING DEMOCRACY IN THE SPHERE OF MANAGEMENT....257

p: 12

PARAMOUNT STATION OF ISLAM AND WILĀYAH AL-FAQĪH IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC....259

FORM OF DEMOCRACY ACCEPTABLE TO ISLAM....260

SESSION 23....263

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ESSENCE OF UNITY IN HUMANITY AND THE CITIZENSHIP OF CITIZENS....263

ISLAM’S VIEW ON ROOT OF EMERGENCE OF RIGHTS....263

IMPACT OF NATURAL AND ACQUIRED DIFFERENCES ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES....265

DETERMINING DIFFERENT CLASSES OF INDIVIDUALS IN LAWS OF CITIZENSHIP....267

FIRST AND SECOND CLASS CITIZENSHIP ACCORDING TO ISLAM....268

FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WILĀYAH AL-FAQĪH AND OTHER SYSTEMS....268

INDEX....271

TRANSLITERATION SYMBOLS....279

p: 13

p: 14

The Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly looks forward to benefit from the opinions of the readers and their suggestions and constructive criticism in this area.

We also invite scholars, translators and other institutions to assist us in propagating the genuine Islamic teachings as preached by the Prophet Muhammad (S).

We beseech God, the Most High, to accept our humble efforts and to enable us to enhance them under the auspices of Imam al-Mahdi, His vicegerent on the earth (may Allah expedite his advent).

We express our gratitude to Professor Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi, the author of the present book,(1) and Mansoor Limba, its translator. We also thank our colleagues who have participated in producing this work, especially the staff of the Translation Office.

Cultural Affairs Department

The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly

p: 16

of human beings. If a human being is considered as a mere physical body, the ultimate aspirations for him would be to be well provided materially and his welfare, comfort and happiness be ensured. From this perspective, all efforts would be directed toward animal needs and pleasure.

However, if we treat man as superior to materiality, and lay the foundation of a political system based on the multi-faceted material and spiritual dimensions of human existence, a government would pursue man’s material welfare and spiritual ascension. It is through this criterion and outlook on man and the choice of ideals that we shall examine the political thoughts as well as the performance of governments; because the origin of political thoughts is the very insight and ideal and without them political thoughts have no essence.

Nowadays, in the realm of political discussions, only a few pay attention to the fundamental perspective on man and his sublime aspirations. The sociological approach focuses mainly on the material benefits totally sidetracking human aspiration and insight. Yet, it must be noted that in the school [maktab] of the prophets (‘a),(1) who were the true custodians of the establishment of exalted humane systems, optimism and idealism have been the foundation of movement and transformation. It is for this reason that through a comprehensive perspective consistent with the Qur’an, we realize that the creation of man, life and death, the sending down of the prophets (‘a), and socio-religious systems are all based on a purpose, and the axis of all activities and programs, including the setting up of government, is guidance [hidayah] toward that basic purpose.

As such, governments must be set up not only for the physical administration of societies but for their spiritual growth as well. One-dimensional governments strive only for the material welfare and comfort of people. If, however, they are in pursuit of man’s material comfort and spiritual ascension, they will also engage in guiding him. Man possesses God’s spirit, and the essence of his existence consists of spiritual and celestial dimensions beyond the base material ones. To confine him to physical administration without spiritual guidance is tantamount to belittling him.

If the ultimate goal of government is the good and of man (in this world) and attainment of divine proximity [qurb-e ilahi] and the axis of government is revolved around the guidance of mankind, undoubtedly the one most worthy to govern people is he who is the most aware of the real concerns and interests of man and perfectly cognizant of the dimensions and aspects of his existence, and that is nobody but God. The corollary of rational proof

p: 18

[burhan-e ‘aqli] which is also confirmed by verses of the Qur’an is that the perfection of man lies in obedience to the One who is fully aware and omniscient of the truth behind him, this world and the hereafter, and the mutual link between him, this world and the hereafter, is nobody but God. So, worship and guardianship inevitably belong to Allah alone.

That is, the Sole Master of man is God, and sovereignty of other than God, only if it is anchored in His will and permission, will be legitimate. As such, the theory of the guardianship of the jurist [wilayah al-faqih], which is the axis of the Islamic government, needs to be established during the period of occultation [ghaybah] of the infallible Imam (‘a). It is a theory which in recent centuries has drawn the close attention of Islamic scholars and jurists [fuqaha], and has reached its apex during recent decades. In comparison to the negation of religious authority, it turned out to be a useful, dynamic and socially transforming theory in the scene of the world of politics.

The Muslim world, during this contemporary era, has witnessed two truly momentous phenomena. One is the negative view on politics and religious authority. This perennial view, which permeates all religions particularly Islam and leads to the political isolation of religious thought and the decrease of religious movement, is a meta-religious onslaught that requires the scholars and intellectuals in the Muslim world to engage in elucidating and fortifying the pristine religious beliefs through profound and serious studies in order to be equipped with rational defense against it.

The second phenomenon is the presence of political thought based on wilayah al-faqih. Though, theoretically, this phenomenon has many precedents and different variations, its actual and concrete practice is traceable to the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

The Islamic Revolution of Iran—after a long and persistent struggle—attained victory under the wise and ingenious leadership of Imam Khomeini (q)(1), and through the overwhelming vote (98.22 %) of the Muslim people of Iran, the Islamic Republic was established. After the victory of the Islamic Revolution, a constitution based on Qur’anic verses and luminous laws of Islam was codified by a group of mujtahids,(2) Islamic scholars and experts of the nation which, as acknowledged by legal authorities and experts, is regarded as one of the most advanced constitutions in the world.

Up to this stage, the legal standing of the Islamic Republic was specified and fixed, and wilayah al-faqih stipulated in the constitution as the symbol of

p: 19

Islam, the truthfulness of the system, the guarantor of its survival and immunity from possible danger, and, the main pillar of the Islamic Republic. However, the events after the Revolution, the entanglement of the intellectual revolutionary forces with current problems, and the emotional, exaggerated and superficial presentation of wilayah al-faqih resulted in an improper scientific study, examination and elucidation of this issue.

Nevertheless, the Islamic system successfully handled the problems and society moved toward peace and stability. Due to the critical inquiries of theoretical rivals, more attention was paid to it and its various angles were elucidated by intelligent and wary scholars who were well aware of the conditions of the time.

In view of the exigency to explain: (i) the Islamic political theory and present its position in political systems; (ii) to deal with the existence of doubts, concerns and intellectual challenges behind this theory; and, (iii) to confront the pervasive efforts of the external and internal enemies in opposing this wilayah al-faqih system; the wise, vigilant scholar struggling to defend and guard the sanctity of religion and revealed teachings, His Eminence Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi (may Allah prolong his sublime presence), presented a series of discussions on Islamic political theory before sermons [kutbahs] of the Friday congregational Prayer of Tehran.

The present volume is the transcript of the said discussions compiled and edited by Mr. Karim Subhani and presented to you, dear readers, in two volumes (legislation and statecraft). It is hoped that this book is accepted by the concerned authorities and approved by Hadhrat Wali al-‘Asr [His Holiness, the Master of the Age] (may Allah the Exalted, expedite his glorious advent).

Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute

Tir 26, 1378 AHS (July 17, 1999)

p: 20

and books have been written, speeches delivered and talks held. Yet, only a few systematic discussions beneficial for the average person, responsive to the needs of the youth and various strata of people have been undertaken. Thanks to Allah, our nation occupies an eminent cultural position. In recent years especially, it has improved and progressed considerably, understanding many profound and complex issues very well.

Nevertheless, the scientific and technical language is confined to the academic centers, universities and seminaries. The language of conversation with the masses must be devoid of scientific and complicated terminology so that a majority of people can benefit from the discussions. Of course, it must be noted that a discussion under the title, “The Political Philosophy of Islam” can be so extensive that it cannot be covered even in a hundred sessions. As such, considering our time constraint and the sessions taken into account, we have no option but to choose topics for discussion which are needed by society and in connection with which questions and doubts have been raised.

Since the topic “The Political Philosophy of Islam” consists of three terms, each of them could be studied and examined separately. “Political philosophy” has numerous equivalent terms such as “the philosophy of political science” and “political philosophy vis-à-vis political science”. However, in brief, what we mean by “political philosophy” in these discussions is the elucidation of the Islamic theory on government and politics that is based on specific principles, and the Islamic philosophy of the Islamic government can only be explained and justified according to these principles.

conducted along with it.

Of course, the statements of the late Imam (‘a) and the famous slogan of the late Martyr Mudarris(1)—“Our religion is our politics and our politics is our religion”—played a role in fortifying our political thought, and this question has already been answered for our people. However, to elucidate the political theory of Islam and the manner of involvement of religion in politics requires in-depth study and discussion.

In Western culture, religion is not comprehensive in nature; it is defined in a manner that does not encompass the domain of sociopolitical issues; it only bespeaks of the relationship between man and God, and depicts the personal and individual communion of the former with the latter. Accordingly, sociopolitical and international issues, state-people relationship and international relations are beyond the domain of the relationship between man and God, and are therefore alien to religion. On the contrary, according to Islam, religion is universal in nature; encompassing all individual and social issues of man, including man’s relationship with God and his fellow creatures; and all domains of sociopolitical and international issues.

The reason for this is that according to Islam, God is the Ruler of the world and mankind. Thus, the political, economic, educational, and administrative spheres and other issues related to the life of man are within the totality of the laws and values of religion.

p: 23

same?

Has God granted extensive prerogatives to the ruler to rule over people however he likes, and are people obliged to act upon his will and desire? According to the divine rule and guardianship of Islam, Islamic political thought, and, the theory of wilayah al-faqih, can the jurist-guardian [wali al-faqih] rule over people in whatever way he likes? Does he have the right to propose and implement any law and decree according to his opinion? Are people obliged to act upon his orders? This is a very serious question which requires proper study and analysis so as to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

In brief, the reply to the above question is that the divine rule we believe in and Western theocracy are poles apart. It is hereby repeated that divine rule according to Islam is not the same theocratic government which Christianity, Catholicism in particular, held as granted to God and the ecclesiastical authorities.

Most of political theorists divide governments into two types, viz. dictatorial and democratic each of which has different variation. The first type refers to a government in which the ruler interferes in all affairs whenever he wishes; authoritatively orders; resorts to various means based on terror, violence and military force in order to exact obedience from the people. Opposed to this type of government is the democratic government, which is formed according to the will and approval of the people. People choose rulers of their own freewill, while rulers are duty-bound to act upon the will and desire of the people. In fact, their legitimacy emanates from the will and desire of the people.

Among the questions being raised are the following: What are the preliminaries and main pillars of the Islamic government? Which elements must be preserved and observed in ruling and managing society so as to actually realize the Islamic government? Those who are familiar with our culture and jurisprudence know, for example, that there are some essentials of prayer which if abandoned intentionally or unintentionally, invalidate the prayer, for, without them, the essence and identity of prayer cannot be realized.

The Islamic government is also founded on certain pillars. In the presence of those pillars and columns, we call a government “Islamic”. If there is some defect or deficiency in those pillars and columns, the Islamic government will not be realized. Now, in view of the vital role of these pillars and columns, it is necessary for us to be aware of them, because unless we recognize the criterion and basis of the Islamic nature of government will be not be able to distinguish the form and nature of an Islamic government from non-Islamic governments. It is therefore necessary to answer to this serious question.

the system is delegated to the government while other functions are given to the people.

In some forms of government, however, the government has vast prerogatives and equally heavy responsibilities. It assumes important responsibilities which it has to discharge. It can neither delegate them to the people nor shirk its duties because it is the people’s right to demand the performance of those responsibilities and duties from the government. It must be clarified that in the political philosophy of Islam, what prerogatives and duties dose Islam have set for the government. Undoubtedly, the performance and duties must be proportionate and balanced. It is not correct to delegate a duty to a person without providing him the necessary grounds to discharge the duty. So, the next question is: What duties and prerogatives does the Islamic government have?

nature it must be addressed at the outset. Will the method of our discussion be intellectual [ta‘aqquli] with us offering rational foundations and proofs to elucidate the Islamic theory?

Or, will the method of discussion be purely devotional [ta‘abbudi] and narrative [naqli]? In other words, shall the presentation of the structure, principles and policies of the government be based on a set of religious accounts, Qur’anic verses and traditions [ahadith]? Or, is Islamic polity also basically a trial-and-error phenomenon whose correctness or otherwise must be examined in the practical experience? Our method of discussion will be an empirical one and the criterion of judgment and opinion will be the experience of Islamic governments.

Since our discussion has rational and intellectual dimensions, its method and manner can be divided into two, viz. (1) polemical method [shiveh-ye jadali], and (2) evidential method [shiveh-ye burhani]. Once we want to examine an issue from a rational point of view, we agree upon a set of preliminary principles and discuss it on the basis of the same commonly accepted principles so as to solve the issue.

On the contrary, in the evidential method all the preliminary points are utilized in the argument so that the discussion is based on original cases, certainties and axioms for which firm argument and solid proof are established. Undoubtedly, to choose this method will prolong the discussion. For example, if we try to prove the need to observe justice in an Islamic government by using the evidential method, we will begin by explaining the essence of justice, which will instantly be followed by a long list of questions: How will justice be implemented? Is justice reconcilable with freedom or not? Who is supposed to determine the criterion of justice? Should the criterion of justice be determined by God or the people’s intellect?

After addressing the above questions, it will be asked: In these cases, to what extent does the intellect have the right to judge? Are the judgments of the intellect relative or absolute? The discussion will continue in this manner until finally the primary principles and epistemological issues will also be raised which will need settling, too. For example, what in essence is intellect? What is its approach and indication? In what method does the intellect make inference? To what extent are justice and its decree credible? Naturally, if we want to address all these issues as well as primary issues, we have to discuss and examine an array of different sciences.

The evidential method of discussion is honorable, certain and respectable, but as we have said, in applying it many issues pertaining to numerous sciences must be referred to. In addition to the fact that only a few individuals are well-informed of a set of sciences, and experts in every field can master only a set of limited information, it is an onerous task and many years would be spent in examining each of these issues via this method. In examining and explaining our subjects also, choosing the evidential method in all cases and following up each of the issues until we arrive at the

p: 28

axiomatic foundations and principles, will not be possible within the limited time we have.

As such, we shall resort to the evidential method only in cases where it is possible to present simple, uncomplicated and less extensive proofs, and employ the polemical method in other cases. The polemical method is the most appropriate method and in reality it is the shortest way to obtain results. It is a general and comprehensive method to convince others. In some places of the Qur’an, God, the Exalted, has resorted to it in convincing the enemy by presenting His firm and solid proofs, and He has also invited us to talk and dispute with others by using the same method:

﴿ٱدْعُ إِلِی سَبِیلِ رَبِّکَ بِالْحِکْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِی هِیَ أَحْسَنُ﴾

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice and dispute with them in a manner that is best.”(1)

p: 29

p: 30

oppressors. For this reason, the tyrants regarded the prophets (‘a) and their followers as their enemies. However, after World War II, with the final expulsion of the Church from the political scene (which manifested religious power in Europe), they did not foresee another power emerging against them until the last three decades, when they unbelievingly faced the astonishing movement in the Middle East and Iran.

Initially, they thought that the movement started in Iran was like the other Islamist movements which sporadically sprouted in some Muslim countries and were easily suppressed. They thought that by means of the specific methods they used and the experience they had acquired, they could successfully thwart it. As they proceeded they observed that this movement was different from others. Finally, thanks to the Islamic movement in Iran, a power emerged in this region, which, without relying on the Western and Eastern blocs, without using force and activities akin to coup d’états and violent harsh military moves, succeeded in toppling a Western puppet (king) and establishing an Islamic government in Iran.

Naturally, given the experiences they had acquired in combating the religious individuals, they resorted to different activities and plots, which you all know, and there is no need to mention them in detail. We shall only mention those plots. At the beginning, they ignited internal conflicts with the hope of paving the ground for the coming to power of a military junta that would protect the interests of the West. However, they observed that the people enjoyed such extensive power that the activities of splinter groups could not pose any danger to the Revolution. After experimenting with various plots and conspiracies including economic sanctions, global media propaganda against Iran, and the eight years war imposed on our people, they did not succeed in overthrowing the Islamic state.

some of which were materialistic in nature—so they imagined that it was possible to exert influence on this great stratum which constituted the bulk of society and to whom belonged the future, and after a few decades to gradually pave the way for a protégé government that would protect their interests. In order to pave the ground for such a sinister aim, they conducted studies to identify the main factor behind people’s support for the Islamic government, and found that they were willing to endure suffering, adversity, inflation, shortage, bombardment, and sanctions but not relinquish support for this government, which made them rightly conclude that this general support of the people stemmed from their belief and religion.

It was in line with this goal that they started their multifaceted movement through their disguised agents and scientifically calculated methods. They started their movement based on several axes:

religious one, because all the laws consistent with religion are implemented. The religious government is nothing different.

So, the second axis is that if they fail to convince all people that religion and politics are separate from each other, they will accept that religion and politics are joint, but say that religious government means the religious laws must be implemented whether the implementer has anything to do with religion or not. Whoever people elect for the implementation of religious laws will be the religious ruler. So, the religiousness of a government means that the religious laws are implemented, and not that the ruler is religious, knowledgeable and a faqih.

They acknowledge that religion has to interfere in politics, but do not accept that the implementer of religious laws must be a faqih or that the highest government post must be occupied by the wali al-faqih. The separating of religious government from the theory of wilayah al-faqih continues today as in the past. In newspapers, including national dailies and magazines, certain subjects are presented in different ways. The epicenter of this axis is formed in universities and other centers of gatherings, so as to influence those minds that still believe in the inseparability of religion and politics with the idea that a religious government is acceptable but wilayah al-faqih is not a corollary of the religious government.

This axis of activity can easily effect the youth who lack sufficient familiarity with Islamic laws and fundamentals of jurisprudence, especially if it is linked with many cultural mechanics and widespread propaganda. Yet, there are many in society who will not be influenced by this thinking and continue to consider the wilayah al-faqih, the bedrock of the Constitution, as the pillar of their thinking and action. They still maintain that this revolution is rightfully recognized in the world as the Revolution of Wilayah al-Faqih and the Government of Wilayah al-Faqih.

this government in three ways. Practically, they have implemented certain programs, but the long-term program, which they hope the future generation in this country will accept, is an intellectual one. The first axis of the said program is the promotion of the notion of separation of religion and politics which will be accepted by a certain group.

The second axis is to argue that religion and politics are inseparable but the religious government is separate from wilayah al-faqih. This theory may also affect a certain stratum of society. The third axis is to suggest to those who are firm and unflinching in their belief in wilayah al-faqih that wilayah al-faqih is acceptable but this form of wilayah al-faqih implemented in Iran must be altered. In sum, they are aiming to create a sort of doubt in the hearts of the youth, in a bid to weaken their belief in this system and its values. In doing so, a door will be opened for the Global Arrogance to penetrate Islamic society and even Islamic government.

Those who will be influenced by any of these three notions—wherever they are, whatever posts they occupy, whatever stratum of society they belong to, and whatever social standings they have—could be of great help to the Global Arrogance in the attainment of its objectives.

the Islamic Consultative Assembly, but the one occupying the highest government post is not attached to the law, nor has the intellectual, religious power or inclination to implement it, there is no guarantee that the said law will ever be implemented. So, it is important for us to strengthen our belief in the principle of wilayah al-faqih and to explain this theory on the basis of solid proof in order to fortify our faith, and convince our future generations that the Islamic government can survive only under the auspices of wilayah al-faqih.

Thirdly, they must be convinced that the form of wilayah al-faqih implemented in Iran, for the past two decades, the same wilayah al-faqih ordained in the school of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a), cannot be altered. The third stage is a secondary issue which must be addressed after explaining the first two stages. Therefore, to attend to the two stages takes precedence, and as such, the subject of our discussion is entitled, “The Political Philosophy of Islam”.

prove the existence of God to a person who does not believe in Him, it is pointless for us to quote a verse of the Qur’an or a saying of Imam as- Sadiq (‘a). That person does not believe in God, let alone believing in the Qur’an and ahadith! In guiding him, one has to use only rational proof and the intellectual method.

Those who accept the religious government have gone a step forward, and in dealing with them one has to present the content of religion acceptable to them. We have to cite a proof from that content of religion. As such, the sources of discussion shall be the Qur’an and Sunnah while the method and type of discussion shall be narrative and historical. But once the talk is about the performance of the system, one has to refer to historical documents and accounts, and the narrative and religious argument will be of no use anymore.

The behavioral methods being used must be examined and assessed. Since our discussion has various dimensions, we cannot use only one method. In some of its dimensions we will have to use the rational method while in some others we will have to give religious proof, and yet in some other dimensions we will have to use the historical method and actual field studies. What has been said is for the consumption of those, who in the course of discussion may find fault and question, “Is the discussion rational or narrative?” For this reason, I shall point out that our discussion has different aspects and each of them have to be examined by its particular method.

When the advocates of non-interference of religion in government defined religion, they acquired a definition of religion in keeping with the secularist inclination. For example, they said that religion is meant to organize the spiritual relationship between man and God. Or, in a somewhat broader and more extended sense, religion is something which can be influential in the otherworldly life—assuming that the otherworldly life exists—and in organizing the life of man in relation to the hereafter. Naturally, if religion is defined as such, it can easily be said, “What does politics have to do with religion?

Politics has nothing to do with the relationship between man and God, for it only deals with the relationship between human beings, and is, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of religion. Politics is related to the life in this world and has nothing to do with the other world.” In addition, if the jurisdiction of religion covers only the things which man is incapable of understanding, it follows that wherever the intellect passes judgment, it is no longer within the jurisdiction of religion; jurisdiction of religion lies where there is no place for intellect!

If in presenting the definition of religion, we limit its jurisdiction and scope, confer all matters to the human intellect and understanding, religion will not be needed in areas where our intellect is capable of solving problems. We will need religion only in cases which the intellect is incapable of understanding and solving. With the passage of time and the advancement and divergence of human life, the need for religion will decrease because, religion is meant to meet needs which the intellect is incapable of meeting. In the beginning, man could not benefit much from science and civilization. He was still in need of religion since he could not solve many problems with his intellect.

Gradually, his need for religion decreased and since recent years he seems almost free of its need. Yes, secondary issues which he could not understand with his intellect, and had no hope of solving them soon, he referred to religion. (Regrettably, it must be stated that some so-called Muslims have claimed that at this time when the human intellect has reached perfection, we have no more need for religion, revelation and devotional commandments.)

Given this outlook and explanation, it is concluded that politics has no relation with religion. Once we can solve and settle political issues by relying on the intellect and rational arguments and investigations, we are no more in need of religion!

What has been said is among the misgivings expressed in this regard to which we shall answer in brief. It must be stated that the definition they have given to religion, regarding it to be related only to the otherworldly life and relationship between man and God, is false and unacceptable. The claim that political issues of man have no relation with God and are beyond the domain of relationship between man and God is alien to the true nature of religion. Religion means the code of proper human conduct according to the will of

p: 39

God.

If in belief, in the acceptance of values and in his individual and social acts man acts in accordance with the will of God, he is religious. On the contrary, if his beliefs are against the will of God, his accepted values are inconsistent with the values acceptable to God, his individual and social acts are contrary to that which are pleasing to God, and if he has any defect in any of them, his religion will be defective. Religion, therefore, embraces all the above domains.

If religion is that which is revealed in the Qur’an, it embraces sociopolitical issues, deals with civil, penal and international laws as well as devotional matters and personal morality. It has prescriptions for family life, marriage, child-rearing, transactions, and commerce. What then, is outside the jurisdiction of Islam? The longest verse in the Qur’an is about transactions, loan and mortgage. If Islam is really the religion introduced in the Qur’an, who can say that Islam has nothing to do with the social life of people?

If issues pertaining to marriage and divorce are not a part of religion, issues related to trade, mortgage, selling, and usury are not related to religion, and the issue on wilayah and obedience to the one vested with authority [uli’l-amr] is not part of religion, what then is a part of religion, and which religion will we be talking about? As far as the Qur’an is concerned, it has repeatedly talked about these issues.

Some say, “We do not accept the religion which embraces sociopolitical issues!” Well and good! After all, those who did accept Islam were not few. Now, there are still those who do not accept Islam, and we have no hostility with them. If they want, they can come and talk with us so that we can show them this universal Islam, and if they do not want, they are welcome to choose whatever they want:

﴿وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّکُمْ فَمَن شَاء فَلْیُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاء فَلْیَکْفُرْ﴾

“And say, ‘[This is] the truth from your Lord: let anyone who wishes believe it, and let anyone who wishes disbelieve it’.”(1)

Those who say that they accept Islam, and not regard it as encompassing all these issues, yet express concern about each of its social laws are totally lost. Is that which is in the Qur’an and Sunnah not Islam? They neither accept its prayer and other forms of worship, nor its laws; neither its sociopolitical laws, nor its marriage and divorce laws. What remains of Islam, and which Islam are they talking about? Their words can do no more than deceive a number of ignorant individuals.

Religion means divine baptism in the life of man:

﴿صِبْغَةَ اللّهِ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللّهِ صِبْغَةً﴾

“The baptism of Allah [sibghat Allah], and who baptizes better than Allah?”(2)

The life of man can have either a divine or a satanic hue. If this life has a divine color, it epitomizes Islam. If we want to discuss the origin and source

p: 41

of divine baptism, we need to know the religious references, and apart from the Qur’an, the Sunnah and rational proofs, we do not know of any other Islamic source. Based on these sources, Islam encompasses all devotional and political, social and individual domains, and a cursory and casual glance at the Qur’an is enough to clearly prove that it is impossible for the religion referred to in the Qur’an to set aside sociopolitical matters.

A set of laws and values which do not deal with social and political issues, has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam, which has been explained in the Qur’an and which we are defending, includes the totality of political, social and devotional matters. Politics is considered as one of its essential elements and main domains. We have nothing to do with “Islam” which is presented according to the writings and statements of European and American writers. We regard them as alien to the spirit and substance of pristine Islam.

p: 42

Considering the above classification and functions mentioned for each of the powers, the opinion of Islam and the Qur’an about the station and legitimacy of the three powers must be examined. Do the Qur’an and Islam have specific orders and laws in these domains? It must, however, be noted that by “laws” we mean social laws and decrees, (not personal laws) whose existence in religion no one doubts.

The social laws include civil, penal, commercial, political and international laws. Once we take a glance at the Qur’an, we discover that all kinds of laws in the world for the administration of society, and the management of international relations can be found therein. Apart from the fact that civil laws; decrees on marriage and divorce; laws on trade, transactions, mortgage, loan and the like can be found in the Qur’an (which proves that issues on statecraft, like enactment and presentation of laws for the administration of society are taken into account in Islam), a special right for the Prophet (s) has been stipulated in the Qur’an to enact laws and decrees on particular cases based on circumstances of time and space, and the faithful are duty-bound to act upon the laws issued by the Messenger of Allah (s):

﴿وَمَا کَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلاَ مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَی اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن یَکُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِیَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ﴾

“A faithful man or woman may not, when Allah and His Apostle have decided on a matter, have any option in their matter.”(1)

In this noble verse, the faithful have been deprived of the option to violate the decision of God and His Prophet (s).

Thus, apart from the orders of God and fixed divine laws, laws enacted by the Prophet (s) are also binding on all those living within the jurisdiction of the Islamic government. No one has the right to question these laws because whoever opposes them does not regard the Prophet as an emissary of God. We have no business with such a person. He who believes in the Prophet’s (s) right of legislation being delegated to him by God, but disputes about a truth, we will argue with him according to verses of the Qur’an.

Therefore, the Qur’an does not say, “An unbelieving man or woman may not…” but rather “A faithful man or woman may not…”As such, just as every ‘faithful’ living under the Islamic government acknowledges the apostleship of the Prophet (s) and regards the laws of God as necessary to follow, he should equally regard the orders of the Prophet (s) as necessary to follow. The necessity to follow God and His wilayah over all the faithful is established by such noble verses as:

p: 44

﴿النَّبِیُّ أَوْلَی بِالْمُؤْمِنِینَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ…﴾

“The Prophet is closer to the faithful than their own souls...”(1)

According to the Qur’an, therefore, both the highest level of implementation of law and the right of legislation have been delegated to the Messenger of Allah (s). Whether or not such a right and station is also established for anyone other than the Messenger of Allah must be dealt with elsewhere. Presently, our concern is whether Islam has an opinion about politics or not.

What can be deduced from the Qur’an on penal matters, such as blood-money [diyah], qisas,(1) ta‘zirat,(2) and the like, testify that Islam is highly involved in politics, administrative affairs and society. Islam has gone to the extent of taking into account hudud(3) for criminals and corruptors in certain cases and of authorizing the judge to implement them even if there is no specific complainant. In such cases divine limits and rights have been violated and sometimes punishments are difficult to endure and accept. For example, the Qur’an says that in an Islamic society if an illegitimate relationship between a man and a woman is proved before the judge through the statements of four witnesses, both of them must receive a hundred lashes, and the Qur’an particularly admonishes the judge not to be influenced by emotion and have pity on them:

﴿ٱلزَّانِیَةُ وَالزَّانِی فَاجْلِدُوا کُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلاَ تَأْخُذْکُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِی دِینِ اللَّهِ...﴾

“As for the fornicatress and the fornicator, strike each of them a hundred lashes, and let not pity for them overcome you in Allah’s law...”(4)

Undoubtedly, by implementing such a punishment the person will be disgraced, but society will acquire immunity. Regarding theft the Qur’an says:

﴿وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُواْ أَیْدِیَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا کَسَبَا نَکَالاً مِنَ اللّهِ وَاللّهُ عَزِیزٌ حَکِیمٌ﴾

“As for the thief, man and woman, cut off their hands as a requital for what they have earned. [That is] an exemplary punishment from Allah and Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”(5)

We conclude that the Noble Qur’an mentions adjudication, enactment of rules and regulations to preserve social order and secure the interests of society, and implement the hudud and ta‘zirat(6) rights of the Messenger of Allah (s). For a fair-minded person there will remain no doubt about Islam’s

p: 46

involvement in sociopolitical issues if he refers to the Qur’an as well as the authentic traditions of the Prophet (s) and the infallible Imams (‘a). Those who stubbornly deny these truths have chosen to do so no matter what the proof.

Once the divine and religious laws are divinely codified, they are unchangeable. There are also changeable laws that depend on particular circumstances of time and space. To identify and deal with these laws has been delegated to the duly competent jurist who has acquired his legitimacy and authority from God. In the Qur’an this privilege and designation has been considered for the Messenger of Allah (s).

According to the Shi‘ah creed, the pure Imams (‘a) who have also been indicated in the Qur’an, have the same designation, which has been passed on to the wali al-faqih, which issue will be tackled at its appropriate time. Of course, a religion may exist in the world which is concordant with the above notion and outlook, but it is not within the scope of our discussion. We are talking about a religion which is even expected to state and determine the months of the year. In the area of transactions and financial relations among people, it clearly states that if a person gives a loan to another, he must ask for a receipt from him and give the loan in the presence of two witnesses.

If it is not possible to get a receipt and find witnesses, he has to take a retained pledge or mortgage a valuable thing in lieu of the loan.(1) We believe that such a religion has a program concerning politics and statecraft besides meeting the material and spiritual needs of people.

During the previous session, while rejecting that religion is only concerned with organizing the relationship between man and God, we said that religion, in its true sense, means the divine manifestation of human life. Such religion encompasses not only a portion of human life and behavior such as worship and the performance of devotional rites, but it embraces the totality of human life and the entire aspect of his existence.

He is created to organize his life in such a way that he attains eternal felicity by conforming all aspects of his life to the Divine will and commands. Thus, direct worship of God and conventional devotion are only a part of our religious duties. Our other mental and behavioral aspects of life must be in line with the will of God and they must somehow assume a form of worship [‘ibadah] so that the sublime and lofty goal of human creation can be realized:

﴿وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِیَعْبُدُونِ﴾

“I did not create the jinn and humans except that they may worship Me.”(2)

The purport of the verse is that the perfection of man is only possible under the aegis of worship and devotion to God. Therefore, all his movements and pauses must be within this framework. Even his breathing must be according

p: 48

to this program. If the life of a person acquires this divine baptism and color, and is attuned with this program, it means that he is truly religious. On the contrary, if he totally refuses to worship God, he is certainly irreligious and an infidel. Between these two frontiers, viz. the frontier of true religiosity and the frontier of infidelity, there are those, a portion of whose lives is not in conformity with the will of God and are, therefore, not truly worshipping God.

The religion of this group is surely defective. In view of the variety of religious deficiencies, it must be acknowledged that those who are truly religious and observe the divine laws in all facets of their lives, and those who observe only a portion of the laws are not on equal footing. Also, religiosity and faith has basically different levels and can grow and be perfect. As the Qur’an says:

﴿وَالَّذِینَ اهْتَدَوْا زَادَهُمْ هُدیً وَآتَاهُمْ تَقْواهُمْ﴾

“As for those who are [rightly] guided, He enhances their guidance, and invests them with their God-wariness.”(1)

Elsewhere, it says:

﴿إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِینَ إِذَا ذُکِرَ اللّهُ وَجِلَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَ إِذَا تُلِیَتْ عَلَیْهِمْ آیَاتُهُ زَادَتْهُمْ إِیمَانًا﴾

“The faithful are only those whose hearts tremble [with awe] when Allah is mentioned, and when His signs are recited to them, they (Allah’s signs) increase their faith.”(2)

Yes, there are those, whose faith is constantly moving toward perfection and they reach the highest level of faith and come closer to the station of the awliya’ [saints] of Allah, and even be included among the awliya’ of Allah. On the contrary, there are those who are moving backward from the station of religiosity. By listening and paying attention to the doubts spread by the foreigners and their admirers in the cultural domain of society, many abandon the religion they learned from their father, mother and teacher. This is because paying attention to the doubts will lead willy-nilly to misguidance of those who do not possess the ability to assess and study matters. In this regard, the Qur’an says:

﴿وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَیْکُمْ فِی الکِتَابِ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آیَاتِ اللّهِ یُکَْفَرُ بِهَا وَیُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلاَ تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّی یَخُوضُواْ فِی حَدِیثٍ غَیْرِهِ إِنَّکُمْ إِذاً مِثْلُهُمْ﴾

“Certainly He has sent down to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s signs being disbelieved and derided, do not sit with them

p: 49

until they engage in some other discourse, or else you [too] will be like them.”(1)

Man has to first increase his learning as well as intellectual and rational foundation and empower himself with experience, analysis and response. He may then listen to doubt and skepticism. But the person who does not have the power to deal with the doubts should not place himself in the danger of misguidance by listening to doubts. Islam does not say that you should not enter the arena of wrestling. It says that you should wrestle with an opponent of equal weight and if you want to wrestle with a heavyweight opponent, you should first increase your weight and extend your training. Islam does not say that you should not listen to others’ words and misgivings.

It rather says that the attention paid to them should commensurate with the extent of your experience, analysis and discernment. First of all, one has to acquire divine gnosis [ma‘rifah] and learn the art of responding to doubts. Thereafter, one should discuss religion with others and listen to their statements so that they do not disarm you and impose their opinion on you.

p: 50

and has nothing to do with worldly affairs, and that we should have the least expectation from religion. From religion we should only search for the path of eternal salvation and the means and ways that will make us enter paradise and save us from hell. We should learn from religion how to pray, how to fast, how to perform the Hajj pilgrimage, and other matters related to the hereafter.

They assume that they have solved the issue concerning the relationship between religion and politics by demarcating them and separating the jurisdiction of religion from that of politics. It has been stated that politics belongs to mundane affairs while religion is only related to the hereafter. Neither should religion interfere in the domain of politics nor should politics interfere in the domain of religion. Only knowledge and human accomplishments should interfere in politics which deals with the jurisdiction of this world and science. Fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, psychology, and sociology belong to the domain of science. Religion has nothing to do with them. Religion is only involved in matters pertaining to the hereafter.

The origin of this issue can be traced back to many centuries in the West. When there was conflict and dispute between the ecclesiastical authorities and the men of science and politics it led to wars and clashes between them, and finally to an unwritten peace. They agreed amongst themselves that religion should deal solely with otherworldly affairs and the relationship between man and God; the sole jurisdiction of mundane affairs i.e. political, social and academic, should be left to statesmen and scientists.

This happened in the West. Those who are impressed with the West suggest that such a division of labor also be done in our Islamic country. Religion should only be in the hands of religious scholars and interfere in otherworldly affairs only. Religion and the religious scholars should not meddle in worldly affairs. Politics should, therefore, be entrusted to the political scientists and statesmen, and not to the fuqaha and ‘ulama’. In this regard, many speeches are being delivered and lots of articles being written. In proving their theory, they leave no stone unturned in inculcating this notion in the minds of our youth, that the religion and politics are apart.

Unfortunately, some of those who are engaged in cultural affairs are unconsciously influenced by this notion and other cultural waves of the West. It is gradually being accepted that religion is the opposite of politics. Religion solves a part of human problems but worldly problems have nothing to do with religion. Erroneous and deviant ideas of our writers, orators and cultural figures pose serious threats to our religious culture.

p: 52

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِینَ یَأْکُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ الْیَتَامَی ظُلْمًا إِنَّمَا یَأْکُلُونَ فِی بُطُونِهِمْ نَارًا وَسَیَصْلَوْنَ سَعِیرًا﴾

“Indeed those who consume the property of orphans wrongfully only ingest fire into their bellies, and soon they will enter the Blaze.”(1)

Anyone who fills his stomach with the property of orphans eats food and enjoys doing so, but the food he eats will become chastisement of the hell for him. Similarly, if a person eats food for the sake of worshipping God, the same act of eating will have a spiritual reward. The same word that a person utters for the sake of pleasing God will be a tree growing in paradise for him. The Holy Prophet (s) said to his companions: “For anyone who recites tasbihat al-arba‘ah(2) God gives him a tree that grows in paradise.” Some said: “So, we shall have many trees in paradise because we recite this dhikr [remembrance of God] frequently.” He said, “Yes, provided that you do not kindle fire to consume them.”

Thus, once our actions are done for the sake of pleasing God, they will bring about eternal felicity and rewards, and if they are done against the order of God, they will be the cause of perdition and chastisement in hell. It is not correct to say that our lives have two distinct divisions; one of which is related to the hereafter and is spent in the mosque, church, synagogue, and temple, while another part is related to this world and to ourselves and has nothing to do with the hereafter.

As we have said, this erroneous thinking was prevalent for the past centuries in the West among the followers of certain religions and occupied the minds of many in spite of the fact that neither Islam nor any other revealed religion ever endorsed such a notion. The contention of true religion is that man is created in order to secure his own felicity or perdition, and that his eternal felicity or perdition, as the case may be, lies in his behavior in this world. If his behavior is consistent with the command of God, he will attain eternal bliss, and, if otherwise, he will incur everlasting damnation.

The “minimalist” view on the question of expectation from religion is the result of a fallacy they committed. They imagined that expecting the maximum from religion meant they would have to seek all the information about everything from religion, including the style of cooking food and building a house, which information religion could not provide, so they said that they should not expect the maximum from religion. This is fallacious because the above issue does not have only two options. It has a third option which is the correct one, and that is, we do not expect that religion to say

p: 54

something about everything, including the manner of eating food, wearing clothes and building a house. No one has such a claim. However, since religion has left many issues to the realm of non-religious sciences, the same issues actually belong to the jurisdiction of religion. In this way, they acquire ideological value.

hatred among you through wine and gambling, and to hinder you from the remembrance of Allah.”(1)

Hence, the permission and prohibition of religion is meant to expound the ideological value of all actions. To sum up apart from the worldly outcome of actions, religion also speaks about every action’s contribution to the doer’s admission to paradise or entrance to hell.

but it does not state how to use things in order to secure the real success of man. In this case, religion has to judge. Therefore, just as our personal action affects our felicity or wretchedness, our action in sociopolitical affairs has greater effect.

Meanwhile, in connection with the main axis of our discussion, which is social administration, can it be said that the mode of managing society has no relation with the ultimate success or failure of man and that the people in society are free to choose whatever form and method of administering their society, and religion has nothing to do with it? Who does not know that observance of justice in society gives success to man and that justice has a very strong positive value?

In this context, even if there is no pertinent Qur’anic verse or hadith, our intellect will discern that the observance of justice contributes toward the perfection, advancement and exaltation of man. When people do not regard their intellect as sufficient to discern ideological issues in these contexts, they have to resort to the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Of course, we believe that the intellect can understand many of the ideological issues in sociopolitical affairs. This does not mean, however, that whatever the intellect understands is outside the realm of religion.

We have mentioned earlier the “discoverer” of the will of God, which expresses the divine will and wisdom and conveys to us what is pleasing to God. It makes no difference how we discover this thing. What matters is that we discovered the divine legislative will.

Sometimes, this discovery is through the agency of the Qur’an and the Sunnah while, at other times, through the intellect, for these three are the proofs and discoverers of divine decrees and religious laws. As such, the intellect [‘aql] is considered as a source of divine law. The fuqaha regard the intellect as among the proofs in proving religious decrees and settling religious issues.

So, there is no demarcation between the intellect and religious law [shar‘]—some matters belong to the intellect while some others belong to religious law. Rather, the intellect is a light which, owing to its luminosity, can also discover the will and pleasure of God, and whatever can be discovered by the intellect in this regard is a religious matter.

government of Mu‘awiyah(1) and Yazid(2) with the just government of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a), can we claim that the religion of Islam treats the two equally and does not make any distinction between the government of ‘Ali (‘a) and that of Mu‘awiyah?!

Can it be said that everybody is free to choose any form and system of government he likes, and religion cannot interfere; that the performance of neither the government of ‘Ali (‘a) nor that of Mu‘awiyah has any effect on the ultimate fate of man because the form of government is related to politics and this world and has nothing to do with religion?! Could any reasonable person accept such a contention? Can it be said that the two types of government are equal in the sight of religion and that religion neither recommends nor discourages any of them?

The fact of the matter is that involvement in sociopolitical affairs is among the most evident areas in which religion must get involved. Religion has to explain the appropriate structure of government. Religion has to explain that the ruler has to think about the deprived and the downtrodden as well as about the consolidation of the pillars of his rule from the very beginning of his assumption of office.

Thus, the station of sociopolitical issues in religion, especially in Islam, is clear and eminent. One cannot consider them outside the jurisdiction of religion and believe that they have no effect in the felicity and wretchedness of people. Assuming that the hereafter, the Reckoning, the book of account, reward and punishment really exist, can it be said that the behavior of Mu‘awiyah, Yazid and the like has no effect on them?! Of course, even if some of our Sunni brothers have not yet resolved the issue of Mu‘awiyah’s uprightness, there are many tyrants and oppressors who have blackened the pages of history.

Can it be said that these tyrannical rulers are ideologically on the same footing as the just rulers? Today, are those who are butchering and bombing innocent women and children equal to those who are totally in the service of the deprived and the oppressed, and will live together in paradise? Which religion or nation supports this view? How then can sociopolitical issues be considered as outside the realm of religion? If

p: 58

religion were supposed to give its opinion about reward and punishment, halal and haram, positive and negative values, then sociopolitical issues are the most important issues about which religion must give its opinion.

Based on what has been stated, the scheme on the basis of which religious issues are separate from that of the world and religious issues are just related to God and the hereafter and are outside the realm of worldly affairs, is totally erroneous and inadmissible, and in no way consistent with Islam. The worldview presented by Islam and the life to which it invites us are repugnant to this way of thinking. This is not to mention the fact that those who are uttering such words essentially believe in neither God nor the Day of Resurrection. They are doing so with the aim of expelling religion from the scene. But we have nothing to do with their personal conviction.

Our only point is that separating mundane affairs and temporal issues from the jurisdiction of religion will lead to the denial of Islam and has no other outcome. As we have said, every action contributes to our felicity or wretchedness, as the case may be. So, we have to acknowledge that religion can give its opinion on all matters in our lives and state their ideological value. As the Prophet (s) said:

مَا مِنْ شَیءٍ یقرّبکم إلی الْجَنَّة وَ یباعدکم عَنِ النَّار إلاَّ وَقَدْ أمرتکم به و مَا مِنْ شَیءٍ یقرّبکم مِنَ النَّار وَ یباعدکم من الْجَنَّة إلاَّ وَقَدْ نَهَیْتَکُم عَنْهُ.

“There is nothing that would draw you toward paradise and keep you away from hell except that I commanded you and there is nothing that would draw you toward hell and keep you away from paradise except that I prohibited you.”(1)

In the Islamic perspective, felicity without paradise has no meaning and wretchedness without being thrown into hellfire simply does not exist:

﴿فَأَمَّا الَّذِینَ شَقُواْ فَفِی النَّارِ... وَأَمَّا الَّذِینَ سُعِدُواْ فَفِی الْجَنَّةِ﴾

“As for the wretched, they shall be in the Fire… And as for the happy, they shall be in Paradise.”(2)

stated whatever was related to his own time, delegating the rest to the people to identify what is halal and what is haram according to the circumstances of their time.

This statement means that the Prophet (s) did not state all that would give us felicity. This is what he said: “There is nothing that will ensure your felicity except that I have stated it.” Of course, this statement does not mean that he has stated all the minute details. He has rather stated the general rulings, so that, in all times after him, those who have authority can deduce from them specific laws; what is halal and haram according to the evidence, and present them as primary and secondary rulings or government decrees.

Undoubtedly, to identify the specific laws and evidence, which is called religious edict [fatwa’], is in accordance with the general principles mentioned in the Qur’an, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (s) and sayings of the infallible Imams (‘a).

p: 60

compel him to do a certain thing. For religion to determine his duty and ask him to obey, nay unconditionally obey, is inconsistent with freedom.

﴿إِنَّا هَدَیْنَاهُ السَّبِیلَ إِمَّا شَاکِرًا وَ إِمَّا کَفُورًا﴾

“Indeed We have guided him to the way, be he grateful or ungrateful.”(1)

﴿وَقُل الْحَقُّ مِن رَبِّکُمْ فَمَن شَاء فَلْیُؤْمِن و مَن شَاءَ فَلْیَکْفُرْ...﴾

“And say, ‘[This is] the truth from your Lord: let anyone who wishes believe it, and let anyone who wishes disbelieve it’...”(2)

such, the people have to accept the decision of the Prophet (s) over their own and have no right to oppose his decision and view. Of course, the verse states only the essence of wilayah of the Messenger of Allah (s) and not the limits of that wilayah—whether the limit of wilayah and preeminence of the Prophet’s decision applies only to social affairs or, in addition, also to personal affairs.

Undoubtedly, the skeptics who have resorted to the first group of verses in order to negate the wilayah of the Messenger of Allah and his successors cannot be expected to resolve the outward contradiction of these two groups of verses. Most of them are unaware of the existence of the second group, or do not accept the content of these verses. However, since we deny the existence of contradictions and inconsistencies in the verses, we should strive to resolve the outward contradiction of the verses. For this we need to pay attention to the particular course of both groups of verses by taking into account their contexts as well as the tone of the verses and their addressees in order to understand the real purpose of the verses.

beings to recognize and accept the truth with awareness and understanding, and not submit to it out of coercion. As such, God says:

﴿لَعَلَّکَ بَاخِعٌ نَّفْسَک أَلَّا یَکُونُوا مُؤْمِنِینَ ٭ إِن نَشَأْ نُنَزِّلْ عَلَیْهِم مِنَ السَّمَاءِ آیَةً فَظَلَّتْ أَعْنَاقُهُمْ لَهَا خَاضِعِینَ﴾

“You might kill yourself [out of distress] that they will not have faith. If We wish We will send down to them a sign from the sky before which their heads will remain bowed in humility.”(1)

So, acceptance of Islam and faith depends on conviction of the heart. Such a conviction is acquired out of cognition and awareness, certain and solid proofs, and one’s freewill. It is not subject to coercion. As such, God says to His prophet (s), “You did your duty. Your duty was to convey Our message and signs to the people. You are not supposed to worry about the polytheists’ refusal to accept the faith and to think that you did not do your duty. It is not part of your mission to let the people become Muslims by compulsion and force, because We did not make you dominant over the polytheists to make them Muslims by force.

In contrast to the first group of verses, the other group of verses addressed to those who embraced Islam out of recognition, awareness and their own freewill, informing them that they have to act upon the commandments of Islam, to obey the Prophet whom they believe to be from God and whose decrees and orders are all from Him, to submit to his decision, and not to have any right and option vis-à-vis his orders. Before embracing the faith, man has the right to choose, but after embracing the faith he has to submit to all the injunctions of the Islamic law [shari‘ah]. He who has faith in only a part of the divine laws has been strongly condemned by God, thus:

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِینَ یَکْفُرُونَ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَ یُرِیدُونَ أَن یُفَرِّقُوا بَیْنَ اللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَیقُولُونَ نُؤْمِنُ بِبَعْضٍ وَنَکْفُرُ بِبَعْضٍ وَیُرِیدُونَ أَن یَتَّخِذُوا بَیْنَ ذَلِکَ سَبِیلاً ٭ أُوْلَ-ئِکَ هُمُ الْکَافِرُونَ حَقًّا...﴾

“Those who disbelieve in Allah and His apostles and seek to separate Allah from His apostles, and say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in some’ and seek to take a way in between—it is they who are truly faithless...”(2)

The acceptance of a portion of the decrees and rejection of the rest, the acceptance of a part of the laws and rejection of the rest actually mean the non-acceptance of the essence of religion, because, if the criterion of acceptance of religion is acceptance of the commands of God, one has to act

p: 65

upon the kernel of divine ordinance, and divine ordinance requires acceptance of all decrees and laws. Even if the criterion of acceptance of religion is the benefit and harm embedded in the commandments of God, undoubtedly God is well aware of it. So, why accept only some of the laws?

Only he who has faith in God would believe in the Prophet (s), submit to his decision, decree and order, be pleased with them and not nurse a grudge in his heart:

﴿فَلاَ وَرَبِّکَ لاَ یُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّیَ یُحَکِّمُوکَ فِیمَا شَجَرَ بَیْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لاَ یَجِدُواْ فِی أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَیْتَ وَیُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِیمًا﴾

“But no, by your Lord! They will not believe until they make you a judge in their disputes, then do not find within their hearts any dissent to your verdict and submit in full submission.”(1)

The truly faithful are sincerely pleased with the order and decision of the Messenger of Allah (s) and do not worry about them because they believe that the Prophet (s) has been appointed by God and his decree is God’s decree for he does not speak without Divine guidance:

﴿إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا إِلَیْکَ الْکِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِتَحْکُمَ بَیْنَ النَّاسِ بِمَا أَرَاکَ اللّهُ﴾

“Indeed We have sent down to you the Book with the truth, so that you may judge between the people by what Allah has shown you.” (2)

After embracing Islam and expressing belief in it, the person who says, “I am free in acting upon the laws of Islam; I would do so if I like and I would not do so if I don’t,” is like saying that in a country where a democratic and liberal system exists, the people voluntarily participate in the referendum, and through a majority vote, choose their government, deputies and concerned authorities of the social system, but once they install the legitimate government they shrink from following it!

When that government levies taxes from the people, they say, “We will not pay taxes. We were free to elect a government, now, we are equally free to follow its orders, or refuse to discharge our responsibilities.” Obviously, no reasonable person will ever accept such attitude and behavior.

Yes, at the beginning no one will be compelled to accept Islam because basic acceptance of it is a matter of faith and conviction of the heart. By force no one will believe in Islam, God and the Resurrection. However, once he accepts Islam and is asked to pray and says that he does not want to pray or once he is asked to pay zakat and refuses to do so, no reasonable person will

p: 66

believe him (to have really embraced Islam). Is it possible for a person to accept a religion but not submit to its laws and act voluntarily upon them?

He who accepts Islam should be bound by its laws. Similarly, no government will accept a person who votes for it but in practice refuses to accept its laws and regulations. Commitment to contracts and obligations is the most fundamental principle in social life. If there is no commitment to promise, faithfulness to agreement, pact and treaty, and discharging of duties, social life will never be possible.

Therefore, there is no sense in a person saying that he accepts Islam and believes in the Prophet being sent by God, but neither acts upon his orders nor accepts his authority and guardianship. Undoubtedly, there is a blatant contradiction in the acceptance of Islam without following the Messenger of Allah (s).

It is clear that if we examine truly the verses of the Qur’an and consider the tone and style of the two groups of cited verses, we will not find any contradiction in the Qur’an and skepticism on the incompatibility of submission and obedience to others with the principle of human freedom, also endorsed by the Qur’an, will be uprooted. Yet, sick hearts do not look at the Qur’an with sincerity, truthfulness and justice. They refer to the Qur’an for a basis for their deviant opinion, and as such, they tend to be selective without considering the important context of the verses. According to the Qur’an, the deviators abandon its definitive verses [muhakkamat] and intentionally emphasize its metaphorical verses [mutashabihat]:

﴿…فَأَمَّا الَّذِینَ فی قُلُوبِهِمْ زَیْغٌ فَیَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِیلِهِ وَمَا یَعْلَمُ تَأْوِیلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِی الْعِلْمِ…﴾

“…As for those in whose hearts is deviance, they pursue what is metaphorical in it, courting temptation and courting its interpretation. But no one knows its interpretation expect Allah and those firmly grounded in knowledge…”(1)

Apart from looking for the mutashabihat, they quote verses out of context and then imagine that verses of the Qur’an are contradictory! We have said that the verses that speak about the lack of dominance of the Prophet (s) over the people are addressed to the unbelievers prior to their acceptance of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (s) could neither invite them to Islam by means of compulsion nor exert authority over them. Actually, according to those verses, the freedom of action and liberty in accepting the divine orders are prior to the acceptance of Islam.

After the acceptance of Islam, every Muslim has to accept the guardianship and authority of the Prophet (s) and

p: 67

Islamic rulers. He is obliged to observe the Islamic values. The Islamic state does not interfere in the personal and private life of individuals as well as in actions done in secrecy, but in relation to the social life and interaction with others, it requires everybody to observe the divine limits. It deals severely with transgression of chastity and divine values, defamation of religious sanctities, and spread of perversion and vices. This is actually a manifestation of the Islamic rulers’ guardianship over society, urging it to comply with the requirements of faith and Islam—Islam which they have accepted out of their own freewill.

theoretical intellect is alien and has no relation to the practical intellect, one can not regard the objects perceived by the practical intellect—dos and don’ts—on the basis of the theoretical intellect.

This skepticism of Hume drew the attention of Western philosophers and they made it the foundation and basis of many of their theories and scientific ideas. After the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran a number of the so-called intellectuals utilized this skepticism. In their discussions they argued that we can never deduce “beings” from “dos and don’ts”. If a person has a distinct character and attribute, we cannot conclude that he should therefore be or not be so-and-so, because the perceiver of the former is the theoretical intellect while that of the latter is the practical intellect and these two are not related to each other.

The same people who accept this skepticism of Hume say that compelling people is inconsistent with their humanity, and religion should not have mandatory orders for people because people are free and autonomous. They say at the outset that man is free, and then conclude that he should be set free and not forced. Therefore, from the free nature of man which is among the “beings” that are perceived by the theoretical intellect, they draw “dos and don’ts” which are perceived by the practical intellect, and this is in conflict with their own basis. They themselves do not accept that “dos” should be drawn from “beings”.

Of course, we believe that in cases where “beings” are the sheer cause of a phenomenon, one can arrive at “dos and don’ts”, but such a conclusion cannot be arrived at in our discussion because his freedom is not the sole cause of his being compelled. Rather, freewill paves the ground for duty, and the duty and obligation to do or not to do a certain act is based on the benefit or harm, as the case may be, that actions cause. So, the mandatory order to do a certain act is meant to secure the benefits embedded in it and the reason behind the prohibition of a certain act is the harms it entails.

collapse and no progress can be made. So long as a law is regarded as credible and official by the legislative authorities, all need to follow it even if it is found to be defective, it is not their prerogative but the duty of the concerned authorities to address the matter. Under the pretext of the defect in the law, the rest are not supposed to shrink from following it.

proportioned him and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down in prostration before him’.”(1)

The vicegerent of Allah possesses great distinction and qualities such as knowledge of the Names—“And He taught Adam the Names, all of them...”(2) Also, the viceroy of God must be capable of implementing justice on earth. So, the wicked man who sheds blood in the world and does not refrain from committing any crime, or the one who does not possess any sense of justice cannot be the viceroy of God. Is God an oppressor that His vicegerent is also an oppressor?

The vicegerent of Allah is he who manifests divine qualities in his private and social life, and not just any two-footed being walking on the surface of the earth. Therefore, those who are striving to misguide people and overthrow the Islamic government are not only unqualified to be divine vicegerents but they are the same human devils who are regarded by God to be viler than animals, and about whom He says:

﴿إِنَّ شَرَّ الدَّوَابُ عِندَ اللّهِ الصُّمُّ الْبُکْمُ الَّذِینَ لاَ یَعْقِلُونَ﴾

“Indeed the worst of beasts in Allah’s sight are the deaf and the dumb who do not apply reason.”(3)

To say that human dignity lies in freedom and that anything which limits this freedom is condemnable and unacceptable is a deceptive slogan chanted by the Western world. Without paying attention to its corollaries, some people in other countries have also pursued it and are regularly insisting on it. Undoubtedly, to deal with this slogan and the objectives it tries to attain requires a lengthy discussion on which we shall embark in the future.

But for the meantime, let us briefly pose this question: What does it mean by saying that man should be absolutely free and have no restrictions at all? Does it mean that there should be no mandatory law? This is something which no rational person will ever accept because it implies that everyone is free to do whatever he likes—everyone is free to commit murder, transgress upon the chastity of women, and create havoc in society! Certainly, the first harm and mischief of such an outlook will be tasted by its proponent. Could there possibly be a society where such freedom is prevalent? Obviously there is no concept of unrestrained freedom and man is not free to do whatever he likes.

Clarifying that freedom has limitations and restrictions, the question arises:

Who should determine the extent and limit of freedom? And, what is the extent of freedom? If every person is supposed to determine the scope and extent of freedom, everyone would do whatever he likes which will manifest

p: 71

the same problems indicated in relation to absolute freedom. So, there is no option but to consider a legal reference in order to describe and determine the scope, limit and boundary of freedom.

In this case, if a person acknowledges the existence of God and believes that He knows better than him what is beneficial and harmful to man, and Who does not acquire any benefit from the lives of people and only wishes what is good for His servants, for him, is there anyone worthier than God in determining the limits of freedom? Thus, there is no contradiction in the intellectual and ideological system of the Muslims because they believe in God who knows best what is beneficial and harmful for human beings. It is He who has stated the limits and boundaries of freedom.

But if we do not believe in God, or believe in monotheism but do not recognize God as the authority determining the limits of freedom and believe that the people themselves should determine the limits of freedom, we will be afflicted with thousands of evils, because people will never arrive at a consensus. Even if the majority determines the limits of freedom, how will the minority that does not accept the limits of freedom determined by the majority exercise its rights? So, freedom is an elegant and pleasant term but it is not absolute and unrestricted. No one can claim absolute freedom.

p: 72

mandatory order, subservience, obedience, and submission to a great entity. We are in pursuit of lordship and mastership. We have gone through the period of obligation and sense of responsibility. Even if orders, commands and duties are mentioned in the Qur’an as they are, these are related to the age of slavery because when the Prophet (s) began his apostleship [risalah], a great system was prevalent, and the initial structure of Islam and the relationship of God and the Prophet (s) with the people consistent with that system.

Sometimes they say that today man is not looking for duties. He is rather seeking his rights. It is no longer inculcated in his mind that he has any duty, responsibility and obligation to perform. He has to demand his rights and claim them from others as well as God. In short, those who talk from the religious perspective about the exigency of obeying and following the Prophet (s), the infallible Imams (‘a) and their deputies are doing so in consonance with the social system fourteen hundred years ago.

The social system, however, has been transformed, and it is no longer relevant to talk about obedience, submission and duty. Instead one needs to talk about human rights. The people have to be informed that they have the right to live in whatever way they like. They have the right to wear whatever style of dress they like, and to appear in public in whatever manner they like.

first step in monotheism is to accept that we are God’s creatures and that we owe our existence to Him. This is the same as servitude [‘ubudiyyah] to God. ‘Abd [servant] means to be a slave and in possession of another. So, if a person regards himself a Muslim who believes in God but refuses to accept servitude to Him is in explicit contradiction, because the requisite of belief in God is to regard oneself as His slave and servant. It is for this reason that in their most essential and eminent forms of worship, viz. the salah [ritual prayer], all Muslims say: “I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and apostle” [Ashhadu anna Muhammadan ‘abduhu wa rasuluh].The most outstanding and honorable station of the best human personality is to be a servant of God. As such, God says:

﴿سُبْحَانَ الَّذِی أَسْرَی بِعَبْدِهِ لَیْلاً مِّنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَی الْمَسْجِدِ الأَقْصَا…﴾

“Immaculate is He who carried His servant on a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque…”(1)

Yes, because of the lofty position of servitude to God, in the Qur’an God has repeatedly used the elegant term “‘abd” and its derivatives, regarding utmost servitude as the loftiest station of human perfection when He says:

﴿یَا أَیَّتُهَا النَّفْسُ الْمُطْمَئِنَّةُ ٭ ارْجِعِی إِلَی رَبِّکِ رَاضِیَةً مَّرْضِیَّةً ٭ فَادْخُلِی فِی عِبَادِی﴾

“O soul at peace! Return to your Lord, pleased, pleasing! Then enter among My servants!”(2)

From the legislative angle, to say that freedom of man is inconsistent with subservience to law and assumption of responsibility will lead to savagery, barbarity and chaos. This notion that being free man can do whatever he likes and even defy the law he himself approved of is inapplicable even in the jungle because there also are certain laws observed by the animals! We, beating the drum of civilization and civility, have to accept that the first pillar of civility is the acceptance of responsibility and observance of law. Through unconditional non-acceptance of restrictions and responsibility, one can not claim modern civilization. Rather, he should find himself drowned in the lowest firm if barbarity.

In other words, the most eminent human faculty is reason, which insists that man should accept responsibility and regard himself bound ‘to do’ and ‘not to do’ certain things. Based on this, if a person wore a dress as he pleased, or appeared naked in public, uttered gibberish nonsense, who would treat him as being in the right frame of mind? Will he not be considered insane, stupid or even savage? If asked, “Why are you behaving thus?” he replies, “I am

p: 75

free and freedom is the hallmark of humanity. I just feel like that,” is there anyone who will accept him?

It follows that the hallmark of humanity is the intellect and the corollary of rationality is the acceptance of responsibility and observance of law, for there is no civility without legality. If there is no sense of responsibility, humanity will also not be realized. That man is free, i.e. to have the power to choose, does not mean that legislatively he should not submit to laws, decrees and mandatory orders and not accept any limits and boundaries in his social life. As such, it should not be imagined that religion’s assumption of wilayah is opposed to human freedom, because freedom is the most eminent feature of man and a requisite for being the viceroy of Allah!

them; otherwise, the right to benefit from one’s possession will not be actually realized. In the same vein, every right established for a person has a corollary duty he has to discharge toward others. If a person has the right to benefit from public utilities as he really has, he is obliged in return to serve the society, accept duties and responsibilities, and not to burden others. Therefore, rights and duties—in both senses—are correlative and to say that people demand rights without responsibilities is inadmissible.

Considering that all religious and non-religious scholars as well as legal philosophers, in general, acknowledge the existence of duty and commitment, we conclude that what is meant by duty in the statements of the skeptics is divine duty. The essence of their statements is that God should not set any duties for us. On the contrary, according to them, social duties are not within the framework of rights that individuals possess because these duties are acceptable to all rational people. This confirms that the master-servant relationship, the master’s issuance of an order, and, the exigency of obeying him, are consistent with the culture of slavery and, therefore, irrelevant today.

prophet would say something beneficial for them by prohibiting them from doing wrong, for e.g., weighing wrongly—“And do not cheat the people of their goods”(1)—they would say to him in return:

﴿قَالُواْ یَا شُعَیْبُ أَصَلاَتُکَ تَأْمُرُکَ أَن نَتْرُکَ مَا یَعْبُدُ آبَاؤُنَا أَوْ أَن نَفْعَلَ فِی أَمْوَالِنَا مَا نَشَاء...﴾

“They said, ‘O Shu‘ayb (Jethro), does your worship require that we abandon what our fathers have been worshipping, or that we should not do with our means whatever we wish?... ’”(2)

It may possibly be said here that the opposition and hostility to the prophets and saints [awliya’] of Allah throughout history has been the result of idol-worship, polytheism and satanic rebellion. Our point is that man should neither wear the yoke of servitude to every object of worship [ma‘bud] nor follow the idols and Satan.

But this statement is unwise from the authentic viewpoint of revelation [wahy], because according to it, man is situated between two ways—servitude to God or servitude to the taghut(3)—and it is impossible not to choose one of them. If a person chants the slogan that “I am nobody’s servant,” in reality he is a servant of the taghut and his own carnal desires. As such, the Qur’an says:

﴿اللّهُ وَلِیُّ الَّذِینَ آمَنُواْ یُخْرِجُهُم مِّنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَی النُّوُرِ وَالَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا أَوْلِیَآؤُهُمُ الطَّاغُوتُ یُخْرِجُونَهُم مِّنَ النُّورِ إِلَی الظُّلُمَاتِ...﴾

“Allah is the Master of the faithful: He brings them out of darkness into light. As for the faithless, their patrons are the Rebels [taghut], who drive them out of light into darkness…”(4)

In another place, God says:

﴿أَلَمْ أَعْهَدْ إِلَیْکُمْ یَا بَنِی آدَمَ أَنْ لا تَعْبُدُوا الشَّیْطَانَ إِنَّهُ لَکُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُبِینٌ ٭ وَأَنْ اعْبُدُونِی هَذَا صِرَاطٌ مُّسْتَقِیمٌ﴾

“Did I not exhort you, O children of Adam, saying, ‘Do not worship Satan. He is indeed your manifest enemy. Worship Me. This is a straight path’?”(5)

p: 78

The verse does not mean that after abandoning the worship of Satan, man is no longer in need of obeying and worshipping another being. In fact, he has to worship God. Just as in the formula of monotheism, “There is no god” [la ilaha] is followed by the phrase, “but Allah” [illallah]. Therefore, those who have woken up from the slumber of negligence by the light of revelation and have realized that they have to worship God for He is their real Creator and Master, in His hand is life and death, youth and old age, wellbeing and ailment. For them, to worship Him is the highest honor. His ordained duties stem from the spring of infinite wisdom and mercy, and acting upon them bring human felicity and perfection.

Realizing that refusal to accept the truth, duty and responsibility are caused by man’s lack of nurture [tarbiyyah], bestiality and following of Satan, and have always existed in history and not only found in modern man. In fact, it is modern man who has desisted from the essentials of civility and turned toward the age of ignorance and savagery, and become the intransigent. On the contrary, those who have been trained in the school [maktab] of the prophets (‘a) have desisted from bestiality and savagery and have chosen civility through the rule of law and acceptance of duty and responsibility in the true sense of the word.

Civilization and civility are the opposite of savagery and their main requisite and condition is the recognition of law. There fore, how can some people say that modern civilization demands that man should not accept any duty?! Is this civility, or savagery? Basically civilization is based on the acceptance at limitation, law and assuming responsibility; otherwise it has no difference with savagery.

Thus, he who refuses to accept the law, duty and responsibility actually advocates a return to savagery and barbarism. Certainly, he who has such an idea and disposition can never be the saintly vicegerent of Allah, who is our model. (It is necessary to note that the slogan of civility and the rule of law prevalent nowadays in our society, means the attainment of the peak of civility and the rule of law in which there is no violation whatsoever. It is a fact that something new has happened, and our society since the past 19 years,(1) after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, is now moving toward civility. In fact, our Revolution occurred on the basis of the perennial civility and civilization of Islam, and one of its principal mottos and objectives was the observance of divine law in all affairs.)

p: 79

﴿أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ یُسَبِّحُ لَهُ مَن فِی السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَالطَّیْرُ صَافَّاتٍ کُلٌّ قَدْ عَلِمَ صَلَاتَهُ وَتَسْبِیحَهُ...﴾

“Have you not regarded that Allah is glorified by everyone in the heavens and the earth, and the birds spreading their wings. Each knows his prayer and glorification.”(1)

Yet, due to the possession of reason and intellect, man has been created free and autonomous. God, the Exalted, has shown him the way to guidance or misguidance, but he is free in choosing his way. Almighty Allah says:

﴿إِنَّا هَدَیْنَاهُ السَّبِیلَ إِمَّا شَاکِرًا وَإِمَّا کَفُورًا﴾

“Indeed We have guided him to the way, be he grateful or ungrateful.”(2)

He has to take into account the purpose and philosophy of his creation and know that he has to engage in servitude and submission to God. The legislative law of God does not permit him to move along the path of obedience to Satan and other than God. Man has to worship God and perform his duties to Him because God has created him for such a purpose:

﴿ وَ ما خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَ الإِْنْسَ إِلاَّ لِیَعْبُدُونِ ﴾

“I did not create the jinn and humans except that they may worship Me.”(3)

Now, since worship of God is harmonious with the system of creation, discharging of divine duties, acting upon one’s obligation and responsibility toward Him and being thankful to the All-merciful Creator who gives us life and endows us out of His grace and favor with wellbeing and innumerable blessings is necessary—just as God says in the tongue of Hadrat Ibrahim (Abraham) (‘a):

﴿ الَّذِی خَلَقَنِی فَهُوَ یَهْدِینِ. وَ الَّذِی هُوَ یُطْعِمُنِی وَ یَسْقِینِ. وَ إِذا مَرِضْتُ فَهُوَ یَشْفِینِ. وَ الَّذِی یُمِیتُنِی ثُمَّ یُحْیِینِ ﴾

“(It is God) who created me, and it is He who guides me, and provides me with food and drink, and when I get sick, it is He who cures me; who will make me die, then He will bring me to life”(4)

how can we afford to refuse to follow Him. Is it fair and righteous for us to say that modern man does not believe in duty and obedience and is only interested in his rights? Does Islam

p: 81

accept this logic? Undoubtedly, such thinking is devoid of rationality and far from humanity, let alone having an Islamic basis.

p: 82

definitions! Naturally, when the commonly used term ‘culture’ can be so ambiguous in its definition, the ambiguity will consequently influence everything associated with it, especially social issues.

When there will be talk about cultural development, it will be pertinent to ask what cultural development is, what its manifestations are, and, in what form and way it takes place. If a budget for cultural development is approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly but specific expenditures and clear manifestations of it are not taken into account, there will be difficulty in defining this term, only certain manifestations will become the object of attention, and the ground for abuse by exploiters will be opened.

Similar is the case of the term “liberalism” which was formerly translated as “freedom-loving” and like the term “freedom”, possesses distinct attractiveness, sanctity and desirability. As such, during the final decades of the Pahlavi rule, parties described as “freedom-loving parties” were formed.

So, in view of the ambiguities existing in such intricate concepts, the discussion will be problematic because the concepts tend to become error-prone. It cannot be said with certainty that this is the limit of the meaning that will no longer be changed. Such concepts are extensive, have no definite limits and boundaries and being broad in meaning. Naturally, these difficulties make the discussion ambiguous and complicated.

Now, in view of these problems, ambiguities and difference in understanding and outlook on freedom, if we want to compare each of these definitions with Islam, such a work in the academic environment will be onerous and complicated, let alone in a public discussion meant for a diverse strata of people. As the only option, we will have to use the empirical and comparative approach to see what notion the proponents of freedom hold about it and what they want from it. Then we will see whether what they want from it is harmonious with Islam or not.

What do those who advocate and defend freedom, and claim that there is no freedom in this country (Iran) want from freedom? Is there no freedom of the press? Or, do the people have no individual freedom? Do they have no political, social and economic freedom? Or, do they have no freedom of expression? Basically, it must be seen in what condition and way these claimants regard the people as free.

he likes and think in whatever way he wants! As you can see, this fallacious argument seems to be reasonable because if a person is not free, how can he accept Islam?

It thus follows that freedom predominates religion, is the basis of religion, gives credence to religion, and is essentially the reason behind the existence of religion. In this case, religion can no longer remove or restrict its producing and constructive element. In the end, they conclude that in every religious environment, every person should have ultimate freedom!

Others argue that when man is created, he is not a slave but free. So, he should also remain free all his life. They also argue that to have autonomy and freewill is an unequal value. As such, if at the time of coming to this world the hands and feet of man are paralyzed and he is dumb, what is his value? His value lies in his being free to go wherever he wants, do and say whatever he likes. Since man has been created intrinsically free, it follows that he should also be legislatively free! This is the same fallacy that incorrectly deduces “dos and don’ts” from “being”. But if we try to deal with these subjects seriously, we need to present precise academic philosophical discussions before arriving at any conclusion.

As stated earlier, if we try to discuss the definition of freedom, we have to examine tens of definitions. As such, it is better to deal with its manifestations and ask those who are shouting for freedom: “Will you allow somebody to slap you and agree that he is free to do so?” They will say, “Obviously, we do not mean a violation of the rights of others.” We thus conclude that freedom is desirable as long as it does not violate the rights of others and thus it is not absolute. Now, if we ask them, “Will you allow anyone to say anything about your family and chastity? He will not beat you. He will only insult you, revile you and abuse you.”

Naturally, they will not allow it because this act is also a violation of the integrity and chastity of every respectable person in society. Thus, it is clear that attack on one’s integrity and chastity is not only confined to physical violation.

Now, if someone wants to write something in the newspaper against a person and besmirch his reputation, there is no physical contact and there is no verbal insult and defamation, will that person allow him? He will certainly not allow him. He will regard this act as a violation of his reputation and integrity. He will not allow others to besmirch his reputation and trample upon his rights. Thus, so far three main conditions of freedom have been confirmed. If these conditions are not observed, the rights of others will be violated.

p: 86

and the freedom of the press as democratic principles. They will be told, “You are free to write and express your opinion regarding the performance of the implementers of laws. But, if you want to write something about the Islamic principles and values and negate everything, or insult religious sanctities, you will have to question yourself, not the government.

is against the law of God, we will not accept such a democracy even if the whole world backs it up.

However, if by democracy it means that the people have the right to chart their own destiny without compulsion, provided they uphold the sanctity of Islamic values, laws and foundations, then this is something that has been functioning in our country from the beginning of the Revolution. If we claim that in no country in the world is the vote of the people respected as much as in Iran, it is perhaps not an exaggerated claim. Since I have no sufficient documents and evidence at my disposal, I say “perhaps” but I personally believe that such freedom does not exist in any other place in the world.

So, instead of debating on the word “democracy whether Islam is compatible with it or not, it would be wiser for you to specify its manifestations. For example, does Islam permit legalizing homosexuality? Islam will never allow it even if all the people unanimously approve it. If democracy is so unrestricted and unlimited, we do not accept it.

However, if by democracy you mean that the people should have free elections, freely elect the members of parliament and the president, and have the right to call to account the members of parliament and other government officials, this freedom must surely exist as it does, and we totally support it. So, instead of using terms equivocally and disputing over them, it is better for us to discuss manifestations. Concepts such as freedom, democracy, liberalism, civil society, civilization, and culture are ambiguous and elicit various interpretations. To dispute over them is in no way reasonable. Instead, you have to say what you want so that we can say that it is consistent or inconsistent with Islam.

p: 90

then the specific meaning that excludes other types.

Another way of identifying the nature of a thing is to consider the elements. That is, the essentials and features of a thing are examined and their totality serves as the definition of that thing. In view of the number and scope of the essentials and features, any person will conclude that any thing having those features has the nature under consideration.

regards the laws of Islam as credible, nor strives to implement them, it is an illegitimate government.

Islamic laws, and find solutions to cases in which society needs a law which has no precedence in Islamic sources.

administer the country, the Council of Guardians, which is similar more or less to the Senate in other countries and to a constitutional court and consists of a group of jurists and legal experts, conforms the bills ratified by the Islamic Consultative Assembly with the Constitution and religious law. In case of inconsistency with the Constitution and the religious law, it refers these ratified bills back to the Majlis for review.

Islamic Consultative Assembly and not go beyond it. In other words, the extent of the executive power’s prerogatives has been stipulated by the Constitution and the Majlis’s statutory laws, and the executive orders should be within this framework.

These orders should manifest the generalities reflected in the Constitution and the laws ratified by the Majlis. Thus, initially, generalities are described in the Constitution and statutory laws whose meanings the cabinet or the concerned authority in certain cases has to interpret within the framework of executive orders. The cabinet cannot act unconditionally on its own without any frame of reference. In fact, its executive orders must be within the framework of the Constitution and laws ratified by the Majlis.

The laws ratified by the Majlis, in turn, must be approved and endorsed by the Council of Guardians. That is, the Majlis must also act within the framework of the Constitution and in this way, its ratified laws will be considered credible, enjoying executive guarantee. Therefore, the credibility of executive orders and their being binding depend on their conformity with the Majlis’s statutory laws and the credibility of statutory laws means that they are within the framework of the conditional law of the country.

The credibility of the Constitution of the Islamic system is based on its consistency with the legislative will of God the Exalted. As such, the entire laws and decrees have a linear relationship and they are credible, provided that this hierarchy is observed in such a manner that it ends up in Islam and the legislative will of God. It is not in the sense that all the executive orders, circulars and statutory laws can be explicitly found in the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

Since God delegated certain prerogatives to the Holy Prophet (s) to promulgate specific laws and decrees in certain cases, these laws and decrees are credible and binding because they are based on the permission and will of God. It is obligatory to obey and act upon them on account of the decree of God on the necessity of obeying and following him. Under the aegis of this decree of God, the laws and orders promulgated by the Messenger of Allah (s) are credible and, at the same time, it is obligatory on others to obey and act upon them; otherwise, merely to obey the orders of the Messenger of Allah (s) without divine sanction is not obligatory.

So, the laws which God, the Exalted, has directly enacted and explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an occupy the foremost degree and are intrinsically credible. The laws enacted by the Holy Prophet (s) in certain cases by God’s leave occupy the next degree and their credibility is equal to that of God’s command. Similarly, the credibility of the laws which the infallible Imam (‘a) enacts and the orders he gives emanate from the decree of God because God and the Prophet (s) consider it obligatory to obey the Imam.

Now, assuming that we were living in an Islamic territory under the reign of the Commander

p: 97

of the Faithful (‘a), we would have considered it incumbent upon us to obey him. If the Imam (‘a) appointed a person like Malik al-Ashtar as the governor in our region saying, “Act upon his orders and do not defy them, for whoever obeys him actually obeys me,” the mere orders of Malik al-Ashtar would not be binding for the people because he was like other people, but obedience to him would have been obligatory and his orders binding because he was designated as governor by the infallible Imam (‘a) who, in turn, had been designated by God through the Prophet (s), and to obey him would be wajib.

However, laws and orders issued by a governor, designated by an infallible Imam, are considered laws of a third degree. As an analogy, the governor is like an appointed official whom the Islamic Consultative Assembly has granted powers on the basis of which he has authority to issue circulars and instructions, and on account of those delegated powers, his orders are binding. Similarly, the Majlis has acquired its credibility from the Constitution and its statutory laws acquire credibility under the auspices of the Constitution.

The credibility of the constitution in other countries emanates from the will of the people. But we believe in a higher station and reference with respect to the Constitution. We believe that the credibility of the constitution should emanate from the will of God, and the Prophet (s), an infallible Imam (‘a) or any person like Malik al-Ashtar, designated by one of the infallible Imams (‘a), has to endorse it. Therefore, the credibility of law should emanate from the words of God, the Prophet (s), an infallible Imam (‘a), and then any person designated by an infallible Imam. This is the logic and theory of Islam.

In the time of occultation [ghaybah] of the infallible Imam, since the wali al-faqih has been chosen through a general designation by the infallible Imam, his wilayah is endorsed by the Imam and acquired credibility, thus, his approval is the source of credibility of the constitution; otherwise, the constitution by itself is questionable. It is debatable as to where its credibility emanates from and who has the right to amend it. On what basis does a minority that has not voted for a certain law abide by it? And there are many other questions. However, when we say that this law has been declared credible by one formally designated by the infallible Imam, there is no room for any more questions.

designated by the infallible Imam (‘a) through a general or specific appointment shall be Islamic and sacred because they have been approved by God.

Of course, as we have said, in the Islamic government this approval may take different intervals. The credibility of approval of the wali al-faqih emanates from the approval of and endorsement by the infallible Imam (‘a) and the credibility of decrees and approval of the infallible Imam, in turn, emanates from the approval of and endorsement by the Prophet (s). Finally, credibility of the Prophet’s approval is confirmed through an explicit text [nass] of the Qur’an where God says:

﴿یَا أَیُّهَا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا أَطِیعُوا اللّهَ وَأَطِیعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِی الأَمْرِ مِنکُمْ...﴾

“O you who have faith! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority among you...”(1)

and in another verse:

﴿النَّبِیُّ أَوْلَی بِالْمُؤْمِنِینَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ...﴾

“The Prophet is closer to the faithful than their own souls….”(2)

Thus, the aforementioned link has a perfectly logical foundation for the members of an Islamic society and those who believe in the truthfulness of God, the Prophet (s) and the infallible Imams (‘a). As we have expounded earlier, we have to talk on the basis of our audience’s convictions and beliefs and through their language. For this reason, if a person does not believe in God and in the truthfulness of the Messenger of Allah (s), or is doubtful of the infallible Imam (‘a), we need to discuss this issue in a different way.

Initially, we have to deal with the fundamental and essential principles of Islam, and then after proving them, tackle other subjects, including political and administrative issues, on the basis of those principles. Of course, this form of legislation, or the other usual forms can also be examined on the basis of their value for the benefit of society.

implementation. Therefore, an independent and special status has been given to it.)

At the time when the Prophet (s) or an infallible Imam was present, he had to personally hold the reigns of government or designate someone to implement the law; for example, Hadrat ‘Ali (‘a) appointed Malik al-Ashtar as the governor of Egypt in order to implement the law there. However, in this period of ghaybah when the people have no access to the infallible Imam (‘a), the responsibility of implementing the law lies on the shoulders of the one who has been appointed by the infallible Imam through a general designation, and this will lead us to the theory of wilayah al-faqih about which we will discuss later, God willing.

It should now be clear that in Islamic political theory and administrative structure, just as the law should be linked to God, the implementer of the law should also be linked to God and be appointed by God either through a general or specific designation.

The judicial organ should be equally linked to God and the judge should be appointed by God either through direct, or indirect and general designation. In either case, if the judge has no link whatsoever to God, his decree shall have no credit at all. The Holy Qur’an has pointed out God’s direct designation of Hadrat Dawud (David) (‘a) to judge among men:

﴿یَا دَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاکَ خَلِیفَةً فِی الْأَرْضِ فَاحْکُم بَیْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ...﴾

“O David! Indeed We have made you a vicegerent on the earth. So judge between the people with justice….”(1)

And regarding the Prophet of Islam (s), it says:

﴿إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا إِلَیْکَ الْکِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِتَحْکُمَ بَیْنَ النَّاسِ بِمَا أَرَاکَ اللّهُ﴾

“Indeed We have sent down to you the Book with the truth, so that you may judge between the people by what Allah has shown you.” (2)

It also states:

﴿فَلاَ وَرَبِّکَ لاَ یُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّیَ یُحَکِّمُوکَ فِیمَا شَجَرَ بَیْنَهُمْ...﴾

“But no, by your Lord! They will not believe until they make you a judge in their disputes.”(3)

p: 100

In sum, in the Islamic political theory, sovereignty, legislation and the administration of society in all its dimensions and aspects must emanate from the legislative will of God.

p: 101

p: 102

3. The variable orders which certain individuals enact with the permission of an infallible Imam (‘a) and will be binding for the Islamic society because their source can finally be traced to the will of God.

Thus, God Himself directly enacts the law and His decrees are mentioned in the text of the Qur’an. However, with respect to the implementation of the law, God is not the agent or implementer. The implementer must be the one who is present in society and can be seen by the people, bids and forbids, and implements the laws.

It refers first and foremost to the Prophet (s) or an infallible Imam (‘a), and at the second level, to the person who is granted executive authority by the Prophet (s) or an infallible Imam (‘a); i.e. those who at the time of the Prophet (s) or in the presence of an infallible Imam (‘a) were sent as governors and rulers to Islamic territories and provinces to implement those laws. During the period of ghaybah, the fuqaha, who are appointed through general designation, are responsible for implementing the laws.

What has been mentioned so far broadly deals with the macrocosm of the Islamic government viz. legislation and implementation. The judicial organ in reality is part of the executive body and because of its special importance it enjoys an independent status.

Or, do we also need specific statutory laws?

As we have said, if ever it was imagined in the past that natural laws, rational laws, or ‘rational independents’ [mustaqillat-e ‘aqliyyeh] were sufficient to meet the needs of society, today the said assumption is unacceptable. Neither is there any point of raising and examining it. Nowadays, by just looking around, every person realizes that he needs hundreds of social and international laws in his complex domestic, external and international situation.

Among social and domestic laws are laws related to traffic and transportation. If there are no traffic laws what will be the state of transportation and traffic in every city and town? If the speed of a vehicle and its right of way (whether left or right) and all the other traffic and driving rules are not determined, what will happen? In which part of the world are a group of people leading a safe and sound life in spite of non-observance of these laws?

It is true that driving rules are not uniformly codified in all countries. In countries like Britain and Japan the driving seat is on the right side while driving on the left side of the road, while in all other countries including Iran, it is the opposite—but driving rules are codified anyway and the drivers are aware of the rules, knowing on which side of the road to drive. The above example is among the cases that shows the indispensability of law in society. Certainly, this necessity can also be felt in other issues such as family and international law.

One of the instances which show the exigency of the enactment of international laws is the issue related to the Caspian Sea, which is a source of dispute on the exploration of its natural resources among littoral states. It cannot be accepted that every state can exploit the Caspian oil, gas and other resources without any law. In fact, there has to be a sort of regime that stipulates the extent of exploitation of Caspian air, sea and underground resources by every littoral state. The problems existing among the littoral states on account of the absence of a governing regime have paved the way for the need to enact laws and rules for the just division of resources.

So, the imperative of enacting laws and rules in the light of human needs is being felt. For example, there had been no conventions, agreements and laws on the seas, air space, deserts and others until recently, because mankind was not in need of them yet. However, as a result of more interaction among people, groups, nations, and countries, the need for such laws was felt.

Since law defines the extent of rights of every person and society, the Noble Qur’an has specially mentioned the need of law in social life. It should be noted that existence if law in a general sense is not confined to the social life. In fact, if a person wants to lead a humane life and achieve excellence in it, he needs law.

Moral laws are sufficient for personal life but social, national,

p: 105

international and political issues need laws to ensure justice between conflicting groups. For example, if a state takes more than its share of the Caspian, war and conflict will ensue, so the need to codify socio-political laws becomes clear. The collective need of law is thus axiomatic.

Every intelligent, sane person knows that in the absence of law, social life, human comfort, and human prosperity are endangered. In view of the instances we have mentioned, it is evident that natural law is not sufficient. We are in need of statutory laws because reason [‘aql] enjoins the observance of justice and fairness, but, to determine an approach that will guarantee justice and fairness we need another law.

For example, reason dictates that the Caspian natural resources should be justly divided among the littoral states. The question will then be raised: How should one ‘justly divide’ them? Does ‘just division’ mean that a country with the largest area, littoral area, or most littoral residents along the Caspian have the lion’s share? The reply to such questions should be given by a legal reference authority. In most cases, the existence of a legislator is necessary. Now, let us see who should be the legislator.

If a set called “Islam” is recognized, it should have some distinctive features in order to distinguish it from other religions. That is, there should be fixed principles in it on which Islam is founded. Now, if we believe in such principles as tawhid, nabuwwah and ma‘ad, and the essence of prayer and worship [‘ibadah], but at the same time, regard all of them changeable and subject to diverse interpretations, we cannot prove any fixed element and claim that it is one of the principles of Islam. Therefore, we have to say that a specific set called Islam does not exist! In this case, what are we defending?

How can we invite others to Islam if we do not teach them how to become a Muslim and act upon Islam in whatever way or form they understand it? If you arrive at the conclusion that one should pray, you have to pray and if you arrive at the opposite conclusion, act accordingly. You are free to practice Islam according to your understanding! What is the difference between this kind of understanding of Islam and Christianity, or any other religion? What is the point in inviting people to Islam?

If everyone is supposed to practice Islam according to his or her own understanding and there is no definitive and permanent principle and axis, our invitation to Islam is actually only lip service. From this perspective, it makes no difference if we invite people to Islam, Christianity, or even deny religion!

fundamental elements which are known to all including those who deny God. For instance, ritual prayer and Hajj are recognized as basic elements of Islam. All people of the world know that during a certain period Muslims perform Hajj pilgrimage. Now, could somebody say that the “Islam” he knows has no Hajj? Everyone knows that there are ritual prayers in Islam.

Now, if someone says that he accepts Islam but, according to his understanding of the religion, ritual prayer is not an essential part of it, has he really understood Islam, or is he a deceiver who falsely introduces himself as a Muslim so as not to be deprived of the benefits of being a Muslim or be isolated from Islamic society? It is clear that Hajj, prayer and fasting are integral parts of this set and the essentials of the religion accepted by all Muslims.

If a person claims to know Islam, can he say that Islam has no penal law to prevent theft while the Qur’an explicitly affirms it in the verse, “As for the thief, man and woman”?(1) The same is true in the case of others which are affirmed by explicit texts [nass] of the Qur’an. The essentials of Islam are fixed and there is no more need for us to sit together and prove them one by one. As such, if it is proved that the basis of Islam is the Qur’an, truly revealed by God, we have to accept that whatever the Qur’an states is right and that it encompasses an array of fixed, essential and definite elements.

Of course, some verses may have different interpretations but the mere existence of two different interpretations of a verse does not suggest that no fixed and definite element can be inferred and deduced from the Qur’an, and that anyone can interpret it in whatever way he likes.

Once a person who is acquainted with the Arabic language refers to the Qur’an, he will find therein a series of specific themes which have nothing to do with different human interpretations and are not dependent on presumptions, mindsets and laws that we have learned from science. For example, regarding the verse on prayer or the amputation of the thief’s hand, a person who lived at the time of the Aristotelian “four elements” and Ptolemaic “seven spheres” would have interpreted it just as the one who is living in this age of Einstein’s law of relativity. It cannot be said that since Einstein’s law of relativity is the order of the day, the meaning of the verse has also changed.

There may be a verse whose words are related to certain sciences due to the lexical development and other factors, but there are some subjects that their understanding has no thing to do with different sciences.

p: 109

God also says, thus:

﴿وَمَا آتَاکُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاکُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا...﴾

“Take whatever the Apostle gives you, and relinquish whatever he forbids you...”(1)

Islam cannot be accepted without accepting the purport of verses that mention the essential features of Islam, or by acting upon them selectively. Such a superficial acceptance of Islam is the practice of those who are referred to by God in this verse:

﴿وَیَقُولُونَ نُؤْمِنُ بِبَعْضٍ وَنَکْفُرُ بِبَعْضٍ﴾

“And they say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in some’.”(2)

Thereafter, regarding such people, God says:

﴿أُوْلَ-ئِکَ هُمُ الْکَافِرُونَ حَقًّا﴾

“It is they who are truly faithless.”(3)

Thus, whoever has faith in Islam should accept the entire set of Islamic laws and decrees and believe that the essentials of Islam are independent of scientific developments or new scientific theories. As such, whoever regards the verse related to prayer as true also regards as such the verse related to the ruling on theft. In the Qur’an one can find allegorical and contingent cases as variable parts of Islam as well, but one must believe that the Qur’an and Islam must have fixed and definite parts that make it distinct from other religions.

for the treatment of a specific ailment does not imply that there are no fixed and definite elements in the science of medicine.

Therefore, in Islam we have an array of certainties [yaqiniyyat] in which there is neither dispute nor doubt. The existence of difference in some cases should not make us skeptical about the definite principles, and set Islam aside. Regrettably, nowadays, whenever Islam is talked about, the sick-hearted who, in the language of the Qur’an are “those in whose hearts is deviance,”(1) say: “Which Islam? Islam of the Shi‘ah or Sunni? Islam of the fuqaha or the university-educated intellectuals?

Notwithstanding the existence of one set of unanimously agreed upon moral precepts, personal decrees and social rules in matters of beliefs and fixed principles and commercial and international laws, why do they focus on the disputable and debatable issues? Whenever it is said that the university must be Islamic, why do these sick-hearted and crooked-minded ask, “Which Islam?”

In reply to them, it is the same Islam which says that God is One; it is the same Islam which enjoins prayer; it is the same Islam which forbids the violation of others’ rights and promotes the implementation of justice. Are these points disputable among Muslims? Implement in the university the same indisputable tenets about which the Sunni and Shi‘ah have consensus of opinion, and you will earn the utmost pleasure of all. It is natural that whenever they do not want to follow the dictates of Islam, they find excuses such as “Who says that the Islam of the fuqaha should be implemented and not the Islam of the intellectuals?”

Certainly, human beings cannot enact a set of perfect laws for mankind in different epochs and periods because on account of their defective knowledge and intellectual limitation, they cannot examine all the facets and dimensions of human life and take into account an appropriate law for every case.

However, the One who has created human beings, knows “what was” [ma kana] and “what will be” [ma yakun], to whom yesterday, today and tomorrow are the same, is Omniscient of thousands of years before and after, it is possible to enact such a code of laws. Thus, it cannot be said that it is impossible to enact a code of perfect laws for all humanity throughout history that encompasses all aspects of human life, because the One who has full knowledge of the past and future and is well informed of all dimensions of man’s existence throughout history can do so.

manifestations, ways of application and rulings of these general divine laws.

p: 114

After the acceptance of the democratic system this question is posed: Would whatever the majority of the elected representatives of the people—i.e. 50% plus one—like and agree upon be regarded a binding law? Are there also other rulings needed for legislation, and should certain laws that specify the extent of authority of the representatives in legislation be enacted earlier? The reply is that the constitution determines the scope and right of legislation, rules over statutory laws and judges the extent and scope of legislation.

At this point, another question is raised and that is: various countries have their respective constitutions which are more or less subject to change. Sometimes, with the change of political system or regime, the constitution is also changed. There are also times when the constituent assembly is convened and amendments to the constitution are made. In any case, in view of the changes to be made in the constitution, is there any institution or entity above the constitution which specifies the scope of the constitution?

That which is above the constitution is the institution of human rights—also called the natural law or the basic rights of men—which rules over the constitution and determines its scope. Members of the constitutional committee cannot reflect whatever ‘they like’ in the constitution, let alone make common laws.

from the approval of the states’ representatives, and not because they are an extrinsic reality.

Finally, this serious objection is raised: What justification do all states have to accept these laws and what is the proof for non-signatories? The root of this objection and question cannot be deracinated in any way. For this reason, this question is addressed in legal philosophy: What is the source of credibility of laws? However, for us who have faith in the religion of Islam, God and the Qur’an, there is a simple answer. Once we say that the laws have been codified based on the decree of God, the case is closed and there are no more questions.

But those who refuse to tread this path and want to describe everything through a contract will finally end up in an impasse because they regard human rights as the source of credibility of every law and the reason behind also needs to be investigated. In addition, why is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights codified in about 30 articles only, and not more or less than that? These are questions posed to the crème of legal philosophers and a convincing answer is yet to be offered by them.

Once we say that we are law-abiders, we ought to know where the credibility of law emanates from, and why and to what extent we have to abide by the law. Today, there are many related discussions in speeches, periodicals and newspapers. Some of our educated, especially the university-educated and those who are engaged in studying and teaching social sciences and humanities, particularly the authorities in legal philosophy and political philosophy are encountering these questions.

Thus, in order to improve the cultural level of our society, we have to state the results of the academic inquiries in a simple and concise manner. If we want to deal with these issues meticulously and elaborately, we have to refer to at least four fields in social sciences or four branches of philosophy, viz. philosophical sociology, legal philosophy, moral philosophy, and political philosophy. And if we want to pursue it, we need to study other philosophies, and of course, epistemology, which is considered the mother of philosophy. It is very useful to point out the achievements in these fields of social science and the relationship existing between them for the educated class and wary people who have been trained in the lap of the Islamic Revolution and its culture.

turn into ice. So, freezing point or boiling point exists as a law of nature, and man needs to be acquainted with these laws of chemistry, physics and other experimental sciences. Evidently, these laws are fixed, persistent and numerous.

With the advancement of human knowledge, more laws will be discovered, and with every new discovery in every science, hundreds of questions and answers will be raised. Proportionate to the number of these questions, new laws will be discovered in order to answer them. For this reason, the number of questions increases everyday and mankind is in pursuit of discovering more laws to answer them. In other words, in the universe we are in the domain of a set of innumerable laws: ranging from laws related to the elements, chemical compositions and living creatures to space laws and others, whose existence is yet to be discovered by scientists.

At this point, this question comes to the fore: If, in this universe, we are confined in this narrow and constricted sphere of innumerable laws, what then is the role of our freewill and volition? This question is treated seriously, and as such, in philosophical anthropology it is asked: What is the truth of man? Is he totally determined or free? Or, does he have conditional and limited freedom? Assuming that his freedom is limited and conditional, what is its extent? Similarly, today, the question of predestination and freewill or tafwid(1) and the like are still seriously discussed among philosophers in the world as before.

Among them are existentialists who believe that man has unlimited freedom and may do whatever he likes. As Jean-Paul Sartre(2) used to say, “If I wish, the Vietnam War will come to an end!” That is, man is such a powerful creature that he can put a stop to a bloody war that has taken millions of human lives. Of course, it is an exaggerated claim but the point is that such an outlook which upholds human freewill and unlimited power exists.

Opposed to the existentialists are those who consider human freewill mere illusion, believing that man subsists within the framework of a set of fatalistic laws though he imagines that he has freewill. The last but not least, are the religious beliefs which can be located in between the above- mentioned two, maintaining that man has freewill limited by various laws governing the universe. That is, if we try to draw circles of the set of laws governing the universe, human freewill can be exercised within those circles and not beyond that.

p: 119

On saying that, we are intrinsically subject to a set of laws, this question spontaneously arises: Do we have the power to break those laws and defy them? Can we make nature subservient to us and limit the extent of laws and live in such a way that the laws of nature do not govern us? The answer is that such an imagination is sheer fancy because manipulation of nature necessitates the discovery of another law of nature itself. For example, if we succeed in the field of medicine in controlling a disease or totally eradicating it, we have to discover another law of nature and follow it.

In reality, we have not succeeded in digressing nature from its course; rather, we have discovered a law of nature and acted accordingly.

Hence, it is impossible to go beyond the domain of intrinsic laws, and in order to live one needs to recognize and benefit from these laws—the same laws God has set in the universe—and to go against them is tantamount to going against man’s intrinsic servitude [‘ibadat-e takwini]. As we have said earlier, within the circles which constitute the set of intrinsic laws, we can move to a certain extent. Among the diverse scientific and intrinsic laws, there are limited spaces for man’s exercise of freewill and the power to choose by means of which he can make use of a law vis-à-vis another law. These limited spaces constitute the domain of man’s freewill.

﴿لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَانَ فِی أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِیمٍ ٭ ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَاهُ أَسْفَلَ سَافِلِینَ ٭ إِلَّا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ فَلَهُمْ أَجْرٌ غَیْرُ مَمْنُونٍ﴾

“We certainly created man in the best of forms; then We relegated him to the lowest of low, except those who have faith and do righteous deeds. There will be an everlasting reward for them.”(1)

By using the innumerable talents God has endowed man with, he can attain the pinnacle of divine proximity and nearness to God. On the contrary, by opposing and rising against the divine laws, he can fall to the lowest ebb and be baser than any animal. So, to obey or defy the legislative, extrinsic and moral laws, are within the freewill of man. If a person accepts and follows these laws, he will attain spiritual and psychological loftiness, tranquility and wellbeing; otherwise, he will fall. It is like health tips and recommendations offered by medical science to us. Observance of them guarantees our wellbeing while heedlessness to them results in ailments and endangers our health and life.

Now, since man is free to observe or not observe these health and medical tips, if he values his health and wants to remain alive and kicking, he has to observe them. On the other hand, if he is not concerned with his health and it does not matter to him if he gets sick, he should not pay attention to these tips. So, the truth of the matter is that wellbeing is impossible without observance of health tips. Of course, such an affair is not fatalistic in nature because observance or non-observance of health and medical tips is within the control of man. Of his own freewill, he may observe these tips and thus remain healthy, or not observe them and expose himself to danger and sickness and even death.

That which is said about the body is also true about the spirit and soul. Just as the physical body has wellbeing and sickness, so does the soul. The observance of certain spiritual values and laws, guarantees the perfection, tranquility and wellbeing of man’s soul; otherwise, his soul gets sick.

In this regard, God says:

﴿فِی قُلُوبِهِم مَرَضٌ فَزَادَهُمُ اللّهُ مَرَضاً...﴾

“There is a sickness in their hearts; then Allah increases their sickness...”(2)

Man, who is always on the verge of falling, sometimes moves so quickly that he loses control of himself, and gets relegated to the lowest of low and

p: 121

plunges into perdition. On the contrary, if he wants to remain sound he has to move carefully and with such self-restraint that he can make a stop whenever he smells danger. There are also real orders, and by obeying the divine laws, man can attain spiritual wellbeing and eternal bliss. Of course, man is free and autonomous; he may not want to attain bliss but want hell instead. No one can stop him.

Intrinsic freedom has endowed him the right to choose. However, if he wants to attain felicity and nearness to God, he has to obey the commands of God. He should not follow his own desires, because following one’s carnal desires leads to misguidance and deviation from the truth:

﴿أَفَرَأَیْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلهَهُ هَوَاهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَی عِلْمٍ وَخَتَمَ عَلَی سَمْعِهِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَجَعَلَ عَلَی بَصَرِهِ غِشَاوَةً فَمَن یَهْدِیهِ مِن بَعْدِ اللَّهِ أَفَلاَ تَذَکَّرُونَ﴾

“Have you seen him who has taken his desire to be his god and whom Allah has led astray knowingly, and set a seal upon his hearing and his heart, and drawn a blind on his sight? So who will guide him after Allah? Will you not then take admonition?”(1)

Whoever is subservient to his carnal desires and dictates of the heart becomes deaf and blind and cannot discern the truth and reality. Even if he has acquired much learning, a veil will cover his eyes and he will not see the truth. In this context, the story of Bal‘am ibn Ba‘ur(2) is an instructive moral lesson for us all. Notwithstanding the gnostic station he acquired and being the most learned of his time, he experienced a fall and a fate about which God said:

﴿وَاتْلُ عَلَیْهِمْ نَبَأَ الَّذِیَ آتَیْنَاهُ آیَاتِنَا فَانسَلَخَ مِنْهَا فَأَتْبَعَهُ الشَّیْطَانُ فَکَانَ مِنَ الْغَاوِینَ ٭ ... فَمَثَلُهُ کَمَثَلِ الْکَلْبِ إِن تَحْمِلْ عَلَیْهِ یَلْهَثْ أَوْ تَتْرُکْهُ یَلْهَث...﴾

“Relate to them an account of him to whom We gave Our signs, but he cast them off. Thereupon Satan pursued him, and he became one

p: 122

of the perverse… So his parable is that of a dog: if you make for it, it lolls out its tongue, and if you let it alone, it lolls out its tongue...”(1)

In light of the freedom that God has given man, he can experience fall to such an extent. However, if man wants to be blissful, he should observe an array of lows. The divine set of laws cannot be confined to a single domain; rather, they can be divided into different domains and types. As such, we are in need of some types of law in our lives.

question or their parents and relatives, should pay heed to this kind of skepticism, because these questions will finally find their way into other strata of society through the educated class and exert influence on our public culture. One day these young students will take the place of their parents, and as influential forces, they will constitute the main sectors of society. Now, if the cultural orientation of this great sector is changed, after one generation the culture of our society will totally change. So, we should be vigilant; we should be aware about the current cultural orientation that is taking form in our society

ببری مال مسلمان و چون مالت ببرند

داد و فریاد برآری که مسلمانی نیست

You take away Muslim property, but when they take yours,

Raise a hue and cry, “This is not a Muslim practice!”

Man is selfishly profit-oriented by nature. He leaves no stone unturned by hook or by crook to gain profit, but once his interests are threatened, he seeks refuge in law. So, in order to remove contradictions and conflicts and foster cooperation and security in society there should be law that deters us from oppressing and encroaching upon others, defines the rights of everyone, specifies the bounds of justice and oppression on the basis of which people know which acts are considered just and iniquitous. Otherwise, all rights will be violated by all, and as a result, neither security nor tranquility, peace of mind nor otherworldly felicity will remain, and no one will achieve his innate goals.

In the Islamic perspective, therefore, all our movements and pauses, whether in individual and family life or social life and even international relations, follow an order and rules. Islam has a legal code for all aspects of human life, legal and social laws included. Islam even has a law regarding man’s imagination and thought, saying that a person has no right to keep in his heart whatever he or she likes, entertain any fancy in his or her mind, and think ill of others—“Indeed some suspicions are sins.”(1)

Just as non-observance of health tips leads to sickness, endangering the wellbeing of individuals and society, society will also be destroyed for not observing Islamic rules.

What has been said is that no aspect of human life is beyond the scope of Islamic laws and that man should control even his heart and mind but it does not mean obstruction of man’s freedom. It rather means showing him the correct use of freedom and lighting a torch along his path so that he can rightfully enjoy his freedom. Of course, as long as they are not related to man’s social life, these laws do not stipulate penalty in this world but only chastisement in the hereafter. However, if there is a violation of social rules and laws, and social interests are trampled upon, penalty in this world shall be taken into account.

In reality, penalty in this world is a requisite of all legal laws and it is not confined to the legal laws of Islam only. Every legal system that wants to enact laws for the maintenance of order and social security has no option but to consider a set of penalties for violators and offenders. This is because social life can not be established without laws that restrict individual freedom and liberty. As social relations increase and

p: 125

expand, the need for social laws and their guaranteed implementation will also increase.

p: 126

will also try to strengthen the rational roots of these doctrines in minds so as to make them more resilient to the prevailing wave of skepticism.

The distinctive function of the government and political system is to support and guarantee the implementation of legal laws in society. The difference between moral laws and legal-political laws is that being ethical, they have no external force guaranteeing their implementation. Every person adheres to them based on his/her religious beliefs and orientation. Legal laws, on the other hand, have an external support guaranteeing their implementation.

The salient feature of legal laws is that they are imposed on the people by society and the executive organ. Even if a person has no conviction in these laws, he is still duty-bound to follow them. In case of violation by individuals, the government is obliged to implement these laws by resorting to the use of naked force, and in case of necessity, even by the use of arms.

After the victory of the Islamic Revolution, especially after the internal disturbances and arbitrary assassinations, government officials have consistently chanted the slogan of ‘the rule of law’. Even one of the initial years after the Revolution was called “Year of Law”, and till this day, all our presidents have pursued it. It must be taken into account that one of the main valuable slogans of the government is the implementation of law at the national level and prevention of its violations. It is, therefore, expedient that there must be a discussion about law and its credibility, and due response be given to relevant skepticism and questions.

Observance of decrees and orders of the Islamic government and obedience to the wali al-amr is obligatory upon us, and we have no doubt in this regard. If we discuss the criterion of their credibility, it should not be imagined that we want to cast doubt upon the exigency of acting upon government laws. Our goal is to strengthen the intellectual roots and foundations of adherence to the Islamic government.

Our attempt is to clarify why we have to obey the orders of the Islamic government. When the government declares a certain day as a public holiday, or levies a certain sum as tax to those for whom taxation laws and rules are applicable, or issues certain orders on a certain situation, calls for public participation under exceptional circumstances like war, and implements special laws, the people should know why they should abide by those laws and orders. The mere presence of the one who gives orders is not sufficient reason for the people to follow and act upon his orders.

Our discussion is related to political philosophy, and the issue of law and its credibility and the exigency of following it is among the fundamental issues of all political systems and not only confined to the Islamic system. Those who are familiar with the subjects in political philosophy and legal philosophy know that scholars and experts in these two fields of human knowledge have tried to elucidate this issue and present different views substantiated by reasons and arguments.

So far, however, they have not arrived at a definite view fully substantiated and defensible. We can summarize the most important views and ideas presented by these scholars on the criterion of credibility of law under three headings.

action to provide for these public needs. For instance, when a disease like cholera or plague becomes rampant in a society, individual measures to control it can do nothing. There should be a government body whose function is to control it and maintain public health through programs, such as vaccination and others. By means of enacting rules and regulations—including common rules and regulations—it is the duty of the government to ensure the vaccination of people during that period of time. (As said earlier, we are referring to law in its general sense which also includes binding instructions, circulars and orders.)

Since public health is a need of society and its observance is a social necessity, pertinent laws have been enacted and all are obliged to observe them. Similarly, in relation to environmental protection, keeping the biosphere clean and providing for public needs, the government has instituted certain bodies to address those problems, while the people are obliged to obey the orders and instructions issued by them.

So, the totality of laws and institutions taken into account by the government, such as the Ministry of Training and Education, Ministry of Health and Medical Treatment, and other ministries as well as their orders and instructions are all geared toward addressing social needs and safeguarding the interests of society, and as such, they are legitimate.

They seem to be intolerant, inconsistent and discordant with the divine laws and monotheistic beliefs. For example, we have a set of laws in Islam which, according to our ideological principles, are the best and most beneficial laws for society and certainly concordant with justice.

However, these laws are unacceptable to many people in the world who regard them as unjust and oppressive. For instance, in many cases of inheritance the Islamic laws have set differences between the share of man and woman, though in some cases their share is the same. The difference is based on an explicit text of the Holy Qur’an which stipulates that the share of woman is half that of man:

“Then for the male shall be the like of the share of two females.”(1)

Undoubtedly, those who are not familiar with the ideological and intellectual foundations of Islam regard such a law as unjust because according to them God has discriminated against women. On the other hand, in relation to the conjugal life of husband and wife, Islam makes it incumbent upon the husband to provide all the family expenses including food, clothing and lodging of his spouse and children. According to the Islamic perspective, the wife has the right to save all her earnings.

Her income and inherited property belong to her and she is not required to contribute even a small sum for the family expenses. She even has the right to ask payment for the services she is rendering at home, such as washing clothes, cooking food and even feeding her infant child. However, those who are not exactly acquainted with Islam, when they take such an order into consideration, even if they deal with it impartially they will say that Islam has nit enacted a just law.

In order to dispel the accusation and prove that such laws are just, we have to see which interpretation and definition of justice we have. If justice means equality, then all laws are unjust because equality is not observed in them. If justice has another interpretation, it must be seen what that interpretation is. Of course, it is not easy to know the essence of justice and the way to implement it. For this reason, great philosophers have conducted extensive research on the relationship between justice, freedom and law.

In sum, if we take justice as the criterion of credibility of law, the problem will not be solved. The first question we shall encounter is this: To which interpretation of justice shall we refer? Interpretations of justice are subjective. What is just and credible for one is unjust and incredible for another.

all, more or less, understand what the needs of society are. This is especially true if we consider that in the society we live in and our predecessors lived before us, a lawgiver or ruler was supposed to understand the needs of society and know how to provide for them.

The question and objection to this view is: The needs of society can be provided for in different ways, and this fact leads to the difference of opinion on the codification of law. For example, the beautification and cleanliness of a city is a public need and must be provided for. But from where should its budget be allocated? Should its budget be secured through the individual accounts of families—that is, to oblige every family to shoulder a part of the expenses for the city’s beautification and cleanliness? The second option is that the current expenditure of the city should be secured from the general budget that is mainly secured through the taxes which are levied from the rich, while the poor are exempted from it.

The third option is to expect the government to provide for the needs of society from the exploitation of underground resources such as oil, copper and iron and their revenue. Now, considering that providing for the needs of society is taken into account as the criterion of credibility of law and that each of the abovementioned options is meant to provide for the needs of society, which of them must be regarded as credible? Which of them do the people regard as the most proper and just? The answer will again be subjective. It shows that this criterion alone is not sufficient to determine the law’s credibility.

society, should the interests of society be upheld or the will of the majority? Undoubtedly, legislators and those whose function is to provide for the needs of society (executive officials) can actually observe that if they try to abide by the will of people in these cases, they cannot make any progress. (Of course, this issue can be traced to the discussion about democratic models which must be examined in another session.)

In any case, such objections to the criteria of credibility of law exist. Of course, in our opinion, the more fundamental and serious objection is that the abovementioned interests and needs are only material interests and needs. The general notion is that only these human needs must be provided for in society. Is the government obliged to address only the things related to the material and worldly affairs of people? Or, does the government also have a duty beyond them?

In clearer terms, we Muslims and all those who follow one of the revealed religions believe that man has two components: body and soul. In addition, the view of most or all religions is that the soul is nobler than the body and the latter serves the former. These religions maintain that just as the body needs good health, its getting sick needs to be prevented and cured, the human soul also needs sound health, must be prevented from getting sick, and be cured in case of sickness. If we compare material needs with spiritual needs, we will find that spiritual and religious needs are more important.

Sickness of the body is less dangerous and serious compared to sickness of the soul because humanity and human merits and attributes are related to the soul, and if a person’s soul gets sick, his humanity will also fade away.

All animals have bodies and different physical conditions and are in constant pursuit of material and physical enjoyments. What makes man special and constitutes the essence of humanity is his soul. Now, if that which is the criterion of humanity faces danger, man will experience real death. As God says,

﴿أَوَ مَن کَانَ مَیْتًا فَأَحْیَیْنَاهُ وَجَعَلْنَا لَهُ نُورًا یَمْشِی بِهِ

فِی النَّاسِ کَمَن َ مَثَلُهُ فِی الظُّلُمَاتِ لَیْسَ بِخَارِجٍ مِنْهَا کَذَلِکَ زُیِّنَ لِلْکَافِرِینَ مَا کَانُواْ یَعْمَلُونَ﴾

“Is he who was lifeless, then We gave him life and provided him with a light by which he walks among the people, like one who dwells in

p: 134

manifold darkness which he cannot leave? To the faithless is thus presented as decorous what they have being doing.”(1)

In view of this fact, should the government which is in pursuit of securing the interests of society not pay attention to the spiritual and religious affairs of people? Is it the duty of government to provide only for the material needs of people? Or, is addressing the spiritual welfare also part of its duties and should it strive hard to provide it?

interests, and that is securing the spiritual interests. If securing the interests is one of the criteria of credibility of law, in our opinion “interests” include both material and spiritual interests.

To examine the interests of society and determine their indicators is a more insightful and profound endeavor than that which is discussed in political philosophy and legal philosophy. The axis of the discussion revolves around these questions: Does man truly have real interests apart from the material ones? Or, are his interests the same material interests plus a set of customs and traditions that sometimes change? Does he have no other interests within the context of spiritual and ideological needs?

Are the real interests and needs the same material things which can be contained within scientific experiments and be identified through material indicators such as medical, economic, industrial and technological developments? Or, are there also spiritual and ideological interests above them which cannot be experienced by the senses?

We believe that the real interests are the same spiritual and ideological interests which are related to the metaphysical world, and so to speak, are not part of scientific issues and cannot be proved through the scientific method which is no other than the empirical one. So, before saying that spiritual interests must be secured in society and that the government is duty-bound to secure them—if we only want to engage in an evidential discussion—we will have to deal with this question: Do we really have interests other than material ones?

p: 136

belief in something. So, it is better for us to have no definite and absolute belief in anything and only consider as probable the correctness and incorrectness of a theory. With regard to religion also, we have to accept religious pluralism, according to which we have to accept as correct the viewpoints of both the Muslims who believe in the Oneness of God and the beliefs of someone whom the Muslims regard deserves eternal damnation.

We have to equally accept as correct the faith of Christians who believe in the Trinity and the Zoroastrians who believe in the god of good and the god of evil, because none of these beliefs is definite and certain. Possibly, each of them is correct or incorrect and we are not supposed to confront any of them because all of them can be good and correct.

Tolerance of all beliefs and different conflicting views is anchored in the foundation of skepticism, agnosticism and pluralism, which reject the absoluteness of any belief. Social indulgence and negligence gain strength in the absence of prejudice, partisanship and violence, and they say, it is better not to be prejudiced but assume whatever another person says as possibly correct. This approach successfully creates a sense of indifference to religious, philosophical and scientific beliefs in a person.

Today this agnosticism of the Western world is also offered to us. There is an endeavor to make our society negligent and insensitive to religious, philosophical and scientific beliefs, and become skeptical about every viewpoint and theory, and believe that it could possibly be correct and so could its contradiction. Sometimes, it is also said that we should not regard our understanding as absolute and say that it is totally correct and there is no correct but this. We should not have such certainty. We should have our own beliefs and hold them respectable. Others should have also their own beliefs.

This culture adopted by the Western world for itself today, is being promoted so that the whole world should come under the influence of this culture. This culture negates the certainty of beliefs, negates the religion of truth, negates the belief that the true madhhab and correct theory are one, and inculcates the idea that the correct theory may be multiple so no one should have certainty of belief in anything. There should be no fanaticism in discussion. Religious zeal and sectarian fanaticism should be eliminated.

The people’s inclination to one religion, one madhhab and one idea should be eliminated so that all could live together and have no conflict over religious issues because these very religious disputes are the source of wars and mass murder. All sects, religions and ideas should be considered correct and truthful in order to pave the ground for peace, security and happiness.

p: 139

﴿وَلاَ تُجَادِلُوا أَهْلَ الْکِتَابِ إِلا بِالَّتِی هِیَ أَحْسَنُ...﴾

“Do not dispute with the People of the Book except in a manner which is best.”(1)

If that is the meaning of pluralism, then we have to say that it is one of Islam’s sources of pride. However, if pluralism means that we say to ourselves that Christianity is also like Islam; Judaism is also like Islam; there is no difference between being a Muslim and a Jew because each of them has a segment of the truth; neither Islam nor Judaism is the absolute truth; or both of them are the truth, like two ways that end up in a single point of destination whichever way one treads, undoubtedly, such a notion and understanding is inconsistent with the spirit of every religion and the dictates of reason. Can it be claimed that belief in tawhid is identical with the belief in Trinity? In other words, is there no difference between the belief in the Oneness of God and the belief in Trinity and many gods? The religion of Islam says:

﴿وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ خَیْرًا لَکُمْ﴾

“And do not say, ‘[God is] a trinity.’ Relinquish [such a creed]! That is better for you.”(2)

In dealing with the untoward attributes given to God such as His having a child, the Qur’an says:

﴿تَکَادُ السَّمَاوَاتُ یَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِنْهُ وَتَنشَقُّ الْأَرْضُ وَتَخِرُّ الْجِبَالُ هَدًّا﴾

“The heavens are about to be rent apart at it, the earth to split open, and the mountains to collapse into bits!”(3)

Now, when Islam has such a firm approach toward polytheistic beliefs, how can we say that if you like you can be a Muslim and if you don’t, then worship idols, and these two faiths have no differences and are among the “straight paths” leading to the same goal! I think it is improbable for a rational person to accept this. In any case, intellectual eclecticism is one of the plagues and predicaments of our age which must be given attention to and the ways of purging the mind and acquiring a pure and pristine mentality must be identified and acted upon.

p: 141

Once man recognizes himself as a servant of God and regards servitude to God as the greatest value and considers himself totally at the disposal of God, can he believe in absolute freedom and regard as valuable whatever he likes? Are these two compatible and concordant? If I really believe that Islam is the true religion of God which must be accepted, and that I have to worship God, surrender everything and submit to His will, how can I believe that I can be absolutely free to do whatever I want? How can these two ways of thinking be concordant?

Those who claim this is possible have unconsciously succumbed to eclecticism, have actually no belief in Islam in their hearts, make this claim in order to deceive others, or, are incapable of realizing that these ways of thinking are not concordant. Otherwise, how could man, on the one hand, say that he is totally subservient to the will of God and, on the other hand, believe that he has absolute freedom and can do whatever he wants?!

This way of thinking, i.e. belief in the absolute freedom of man is a product of Western thought. In the West a group of believers of Christianity, while keeping their religion—perhaps because of their innate inclinations or the environment and type of their religious upbringing could not abandon their religion—inclined toward ideas like the absolute freedom of man as the result of certain arguments, reasons or doubts.

Undoubtedly, one who makes such a claim does not do so without any proof and justification. In fact, he starts with a point and speaks eloquently on it. For example, his opening salvo is this: “Is it better to place a bird inside a cage and place the cage inside another iron cage, or to open the cages so that the bird can fly and go wherever it likes?” It is obvious that the flying and freedom of a bird is far better and desirable. Then, he says: “This is exactly the freedom we are talking about!”

In our society, a complete set of laws based on religion has been codified. Embedded in it is a set of laws related to the wilayah al-faqih, within which are the statutory laws of the Islamic Consultative Assembly and the Expediency Council. Finally, the Council of Guardians reviews the ratified laws. Such a structure is actually placing a cage inside a cage! The best law is that which gives permission to people to do and say whatever they like, and as a whole, gives absolute freedom. Evidently, the first law is a cage while the second one is freedom!

In dealing with beliefs, ideas and views derived from other cultures, we should try to trace their roots and see whether they are compatible with Islamic thought or not. If they are compatible, well and good, and if not, we need to discard them. We should refer to the rudimentary principles of our religion and take them as the foundation and basis of our thoughts, beliefs and culture.

p: 143

dimensions of life and has promulgated relevant laws. Regarding the thief, for example, it says:

﴿وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُواْ أَیْدِیَهُمَا...﴾

“As for the thief, man and woman, cut off their hands...”(1)

Those who have separated social matters from the realm of religion say that religion has no right to interfere in such domains. Religion can only urge you to pray or teach you how to praise God. But treating a criminal has nothing to do with religion. Certainly, empirical science has also nothing to do with such cases because empirical science describes the laws that govern phenomena.

In other words, science expresses “being” and it cannot determine the “dos and don’ts”. Moral laws cannot be derived from science. So, in the context of moral and social values, including legal, civil and penal laws and purely ethical issues in which moral dos and don’ts are involved, religion and “empirical science” cannot interfere.

follow the will of the people, then who should be obeyed if God enjoins a thing which the people oppose?

In all societies, more or less, there is this contradiction between what the people want and what is enjoined by religion. But we have nothing to do with other religions which have been distorted. In fact, our subject of discussion is a country whose majority of people are Muslims who have accepted a religion which has explicit and specific laws on all aspects of individual and social lives including family affairs like choosing a spouse and child upbringing, as well as social and international affairs, which have been presented in most verses of the Qur’an, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (s), and the traditions and conduct of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a).

Those who are people of insight, are not merely blind followers and want to consciously make a choice, have to settle their stand regarding the religion which claims to have programs for all aspects of man’s life, civil, legal and international. They cannot accept the said religion and at the same time claim the people’s vote as the criterion of credibility of law, especially in cases where there is contradiction between them?

Today, unfortunately, all the things highlighted in the West are published in our periodicals. Religion regards homosexuality as the worst and filthiest practice, can people’s will takes precedence over God if people voted in favor of its permissibility?! Can these two be reconciled?

The Western world has solved such problems and cases of conflict between religion and popular will, maintaining that religion has no right to interfere in such affairs and disregard the will of people. Accordingly, religion is related to the church in which the sins of individuals are forgiven through confession and performance of a set of rituals and then the church sends them to heaven!

However, religion has no responsibility or jurisdiction in the realm of social issues in which the deciding factor is the will and vote of the people. In Canada a religious leader who had founded a new Christian sect was asked in a television program about his opinion about homosexuality. He said, “Presently, I cannot express a definite view, but I tell you that the Bible must be interpreted anew!”

that the realm of religion is separate from politics and social, legal and economic issues, they are struggling and offering sacrifices day and night along this way. Do we also hold such a belief? As we do not have such a belief, then we should be careful not to be deceived and know that whatever they say and what we believe in are incompatible. We should be aware that in case of conflict between the will of God and that of the people, we should consider what the religion of God has promulgated above that of the people.

I do not intend to advance anything that will be misconstrued to mean opposition to freedom. The people are free in their choice, but they should see to it that they consciously and freely make a choice. They have to know what they are choosing. They should be aware that what is described today as “democracy in legislation” is the notion of superiority of the people’s will over that of God. That is, setting religion and God’s will aside. If the people are about to make a choice, they should be vigilant and not be deceived. They should be aware that the acceptance of Islam as a set of laws and rules governing society is in no way consistent with the acceptance of democracy in legislation.

Those who are busy deceiving people and promoting eclecticism in society and deviating from the subject matter are agitated by my words and examples because their intentions and conspiracies are exposed. Of course, some do not like these words due to political or partisan reasons. Whether these words are pleasant or unpleasant to them, I am willing to strive till my last breath to explain and defend the integrity of religion and to endure all the unpleasant consequences. Neither am I afraid of any threat nor will I fall into the snare of applause.

Here we do not intend to pass judgment but to remind the people to be careful not to be deceived by Western terminologies and concepts for them to abandon their religion. They have to identify the intellectual foundations of mentioned theories. For example, when it is said that the criterion of the acceptance of law is the will of the people and “democracy in legislation” is promoted, they have to think whether man is only physically constituted and only possesses a set of animalistic desires.

If this is the case, only the people have the right of legislation as the West asserts. Or, as perceived in Islamic thought, if man also has a lofty dimension and spiritual value, spiritual interests, in addition to observing material interests and social order and security, must also be considered in legislation. In this case the criterion of the law’s credibility should be the will of God.

The presumption mentioned earlier will now be raised again. Does man really have a spiritual and metaphysical constitution? Does he have another dimension apart from the physical body and animal instincts? Is there really a life after death for man? Is there really a relationship between this material

p: 147

life and life after death? The reply to this question is clear for Muslims and followers of religions, but we have to bear in mind that our sociopolitical outlook should be consistent with our religious beliefs and there should be no trace of any form of eclecticism in our thoughts and deeds.

If we really believe in the existence of God, the Resurrection, reckoning, and book of account, we have to decide whether to act upon man-made laws or not—assuming that the people’s will is the basis of law—which really have a negative effect on our eternal life. This question demands a definite and specific answer and the problem cannot be solved by doubt, uncertainty, and skepticism.

In the West this problem is solved either through the negation of the spiritual world, or by inculcating doubts and uncertainties in minds by suggesting that values and dos and don’ts are not based on real, external truths which are certain, but are merely a set of conventions and contracts based on the will of the people and have nothing to do with religion.

Then, our Westernized intellectuals reflect the same ideas in their books and present them to our dear youth, and the state of affairs reaches such a proportion that skepticism is sanctified and they are proud of it! According to religion, however, that is not the case. We have to desist from doubt, bewilderment and uncertainty. We should consciously and certainly make the correct selection just as the Qur’an emphasizes certainty [yaqin] in the beginning and says:

﴿وَبِالآخِرَةِ هُمْ یُوقِنُونَ﴾

“And are certain of the Hereafter.”(1)

God says that the God-wary [muttaqin] are those who are certain of the hereafter and it does not say, “They doubt it”. So, anyone who wants to benefit from the Qur’an should be certain of the hereafter. It says in another place:

﴿وَفِی الأَرْضِ آیَاتٌ لِلْمُوقِنِینَ﴾

“In the earth are signs for those who have conviction.”(2)

On the other hand, in dealing with those who are influenced by Western culture and say that logically man cannot be certain of any matter especially whatever is beyond matter. The Qur’an describes the state of doubt and uncertainty as the worst state of downfall and disgrace for them:

﴿فَهُمْ فِی رَیْبِهِمْ یَتَرَدَّدُونَ﴾

“So they waver in their doubt.”(3)

p: 148

The Qur’an also says:

﴿أَؤُنْزِلَ عَلَیْهِ الذِّکْرُ مِنْ بَیْنِنَا بَلْ هُمْ فِی شَکٍّ مِنْ ذِکْرِی...﴾

“Has the reminder been sent down to him out of [all of] us? Rather they are in doubt concerning My reminder.”(1)

The Qur’an wants us to be people of certainty especially regarding the roots of religion, viz. belief in God, apostleship [nabuwwah] and the hereafter. Now, we have to choose one of these two options: Either we accept the school of thought which says that basically man cannot have certainty and will always be in doubt and uncertainty, or the school of thought which invites us to make a conscious choice, saying that unless you are people of certainty, you cannot benefit from the Book of Allah.

The difference between the two cultures is that Islam regards the state of doubt, uncertainty and bewilderment as the worst state and likens the person who is in doubt and uncertainty to the one who is situated in a frightening desert and everybody is inviting him toward a different direction and he is bewildered as to which direction to choose. On the contrary, Western culture considers doubt and uncertainty of great value, claiming that man is not a human being unless he doubts and is skeptical. We have to choose one of the two—Islam or skepticism. One cannot accept both of them because it cannot be admitted that it is day and night at the same time just as monotheism and trinity together cannot constitute a logical thought.

﴿وَإِنَّ الدَّارَ الآخِرَةَ لَهِیَ الْحَیَوَانُ﴾

“But the abode of the Hereafter is indeed Life!”(1)

﴿وَما الْحَیَاةُ الدُّنْیَا إِلاَّ مَتَاعُ الْغُرُورِ...﴾

“The life of this world is nothing but the wares of delusion...”(2)

Since our real life is in the hereafter, we should exert all our efforts and focus all our attention in this world to that which will draw us toward that great felicity. Contrary to the schools of thought which hold that otherworldly bliss and this world cannot be combined together and whoever wants felicity in the hereafter should seclude and isolate himself from all things worldly, Islam fortunately regards it possible for man, especially in the social dimension, to attain both prosperity and welfare in this world and eternal bliss in the hereafter.

p: 150

Christianity in their society, distortions entered Christianity and, in one way of another, elements of idol-worship were adopted and European society accepted such a form of Christianity. An example of distortions in Christianity is the Doctrine of Trinity and erecting of statues of Hadrat Maryam (Saint Mary) and angels in the churches. As a result, these churches are very similar to the idol-temples of the past.

Thus, Christianity in the Western world became a distorted form of Christianity which replaced polytheism. In reality, the government there was a worldly government devoid of spiritual values, though established in the name of Christianity, under the garb of divine rule for a heavenly and celestial mission. Under this guise with ‘celestial’ and ‘heavenly’ slogans, they committed such heinous crimes, that people feeling suffocated by these injustices and crimes, eventually returned to the life prior to Christianity.

The humanist thought, in truth, emanates from this return to man in place of God, this return to earth in lieu of heaven, and this return to worldly life in place of the otherworldly.

This is the kernel of humanism, which insists that we have to replace God with man. With the spread of the prevalent literature of the time, and through the efforts of the pioneering humanist writers such as Dante, the famous Italian poet and author, this trend gradually gained currency in all Western countries, and was propounded as a pivot with a wide array of dimensions and angles. Therefore, humanism is the mother of all other trends, which collectively constitute Western culture.

When we say “Western culture”, we do not only mean the west in the geographical sense, nor all the people living in the Western world, because there are those who have wholesome religious inclinations and other schools of thought. What we call “Western culture” is the culture of societies that stride toward non-divine values and atheism, for in some Eastern countries like Japan the same culture may also be dominant. So, we will focus on “westernized societies”.

secularism and liberalism. Naturally, when God is removed from the life of man, religion as a matter of course will have no role in the serious issues of life. Therefore, religion must be removed from the social scene and the realm of political and legal matters.

On the basis of this thought, even those who intend to formulate values in the name of religion, have to consider them only for their houses of worship and personal life. That is, in reality, these values belong only to the private and personal lives of individuals and not to their social lives. This separation of religion and politics is among the serious issues of social life and is called “secularism”. Following in its wake is the other product of Western culture called “liberalism”.

Once the axis of all values is man and no one else determines his destiny, it must be stated that man can do whatever he likes, and this is absolute freedom or liberalism. However, since there will be chaos if every person has absolute freedom in life so the need for law in society is accepted to prevent chaos due to extremism in following desires. After the establishment of order and the elimination of chaos, there will be no more need for law and every person will be able to do whatever he wants.

forms at all levels. Western culture dominates in some cases, while Islamic culture dominates in others. Western culture has unfortunately fostered a musty cultural atmosphere and the clear cultural atmosphere of pristine Islam cannot be seen in any part of the world.

In our opinion, the cultural space of the Islamic Republic of Iran can and must clearly exemplify the Islamic culture and remove the dust of alien cultures. Such a capability exists in this political system and since the people offered everything they had for the sake of Islam and the Islamic culture, the Islamic Revolution poses as the greatest threat against Western culture. The Research Department head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recently said, “The Islamic Republic of Iran is an ideological threat with an exceptionally strategic location.”

Obviously, what they are afraid of and regard as a serious threat for them is not economic in nature because their economy is stronger than ours. It is not a military threat either because they have a military power the like of which, quantitatively and qualitatively, does not exist in other countries. Instead, they are afraid of the intellectual, ideological and cultural potential of the Islamic Republic of Iran why they explicitly declare the Islamic Republic of Iran as a threat with unlimited and unique geographical advantages. As such, they leave no stone unturned in undermining this system, explicitly declaring that the wilayah al-faqih system cannot be penetrated unless wilayah, which is its axis, is toppled down.

reveal the truth, they will incur the curse of God, the angels and those who are entitled to curse:

﴿أُولَ-ئِکَ یَلعَنُهُمُ اللّهُ وَیَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ﴾

“They shall be cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers.”(1)

So, our main duty is to clarify the concepts and identify the boundary between Islam and kufr and those ideas which contain eclectic and synthetic elements. The same eclecticisms and syntheses between truth and falsehood led to the occurrence of tragic events such as the event of ‘Ashura, and prior to it, wars and conflicts between the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) and others. Basically, throughout history the same eclecticisms, syntheses and ambiguities have been the source of corruption in Muslim society until the time when a man from the lineage of Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) rose up and clarified so many Islamic concepts which people accepted and responded positively to his call and the glorious Islamic Revolution took place in Iran.

Obviously, as long as the zealous youth who sacrificed everything they had for the sake of Islam are present, they will never allow the ideals of Islam to be undermined. Thanks to Allah, our Muslim people have a considerably high level of political and social awareness, are true to their duty and know what to do. We have not come forward to determine for them their practical duty. Our only duty is clear the intellectual and ideological atmosphere.

We only want to throw light on the theoretical and practical foundations of Islam. We want to show what Islamic culture is and how different it is from Western atheistic culture. We want to tell the people that humanism, secularism and liberalism are the main elements of the culture of atheism and infidelity, and in contrast, God-centeredness, nobility of religion, wilayah al-faqih, and legal limitation of the action of man within the parameter of obedience to the One and Only God are the main elements of Islamic thought.

These two cultures are at odds with each other. The first culture invites man to absolute freedom including freedom from obedience to God while the second culture invites him to pure obedience to God. The first culture strives hard to remove God from the mind and life of man while the second, our culture endeavors to hoist the banner of monotheism and preserve the idea of unity in the life of man.

enjoyment. As long as enjoyments and utilization of power do not endanger the freedom of others, law has nothing to do with it. So, the philosophy of law is only protecting the freedom of others, providing the needs of people and allowing them to fulfill their desires.

This is the goal of law in the humanist and liberal thought of the West, according to which the scope of law is very limited, and the government interferes nominally in the lives of people because the principle is that they should be free to do whatever they like. As such, it would be correct to say that the preservation of freedom is above law.

According to Islam, however, law is meant to institute the correct path of human life and guide society toward material and spiritual evolution. Also, the Islamic ruler is he who tries to materialize these interests in society and prevents whatever threatens them. Thus, there is a wide difference between the duty of the Islamic ruler and that of the democratic and liberal ruler, because the latter has to pave the ground for the people to fulfill their wishes and desires. He has to prevent chaos and disorder only and he cannot impose any other restrictions. Those who say that freedom is above law, particularly people of knowledge, education and research who regard themselves as authorities, should be more careful and examine meticulously and precisely the subject at hand.

In essence, law determines a right for a person and a corresponding duty for others. The law is an instrument to restrict freedom. If every person is supposed to do whatever he or she likes, there will be no more need for law. Law comes to the fore whenever people have to dispense with some of their personal desires. If every person is supposed to do whatever he or she likes, what need do we have for law? So, the essence of law is that it determines a right for a person and its corresponding duty for others. Even if we have a law which proves a right for all people, it will still encompass a duty.

For example, if we have an international law which stipulates that every person has the right and freedom to reside wherever in the world he likes, its purpose is to prove a right for all people, but it is impossible to do so without determining a duty for others, because if everyone has the right to reside wherever he likes then the others have to respect that right and not disturb him. Thus, the law implicitly or explicitly contains dos and don’ts. Even in cases where it proves a right for everybody, its purpose is that the others are duty-bound to respect and observe this right.

Any law which stipulates that we have to do a certain thing implies that we should not act otherwise and this is an infringement of freedom and presentation of dos and don’ts. So, any law which says that no freedom should be limited contains a contradiction. Law is that which limits freedom. Therefore, freedom cannot be above law, unless we want to define a certain

p: 156

kind of freedom. In this case, we say that this freedom should be observed as a law that is above other laws.

However, if a law states that no restriction should be imposed on any freedom, it is void and inherently contradictory and no reasonable person will ever accept it. Since the function of law is to limit freedom absolute freedom is a contradiction. But if they mean legitimate freedom, our question is: What do you mean by “legitimate freedom”? Who should determine which freedom is legitimate and which not?

God-centered. Acceptance of these principles, apart from being contradictory and conflicting, is a form of shirk and once we reject God, it is kufr and atheism.

The West’s humanist culture is atheistic because Islam, kufr and atheism, fundamentally conflict with each other. This is the reason why the American statesmen are of the opinion that as long as the Islamic system is prevalent in Iran, they cannot afford to reconcile with Iran, because these two views are contradictory; these two political systems are irreconcilable.

So, the main question is this: What is the salient feature of ideal law in different thoughts?

Should law only establish order in society and fulfill individual demands and freedom as long as they do not infringe upon the freedom of others? Or, should law secure the real interests of people whether the majority of them agree or not? Of course, it will be implemented and executed once the people accept it, and if not, it shall only remain in paper. So, the people are in charge of the affairs but they should know the basis of the law’s legitimacy.

Is ideal law the one which is based on the will of people and fulfills their demands, or is it the one that guarantees the welfare of people? These two views are irreconcilable and to mix them together is tantamount to creating a misty cultural atmosphere so that those who intend to take advantage of it can catch fish in troubled waters. We have to clarify which is Islam and which kufr, so that everyone can choose whichever he or she likes:

﴿...فَمَن شَاء فَلْیُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاء فَلْیَکْفُرْ...﴾

“…Let anyone who wishes believe it, and let anyone who wishes disbelieve it...”(1)

متاع کفر و دین بی مشتری نیست گروهی این گروهی آن پسندند

The merchandise of kufr or religion is not without customer.

A group could choose this while another group could choose that.

In any case, the people have to know which merchandise belongs to religion or kufr so as to choose one of them. It is incumbent upon us to clarify these notions and to cleanse these dusts from the foggy cultural atmosphere so that the people can choose consciously. There are those who have created such an atmosphere and want to make democracy and freedom prevail in place of religion. We should be vigilant; we should be very careful in what we say and what we do.

p: 158

who staged this Revolution, have defended it up to the last drop of their blood and will do the same in future.

Thus, if democracy in the legislative dimension means giving precedence to the will of people even if the enacted laws were against the decree of God, such a democracy from the viewpoint of Islam and the Muslims is unacceptable. However, if democracy has another meaning such that while preserving the Islamic foundations, principles and values, the people could get involved in the legal and social issues of their society by electing their representatives and enact specific laws for certain circumstances of time and space. This is something which exists in our country. That is, the people elect their deputies in the Majlis.

The Majlis’ deputies engage in a debate and deliberate about a bill and afterwards ratify it. However, the ratified bills are credible provided that they are not against the laws of Islam.

In any case, for the people to elect their representatives to determine the variable laws according to specific circumstances of time and space is something existing in our country. The Imam endorsed the same process and our Constitution also approved it. If democracy in legislation refers to it, such a democracy exists and nobody opposes it.

against the welfare of man. In conclusion, the main pillar of the law’s credibility is that once the preservation of the interests of man is endangered, the right of Allah is also violated.

As such, such a law shall not be binding. It is on this basis that after the ratification of the bill by the people’s representatives, there is another filter, and that is, certain lawyers and fuqaha have to adapt a bill to the religious standards and check whether it is against the law of God or not. This is the function of the Council of Guardians.

If the credibility of law depends only on the people’s vote, what are the fuqaha of the Council of Guardians then supposed to do? The people have cast their vote. Their representatives have ratified and enacted the law they requested and the said law has become binding! In the Islamic Republic system, the first and foremost function of the Council of Guardians (and of course, they have other duties) is to check the conformity of the statutory laws of the Majlis with Islam; that is, what the people have voted for through their representatives.

One reason why you see the Westernized elements, and those who pour water into the enemy’s watermill, talk about the abolition of the Council of Guardians is that they want the absence of a filter that checks the conformity of laws with Islam. Today, I am making this statement for you to be informed—perhaps you cannot believe, and God willing, it will not happen—that the liberals and Westernized elements are trying to remove Islam and wilayah al-faqih from the Constitution. By His will, God will not give such a chance to the enemies of Islam and the Islamic system.

p: 161

p: 162

The question consequently is: Which type of rules possessing which qualities can guide human society toward prosperity in this world and the hereafter? In brief, it is said that some believe law should only ensure security and order in society and it has no other function. Others believe that in addition to order and security, law should also guarantee justice in society. Therefore, in defining law, different views are posed which were stated in brief. Along this line, some have said that laws should not be executed in society, believing that freedom is a manifestation of the natural rights of humankind and no law can deprive human beings of this natural right.

We have said that these views are being expressed by different figures with diverse motives, and I have no idea to which group the exponents of these issues belong, what motives they have and why they are raising these issues. As a student of Islam who is dealing with religious sciences for the past 50 years, I can only express views and talk about the philosophy of law or politics from the Islamic viewpoint. Maybe most people know that I do not belong to any political group, party, organization or faction.

I am dealing with subjects only because of my religious obligation. If some people want to bring about an unwholesome atmosphere, present wrong interpretations or sometimes distort issues, quote statements out of context and misconstrue and exploit them, we have no business with such people. Such individuals always exist in society and will exist in future, too. Of course, sometimes presentation of a view elicits both proponents and opponents which is but natural.

If you can remember, I have emphasized time and again that we sometimes use a term which has no specific and definite meaning. Everyone has his/her own understanding of it, and this leads to error and makes the listener fail to understand what the speaker means by it. In some cases, it ends up in a fallacy. There are times when a fallacy is unconsciously committed and there are also times when a person consciously commits a fallacy. Among such terms is “natural right” which is raised in this context. It is essential to know what “right” is and what is meant by its being “natural”.

they have arrived at certain conclusions which are apparently inconsistent with one another. As such, one of the notable fallacies known as “naturalistic fallacy” has emerged in the philosophy of law and ethics.

Some have also claimed that a human being has multiple natures; for example, the ‘white’ have a certain nature while the ‘black’ presumably have a different one. The black are assumed to be physically stronger while mentally weaker than the white. A similar view has been quoted from Aristotle. (One should not make a mistake about it. I personally do not accept these views; I am just quoting them.) He says that since the black are physically stronger, the only work they are supposed to do is physical labor!

Since the white are mentally stronger, administrative jobs of society must be entrusted to them. In sum, some human beings have been created to render services to other human beings. As such, slavery is a “natural law”. At the moment we prefer not to engage in the discussion of whether or not the nature of black and white has any such standing. It is itself a lengthy discussion for which we will need more time.

In any case, the most rational, sensible and wholesome subject on natural law ever been discussed throughout history is that if there were something called natural need of all human beings in general, then it must be met. Man must not be deprived of the general need of his nature. Up to this point, this subject is acceptable.

We also believe man must not be deprived of the natural needs of all human beings. in confirming this point, there are also rational arguments that presently we are not going to state them. Yet, the question is: What is meant by this need? All human beings are in need of food. Therefore, no man must be deprived of eating food. He must not be deprived of speaking; that is, his tongue must not be cut off, or let him take a medicine that would deprive him of speaking, or similar other acts. It must be noted that they have particular aims in churning out such logic.

choice of occupation,(1) freedom of choice of religion,(2) freedom of choice of spouse,(3) and others.

Concerning this declaration, there were discussions raised by legal experts who were familiar with the philosophy of law (Muslim legal experts in particular). Among questions raised were the following: What is the philosophical foundation of rights of human beings being regarded as absolute and believing that no one should limit them? What are the arguments in their favor? Is there a specific limit, or not? Are these rights absolutely above law, and is no law authorized to set a limit on these rights?

Is there any law permitted to determine the limit of freedom of expression? Is there any law permitted to impose a limit on freedom to choose one’s spouse? Is there any law allowed to state that you have no right to choose your residence beyond the established limit? Is there any law permitted to determine the specific limits of these rights?

When we say that such and such a subject is a natural right and natural need of man, does it mean that this right has no limits? If there is a limit, who is the one determining its limits. The truth of the matter is that as far as I know, most of the authors of the declaration themselves and those who have interpreted avoid giving succinct answers to these questions.

Finally, what is meant by saying that freedom is above law? Is there any freedom, which no law has ever been authorized to impose a limit on? Are we not supposed to ask, “What is the end point of this freedom”? Does freedom of expression mean that anybody can say whatever he wants to say?! We can observe that no country has ever granted such permission. In fact, every country is of the opinion that freedom of expression has limits. For example, insulting anyone is unacceptable in all parts of the globe.

[religious law] have the same root. However, mashru‘ [legitimate] in the legal and political context means qanuni [legal] and that which is regarded by the government as authoritative and valid [mu‘tabar], and not that it is definitely religiously permissible.

This subject should not confuse some of the believers, and mistakenly suppose that when we say legitimate rights or legitimate freedom, we mean those determined as such by Islamic law. Instead, what is meant by “legitimate” are the legal [qanuni], authoritative and valid [mu‘tabar] laws [huquq], while “illegitimate” [ghayr-e mashru‘] are laws that infringe on the rights of others.

But this question arises: Which are the legitimate and rational rights and which are the illegitimate and irrational ones? Who is supposed to determine them? The only reply is: The law determines the details and limits related to freedom, and it is exactly here that the initial contradictions and inconsistencies can be detected. On the one hand, they say these rights and freedom are above law and no law is supposed to limit them. But when we inquire as to whether freedom is absolute or limited, they say that it is not absolute and since they can not give a correct response, they say that what they are referring to is legitimate freedom.

When asked, “What is meant by ‘legitimate’?” They reply that “legitimate” is anything that the law has approved. It is this law that determines the limit of freedom. They forget they just said that freedom is above law. Confused, they assert that all human beings and rational individuals know what is meant by legitimate and rational freedom.

We say that if all people and rational individuals know a certain subject, dispute concerning it is inconsequential because we and all Muslims of the world who constitute a population of over a billion, are among the rational ones. And they say that in Islam some forms of freedom have been recognized, but some have not been recognized. In the end, keeping in view the knowledge and research that we have, this question has remained unanswered. The philosophers of law have no categorical answer as to what or who sets limits on freedom.

freedom of a person creates disturbance for others, he is deprived of such freedom. And it is at this point that freedom is limited.

At this juncture, many questions can be posed, among which are the following: Firstly, in which areas and categories do you conceive of disturbance on the freedom of others? Are these disturbances confined only to material affairs or spiritual affairs are also included? Is opposition to religious sanctity equivalent to opposition to their freedom, or not? Western liberal thought states: limitation of freedom does not include spiritual affairs, for opposition to spiritual affairs does not impose limits on freedom.

Thus, when it is said that Islam regards the one who insults God, the Prophet (s) and the sanctity of Islam as an apostate [murtad], and for instance, declares the killing of Salman Rushdie for acts of blasphemy against the sanctity of Islam, it does not accept this stance and states that one is free to express one’s opinion. He is an author and can write whatever he wants; you can also write whatever you like. Our question is: Are the subjects of this book (The Satanic Verses) not an insult to the sanctity of others’ religious feelings? Certainly, you cannot say that they are not an insult.

Is freedom of expression so broad that a person in that part of the world can afford insulting the religious sanctity of over a billion Muslims who love their Prophet (s) more than they love themselves and are ready to sacrifice hundreds of their loved ones for his sake? Do they consider this act as freedom of expression?! If what is meant by freedom of expression in the Human Rights Declaration is such a thing, then we straightforwardly and unhesitatingly do declare that we do not acknowledge this declaration.

must be free to observe the precepts of his chosen religion.

Now, we freely chose Islam; Islam states that anyone who insults the holy personages of Islam is sentenced to death. Western culture states that these decrees of Islam are against the natural rights of human beings, because every human being has the right to say whatever he likes. It is clear that these two items (freedom of expression and religious freedom) stipulated in the Human Rights Declaration contradict each other.

Let us return to the first issue: on what basis does anyone have the right to say whatever he or she likes? In your own countries why do you not permit anyone to say whatever he or she wants to say? If a person makes an insulting remark, you sue him in a court of law. If he says that it was an exercise of his freedom of expression and he can express whatever he likes, on what grounds should he not utter such things? So, it becomes obvious that the freedom of expression is not absolute and certain things must not be uttered.

All reasonable persons acknowledge that freedom is not absolute; otherwise, no society will remain for a law to govern and rights to be observed. Thus, no one accepts that freedom is absolute, but the question at this point is: what is its extent? Freedom of expression is mentioned as an example and you cannot claim that it is without restriction and neither has anyone claimed so. In practice, no state accepts that anyone may utter or write whatever he or she likes, be it an insult or calumny, misguiding others, or, against national security. Verbally, however, they say that it is debatable.

If the discourse is free, we will also engage in a dialogue. If permitted to ask a question, our questions will be: What is the basis of man’s freedom to say whatever he likes? If freedom is indeed absolute, why do you yourselves not accept it? Regarding insults, calumny and defamation, do you yourselves accept that there is absolute freedom? You accept that freedom is limited. Now, to what extent is it limited? So long as you like?

When you say that one should not infringe upon the freedom of others, our question is: What is the extent of the freedom of others? Do you regard the scope of freedom only to the extent that it does not harm the property, life and honor of others? Is harming their soul, spiritual life, ideals, and sanctity, forbidden or not? If these are forbidden, then we have no point of difference in this matter. We also say that the freedom of expression has limitations. One should not insult religious sanctity for this is a violation of the rights of others.

ensured. One of the blessings of social life is that man can benefit from God-given material blessings such as scientific, technological and technical know-how, as well as gnosis and spiritual aphorisms under the supervision of spiritual masters and teachers.

Acquisition of this knowledge and gnosis is possible only in social life. As such, law should guarantee human progress along material and spiritual lines, for merely establishing social order is not enough. For example, if two persons, without harming any one else or disturbing social order, agree to kill each other, are they doing a good thing?

If you can remember, sometime ago, in an American city, a group of people burned to death, and it was reported that these people were members of a religious sect who regard suicide during their rites as the way to perfection! Of course, there is room for question and doubt about this issue. There is a possibility that as this group was regarded antagonistic to the government, it was the American authorities who exterminated them all. Assuming that this group really committed suicide according to their religious conviction, was the act proper?

Can it be said that since it brought no harm to others and they agreed to commit suicide together there is nothing wrong with what they did? Should the government tolerate such a practice? Should law allow it? If the only criterion is the maintenance of order and security, then this order and security can be established through mass suicide!? And law has no other function.

According to the liberal perspective, the only function of the state is the establishment of order and law is only meant to prevent chaos and nothing else. The outcome of this mindset is what can be witnessed in Western countries such as moral, sexual, social, and other corruptions. This predicament is the result of their belief that the state has no right to interfere in the rights and lives of individuals. It has to establish order only.

The state maintains that only a policeman should carry arms inside high school campuses so that students do not kill their fellow students or their teachers. The establishment of order and security only demands that. Is this the only function of law? Or, does law perform other functions such as fostering an atmosphere that leads to the advancement and exaltation of man? Should it also prevent moral corruption?

We conclude that law should also take into account spiritual interests. All that harms spiritual interests such as honor, divine guidance, viceregency of Allah, and humanity, and material interests such as the wellbeing and security of people, should be forbidden. Is society not formed for the advancement of humane goals? Is it meant only for the attainment of mere animalistic objectives?! The law should guarantee both the material and spiritual interests.

As such, drug addiction or injecting anything poisonous is forbidden because it makes man sick, annihilates him and harms his material

p: 170

interests. Now, if a person becomes addicted to this stuff without showing animalistic acts and is apparently healthy but loses his senses and understanding, should he be permitted to do so? And if there be another evil practice leading to a loss of faith and spiritual sanity, should it not be forbidden? Does it not destroy the humanity of man? If certain people create an atmosphere in society that keeps the people away from religion, should they be free?

﴿وَصَدٌّ عَن سَبِیلِ اللّهِ وَکُفْرٌ بِهِ وَالْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ﴾

“But to keep [people] from Allah’s way, and to be unfaithful to Him, and [to keep people from] the Holy Mosque.”(1)

That which obstructs the path of spiritual evolution, advancement and acquaintance with the truth of religion and negatively portrays religion in the sight of the youth is forbidden because it is harmful for humanity at large. How comes that whatever is harmful for his physical aspect is forbidden but whatever is detrimental for his soul is allowed?! The (Western) world says, “Yes” but Islam says, “No”. We believe that law must consider spiritual interests as more noble and important than material interests. (We should bear in mind that what we are talking about is related to an academic discussion and may not necessarily have actual manifestations. Thus, it should not be misconstrued that in my opinion, the economy should be neglected.)

At this point, if man is killed, there is nothing wrong.

﴿قُلْ هَلْ تَرَبَّصُوْنَ بِنا الاّ اِحْدَی الْحُسْنَیَیْنِ﴾

“Say, ‘Do you await anything to befall us except one of the two excellences?’”(1)

What is wrong with a person being slain in the path of religion? He will go directly to heaven. But if he supposedly lives without religion for another hundred years, what does he get besides a daily increase in suffering? Thus, for Muslims, religious and spiritual interests are better than material interests. Therefore, Islamic law has to give priority to spiritual interests. Our discussion is based upon reasoning and we do not impose our reasoning upon anyone. One may accept it if he wants to or reject it. None of these arguments are based on anything but logic.

When they say to a person that since the people have approved a certain law, it is incumbent upon him to act upon it, he may possibly say that he has not voted for the representative (who was among those approving the law), or that he is not pleased with the law! But when the Imam said, “When the Islamic state gives an order, or if the Islamic Consultative Assembly ratifies something, one should obey it as a religious obligation,” you have to see which basis will work better. Do we have a more “modern” law, or do they? Freedom among all nations and all rational people is limited, but according to Islam, all people are free as long as they do not harm the material and spiritual interests of society.

p: 173

p: 174

stance and prevent intellectual, ideological and religious deviations. Some of our friends and well-wishers think that engaging in these discussions in these particular sociopolitical conditions is unnecessary, while others think that it is harmful, as it encourages differences in opinion and conviction.

They imagine that the more we strive for intellectual and ideological unity and avoid issues that lead to dispersion and separation is beneficial for society. Out of good intention, there are also some who say, “Instead of holding such discussions, engage in more positive activities in society, assume positions of authority and render services which are beneficial for society.”

Let me say to these colleagues most of whom are well-wishers and with good intentions: Our concern is the religious duty which God, the Exalted, has placed upon our shoulders. It is incumbent, first and foremost, upon the prophets and infallible Imams (‘a) and then upon the ‘ulama’.

It is a tortuous path full of dangers, not mere verbal opposition, but accompanied by abuse, calumny, foul language, and at times, exile, imprisonment, torture and libel, and sometimes, even assassination. These difficulties have been experienced throughout history by the prophets and infallible Imams (‘a). On our part, we have no choice but to tread this path even if our friends reproach and criticize us. As God, the Exalted, says:

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِینَ یَکْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَیِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَی مِن بَعْدِ مَا بَیَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِی الْکِتَابِ أُولَ-ئِکَ یَلعَنُهُمُ اللّهُ وَیَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ﴾

“Indeed those who conceal what We have sent down of manifest proofs and guidance, after We have clarified it in the Book for mankind—they shall be cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers.”(1)

Those who are aware of the truth of religion and conceal it on account of personal gains and group interests will incur the curse of God, the angels and holy saints [awliya’]. As mentioned in the noble hadith,

إِذَا ظَهَرَتِ الْبِدَعُ فِی أُمَّتِی فَلْیُظْهِرِ الْعَالِمُ عِلْمَهُ وَ إِلاَّ فعَلَیْهِ لَعْنَةُ اللهِ...

“When innovation in religion [bid‘ah] emerges in my ummah, it is incumbent upon the scholar [‘alim] to reveal his knowledge (of the religion) otherwise the curse of Allah shall be upon him…”(2)

Based on this, we have two options: Either we endure the reproaches and criticism of friends and the calumny of enemies, and in return, seek the pleasure of God, or prefer the praise of some people and thus, incur the curse of God. We prefer to endure slanders and not incur the curse of God. Thus,

p: 176

this crucial responsibility is placed upon our shoulders and for the likes of us, dealing with these matters is more urgent than anything else.

It is true that today we have problems along our borders, and, in future military dangers may arise. It is true that members of our consular staff and 35 drivers are held captive by the deviant and retrogressive Ṭaliban in Afghanistan, which has upset our nation and government and prompted public demonstrations, protests and been referred to international commissions.

In our opinion, however, the danger of the capture of 40 to 50 Iranians by enemies is not greater than the danger of the capture of thousands of our Muslim youth in universities by the agents of America. The bondage of our youth by the agents, functionaries and proponents of Western culture is far more dangerous than the capture of a number of Iranian citizens by a deviant group. It is true that they are experiencing difficulties and tribulations but they shall be rewarded by God.

When our dear youth, especially the children of martyrs and freed prisoners of war, however, are on the verge of intellectual and religious deviation and bondage, what could be more serious? Should no one feel a sense of responsibility in this regard?

(Some people may say, “You are thinking erroneously.” Well, if man is free to express his views, at least as a person who is engaged in religious and Islamic sciences for more than 50 years I also have the right to express my views.)

Our concern is their opposing our claim that Islamic and divine laws must govern society, and raising doubts already mentioned in previous discussions. They say that implementing the laws of Islam in society is discordant with the natural rights of man. One of the natural rights of man is freedom which is manifested in freedom of thought, expression, religion and political views.

By nature, every person has the right to choose whatever religion he or she likes, change his or her religion; express and promote any view and belief he or she has. If Islamic laws must govern this country, there will be some who do not want these laws. They all have the right to express their views, cast their vote and say that “We do not want these laws”. Those who totally reject religion to express such a view is not surprising, but unfortunate when the same is sometimes expressed by those who claim to be religious, and worse, even use an Islamic appellation for themselves, and introduce themselves as followers of the Imam!

principle, a man can have many wives while a woman cannot have many husbands. They also suggest that a communal wedding be held and a number of men share a single wife!

It is worth noting that these issues are not from periodicals of communist countries. Instead, such issues are presented in newspapers of the Islamic Republic! There is also someone who delivers a speech in an Islamic university, which he describes as an Islamic institution, in which he says, “Today, opposing a leader or the Prophet is nothing. Even if people want to demonstrate against God, no law has the right to prevent them!”

If these words are uttered in a non-Muslim country or by a person who is an infidel or a polytheist, it will not surprise. But in reality, these words have been uttered in the Islamic Republic, under the sovereignty of Islam and under the rule of wilayah al-faqih, in universities, and no one is confronting them. Sometimes, a student protests but it is of no avail. It is for this reason that I feel a sense of responsibility and I hereby declare that these utterances are dangerous innovations in religion and are repugnant to the foundation of Islam.

If there are people who want to make these utterances in their speeches, at least they should not do so in the name of Islam, so that the difference between Islam and kufr remains clear. This freedom of religion and freedom of expression is a fruit of Western culture which is deceitful and ostensibly pleasant but innately venomous. It might be appropriate for Western culture, but certainly not to this extent for our Islamic culture.

Religion in Western culture today, is a matter of taste, like inclination toward a political party. If for example, in a country a number of political parties are already functioning and the following day, another party is registered and announces its existence, transferring from one party to another, is not surprising. The same applies to religion in the West, especially in America, where every day a new religion or sect is founded. This is astonishing for us. More than a century ago, someone named “Bab” emerged saying, “I founded a new Islam and the Imam of the Time expected by the Shi‘ah has already appeared.”

This set everybody wondering how someone could claim that a new religion had emerged. (Of course, outside Iran particularly in America, this corrupt sect is publicized as “modern Islam”, where it is not surprising at all.) But every year, a number of religious sects are founded in Canada, America and European countries. For instance, the main Christian denominations are Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism. Protestantism alone has more than 500 sects officially registered in Western countries.

Last year, I visited some Latin American countries. I noticed that several new sects were founded whose preachers were busy propagating their respective sects. Such innovations are very common there. It is announced in

p: 178

a newspaper that a priest has founded a new religion or a new sect, and people easily transfer from one sect to another. This is what they called “freedom of religion”.

mocked! Should the concerned authorities not address these problems?

Should they not be reminded that such dangers pose threats to our young generation? Those who have neither heard the speeches of the Imam nor studied his lectures can be influenced by the questions raised in newspapers published in the Islamic Republic and think that the Islamic political system and the Islamic state also agree with these ideas and that the same are Islamic ideas! There should at least be a venue to announce that these ideas have nothing to do with Islam.

The notion that religion is a matter of taste and that man can choose whatever religion he likes and then change it once he no longer likes it, is dangerous. In Western countries, sometimes a teenager goes to the church with his friend who says, “I like so-and-so church more,” and thus changes his religion.

The said teenager will also be influenced and in following his friend, he will also change his religion. They think that religion is like a garment which a person can wear today and change tomorrow. Islam does not endorse the view. “Choose whichever you accept for the state guarantees this freedom as a natural right of the people.” Islam regards religion as the most important matter in the life of man and that felicity and perdition in this world and the hereafter depends on ‘choosing the right religion.’

So, the reason behind these discussions is the existence of such dangers which we can feel, discern and even witness sometimes, and by struggling against them discharge our duty.

everywhere in the world. Regarding religion, however, the Westerners say, “You can say whatever you like because religion is a personal matter of taste which is irrelevant to the serious concerns of life and at most, it is related to the relationship between man and God and this relationship assumes different forms. Choose whatever form of relationship with God you like.

This religion is a straight path; that religion is another straight path. Idol-worship is a straight path; Islam is also a straight path!” But what Islam states is something else; of course, we mean Islam which has been propagated by Hadhrat Muhammad (s) and not the “modern Islam” to be brought by Babs and Martin Luthers. We are referring to Islam which Hadhrat Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah (s) introduced.

Religion is not a garment to be worn today and be removed tomorrow. One must conduct research and accept the religion of truth.

In the domain of Islam, there is ample proof to establish its truthfulness and no one can say that the issue has been obscure for him and that he failed to identify the truth unless there were shortcomings in his research. If a person in a Micronesian island says, “I failed to grasp the truthfulness of Islam,” he might be excused. But living in the domain of Islam, in which for the past fourteen hundred years the greatest ‘ulama’ of Islam have written the most valuable and important books about Islam, if a person says, “I failed to identify the truth,” I don’t think that he can be excused.

In any case, the Islam we know states, “Just as you need to observe limits in eating and drinking, you need to do likewise in talking. You have no right to say whatever you like. You must follow the Islamic rules. Once you act beyond the Islamic rules, it is to the detriment of Islamic society. As you know, one of the prohibited acts mentioned in the treatises on practical laws of Islam [risalah al-‘amaliyyah] is to buy and sell deviant books. Islam does not grant the right to anyone, especially the one who does not possess the power to distinguish truth from falsehood, to go everywhere, listen to any talk or read any writing. As this noble verse explicitly states,

﴿وَإِذَا رَأَیْتَ الَّذِینَ یَخُوضُونَ فِی آیَاتِنَا فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّی یَخُوضُوا فِی حَدِیثٍ غَیْرِهِ...﴾

“When you see those who gossip impiously about Our signs, avoid them until they engage in some other discourse…”(1)

And regarding the faithful, the Qur’an forbids them to mingle and sit together with those who put religion into question:

﴿وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَیْکُمْ فِی الْکِتَابِ ان إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آیَاتِ اللّهِ یُکَفَرُ بِهَا وَیُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلاَ تَقْعُدُواْ مَعَهُمْ حَتَّی یَخُوضُواْ فِی حَدِیثٍ غَیْرِهِ إِنَّکُمْ إِذًا مِّثْلُهُمْ إِنَّ اللهَ جامِعُ المُنَافِقینَ وَ الْکَافِرینَ فی جَهَنَّمَ جَمِیعاً...﴾

“Certainly He has sent down to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s signs being disbelieved and derided, do not sit with them until they engage in some other discourse, or else you [too] will be like them. Surely Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers, all together, into hell…”(2)

Thus, those who talk about Islam but establish relationship with the enemies of Islam and promote their words are the same hypocrites [munafiqun] whose abode, together with the infidels [kafirun], is hellfire.

p: 182

Once again, I emphasize that Islam commands: “Go and search for the truth and argue with the enemies of Islam. With the truth that Islam teaches, you shall overcome them. However, as long as you have not acquired enough capability to defend your doctrines and values, you should not accompany and mingle with the misguided and wicked ones.”

It is like the advice given to an athlete to undergo training before participating in wrestling. A youngster who has not yet undergone enough training should not challenge a veteran wrestler as he shall surely be defeated and his backbone broken. This does not mean campaign against freedom. This is an admonition to a youngster to learn Islamic sciences and teachings and then argue with the enemies.

In any case, the Islam we know has limited freedom, and regards as untenable the argument that since talking is a natural necessity of man, talking must be free because man also has other instincts such as the sexual instinct; eating and drinking can also be considered as natural rights that should not be restricted. Just as the consumption of every food is unacceptable to a reasonable person, the same is true of talking. Being an innate necessity does not justify its unbridled use. Reason and religion should determine its limits based on the material and spiritual interests of society which have been specified and introduced by religion.

sometimes tend to be negligent and approve a bill which is against Islam. In keeping with the Constitution, the ratified bills of the Majlis are examined by the Council of Guardians—whether they are consistent with the Constitution and Islam, or not. The fuqaha of the Council of Guardians confirm the Islamic nature of the ratified bills while the lawyers of the Council confirm the consistency of these bills with the Constitution.

If our Constitution does not regard it necessary for all laws to be Islamic, then what is the raison d’être of the Council of Guardians? And for what purpose is all the emphasis on the sovereignty of Islam and the absolute guardianship of the jurist [wilayat-e mutlaq-ye faqih] stipulated in provisions of the Constitution? One should not be surprised if so-called lawyers say, “Since the Constitution stipulates that freedom must be observed, no religion or law has the right to limit that freedom!”

Does the Constitution clearly stipulate that freedom should be mashru‘, or not? It is you who say “azadiha-ye mashru‘” [legitimate freedom]. What do you mean by “legitimate freedom”? If mashru‘ is derived from shar‘ [religious law], then “legitimate freedom” means freedom which the religious law endorses. And if mashru‘ means “legal” [qanuni], then according to the Constitution, freedom which has been approved by the religious and canonical laws are “legitimate freedom”.

some ethnic tribes unfortunately still prohibit what God has made lawful and in the culture of our present society some lawful things are also still considered abominable. Had it not been for such an attitude in society, so many types of sexual corruption would have been prevented. The Commander of the Faithful (‘a) said:

لَوْ لا ما سَبَقَ مِنِ ابْنِ الخَطّابِ فِی الْمُتْعَةِ ما زنی اِلاّ شَقِیّ.ُ

“Had (‘Umar) ibn al-Khattab not prohibited fixed-time marriage [mut‘ah],(1) no one would ever commit adultery and fornication [zina] except a wretched person.”(2)

Regrettably, in our culture this thing made lawful by God, which is a key solution for many problems, is still considered abominable. Yes, if there are those who under the name of religion want to declare lawful that made unlawful by God, it is abominable. Apart from being abominable, it is also unlawful [haram] and it is a kind of religious innovation [bid‘ah]. The same is true for its opposite. Forbidding the lawful is also an innovation:

انَّ اللهَ یُحِبُّ اَنْ یُؤْخَذَ بِرُخِصِهِ کَما یُحِبُّ اَنْ یُؤْخَذَ بِعَزائِمِهِ

“Verily, God loves people to benefit from the permissible [mubahat] and lawful [halal-ha] things just as He loves them to perform the compulsories [wajibat] and shun the unlawful [muharramat] things.”(3)

Thus, under the name of religion, or under the name of tribalism or local, ethnic and clannish prejudices nobody has the right to declare unlawful what has been made lawful by God. In the same manner, setting limits on freedoms is unlawful and an innovation. But if what is meant by “freedom” is

p: 185

illegitimate freedom, no one should expect religion not to oppose it!

This is because freedom can either be legitimate or illegitimate. If legitimate, both religion and law declares it lawful and is not opposed to it, and there is no point in saying that religion or law has no right to deprive society of legitimate freedom. If a religion permits something, how can it prohibit what it has permitted?

This is contradictory in itself. But if a certain freedom is illegitimate and religion has prohibited it, it is meaningless to say that religion has no right to prohibit it. This is another form of contradiction.

purpose of the two articles. Once it is stated in the first article that sovereignty belongs to God and then it is stated that the people are masters of their own destiny, it means that under the aegis of God’s sovereignty, the people are masters of their own destiny.

Thus, those who are outside Islamic society and not among the people of this country have no right to impose their own ideas, preferences, religion, and law on us. America has no right to impose its law on us. It is the people of this country who are supposed to vote for their own desirable law and they have already voted in favor of Islamic law.

In his speech at Ahwaz University, a certain person has said: “Even if the people demonstrate against God, the law is not supposed to prevent them!” Is this what the sovereignty of the people means? Does the Constitution say so? If a certain person who is unfamiliar with the Constitution makes such utterances, it is understandable.

What is surprising is that a certain person who regards himself a legal expert makes such a claim! He may say, “We do not accept your interpretation of the Constitution.” In reply, it must be said that if there is an ambiguous point in the Constitution, its authorized interpreter is the Council of Guardians. If you accept this constitution, you will see that it does not give you the authority to interpret it. If you really believe in this law, you have to seek its interpretation from the Council of Guardians. It is this Council of Guardians which is the guardian of Islam and the Constitution and is composed of Muslim jurists whose function is to guard and protect Islamic laws. Once your view is approved, you have the right to trample Islam under your feet!

p: 187

p: 188

Apart from the fact that man should have a sound body and mind, he should also know the route and observe the rules. Driving rules can be divided into two: the first set of rules, which if not observed, will cause harm to the driver himself. For example, if he deviates from the highway, he might possibly fall into a canyon or fall from the bridge—harm himself and his vehicle.

In order to avoid those dangers, the second set are warning signs such as “Dangerous curve,” “Keep to the right,” “Drive slowly,” etc. so that the driver remains safe. Yet, violating the second set of traffic and driving rules will not only endanger the life of the driver but also the lives of others by causing accidents, which sometimes endanger the lives of hundreds of people.

In some expressways and highways, especially in countries where speeding is allowed, violations of rules are responsible for the hundreds of cars that hit one another, and as a result, endanger many lives, for example, in an accident in Germany 150 cars bumped into one another. Naturally, in such environments it will not suffice to warn and advice precaution; traffic lights and more powerful warning signs will be posted; surveillance cams, automatic cameras, and occasionally, policemen will be on duty in order to pursue, fine and punish the offending drivers.

Violation in the first case would lead to the deviation of the vehicle from the highway, its turning upside down and breaking the driver’s hands and feet. In this way, they will not fine the driver because he harmed only himself. But in the second case, the violations would endanger the lives of others, and, therefore, the police will pursue the violator and penalize him.

to be dealt with accordingly. These are similar to driving offences that cause accidents and endanger the lives of other people. It is on this account that the police pursues and penalizes the offender. It is here that legal laws, including penal and criminal laws, are brought up vis-à-vis moral laws. This domain deals with the field of those laws which are enacted by the legislature and whose execution is guaranteed by the government, thus, the basic difference between moral and legal rules is that in moral rules, nobody guarantees their execution, nor is their violator penalized. If someone is being pursued, it is not because of a violation of moral rules, but a violation of legal rules, for which the government is guarantor. “Privacy” is an individual’s legal right in the general sense; when it involves others it becomes penal and criminal.

Just as a driver must be careful about his life as well as that of the passengers and save them from danger, man is like a traveler who moves from a starting point facing many dangers along the way leading to the destination. These dangers are sometimes related to himself and have individual rules for which there are moral admonitions. Yet, wherever these become possible dangers for others, or somehow morally corrupt others, or encroach on their lives, properties and chastity, they fall under legal (in contrast to moral) laws, which the government has to execute.

All rational individuals in the world acknowledge that if a certain act of an individual poses a threat to others, there must be a law to curtail the freedom of the violator because that freedom is not legitimate and legal. The intellect does not accept this freedom as it poses a threat to other people. We do not know any ‘rational’ person who, out of knowledge and awareness, would say that man should be free in life to do whatever he likes no matter what harm it entails for himself as well as for the lives, properties and chastity of others.

Thus, wherever there must be a law, and society must accept that law, there is no dispute. The point of difference is this: Are moral rules sufficient, or are administrative laws also necessary? Are we in need of an external executive guarantor, i.e. the state or not? Could one rely only on the same moral admonitions? In reply to those who say that government is unnecessary, and people can be trained by means of moral instructions, we must admit that it is very idealistic a demand. The historical experience of mankind has proved that no society attains its goal only through moral admonitions and that systems only work by adhering to the laws administered by the state or government.

p: 191

man. This is the first basic point of departure and clash between divine culture and Western atheistic culture. (Of course, there is also an exception in the West as there are also divine and spiritual trends there. I mean the dominant trend, which today is called Western culture.)

The second pillar of Western culture is “secularism”. After the Westerners made man their focus, any person who wanted a religious inclination was like someone who wanted to be a poet or painter, and as such, he would not be confronted. Just as some accept a particular school of painting and sculpture, some want to be Muslims or Christians, and they are free to go along their way, for what man wants must be respected. Choosing a religion is like choosing a kind of literature, poem or art, and individual choice must be respected.

But these individuals must be aware that religion has no relation whatsoever with the basic issues of life and must not pose any obstacle to them. Just as poems and literature have their own particular status, religion also has its own. It will be respected, but this show of respect does not mean that religion becomes the nexus of politics, economics and international issues. So, religion is a marginal issue. If those who want to worship God go to the house of worship like a poet who recites a poem and supplicates to his God, it is no ones business.

The secularists are concerned with which law should rule over society; what kind of an economic and political system should be instituted. Religion should not be allowed to interfere in this domain. The locus of religion is the mosque, church and idol-temple. The serious issues of life are related to science, and religion must not play any role in the basic issues of life.

This trend and mindset in general is called secularism. That is, the segregation of religion and the issues of life, and so to speak, “thinking of this world” instead of “thinking of heaven,” which is inculcated in religion. Statements such as celestial angels descending on the Prophet (s) or, in the hereafter man will be admitted to the kingdom of heaven and the like, must be dismissed. As earthlings one must talk about food, clothing, art, dance, music, and similar things that are beneficial to life and have no relation with the domain of religion. Since, fundamental issues of man life, particularly economy, politics and law are related to the science and religion should not interfere in them. This is the second pillar of Western culture.

The third pillar is “liberalism”. That is, nobility depends on man. Man must be totally free. There must be no restrictions and limitations on the life of man, unless they are necessary. One must try to minimize the limitations as much as possible, and reduce the values. It is true that each person and each society has his or its own set of values, but they must not be treated as absolute. Everyone is free to be faithful to a set of individual and collective ceremonies and customs, but he must not allow a certain manner to be

p: 193

regarded as a social value and let it interfere in politics, economy and law.

Man is free to conduct any transaction he wants and to produce anything he wants. He can use any kind of labor in any manner, and he must be as free as possible in economic affairs. There must be no restriction in choosing profitable transactions whether it involves usury or not. The worker must be given as much work as possible, and the length of time of his work must not be fixed so that the capitalist can earn more profit and income.

Concerning the labor wage, they say that the lower the level, the better. Fairness, compassion and justice are essentially discordant with liberalism. The liberal man must think of advancing his economic interests. Of course, expediencies demand that sometimes law must be observed so as to avoid chaos and disorder. But the crux of the matter is that man must behave the way he likes. He is also free to choose his mode of dress, and, should he wish, go nude, as there is no problem with that. No one should restrain him.

Of course, sometimes particular social conditions impose restraint on individuals, such that if they want to be totally nude, the people revile and vilify them. This is a different story, otherwise no law is supposed to impose a limit on man on how he dresses, whether his attire is short or long, limited or not, and stripped or not. Based on liberalism, man must be free, and the relationship between man and woman must also be as free as possible.

Freedom must be checked to some extent only, in case extreme conditions that lead to chaos emerge in society. This is the ultimate point of freedom. Unless it reaches that limit, man and woman are free to have any kind of relationship whenever and however they please. The same applies to political issues. The principle is that no condition or circumstance must limit man, unless it is necessary. These three pillars of humanism, secularism and liberalism constitute the triple edifice of Western culture, which play a vital role in their lawmaking.

behave in such a way that we establish a link with Him. God cannot be set aside in life, or else man will forfeit his humanness. The essence of humanness lies on worship of God. Man is innately inclined toward Allah. Once we overlook this inclination, we remove man from his humanness. The main focus in the ideas, thoughts and values is only God, whose opposite is anthropocentrism.

The second conflict is secularism, opposing the supremacy of religion. The most important issue for a faithful person is the choice of religion. Prior to thinking about his daily bread, he has to investigate whether the religion he is professing is the truth or not, whether his religion is authentic or not. Is belief in One God correct or not? Is it better to remember God or to deny Him? Which is correct, belief in One God, the Trinity or many deities?

Thus, on the very day that man reaches the age of responsibility, he has to determine whether or not he believes in God, the revelation and the Day of Resurrection. Is the Qur’an the true word of God or not? Prior to choosing occupation, spouse and field of study, he has to choose his religion because religion is related to all aspects of life. Thus, the second pillar of divine culture is religion-centeredness, which opposes secularism because it marginalizes religion, and does not allow it to interfere in the main issues of life, nor consider it as essentially encompassing all facets of life.

Islam states that no subject is outside the ambit of religious values, the lawful and unlawful. Religion determines the lawfulness or unlawfulness of every thing. This is the opposite of secularism.

The third conflict is on liberalism; that is, the supremacy of freedom, capriciousness and a lack of restrictions. Liberalism means the preeminence of desire; if we translate it into Persian we say, isalat-e delkhah [the primacy of desire]. Opposing liberalism is the supremacy of rightfulness and justice.

Liberalism states that you have to act as you like, while the divine culture states that you have to act within the periphery of rightfulness and justice. One must not take a step beyond the sphere of rightfulness and act against justice; of course, the two (rightfulness and justice) are interrelated, for if we take rightfulness in its general sense, justice will also be included:

اَلْعَدَالَةُ إِعْطاءُ کُلِّ ذی حَقٍّ حَقَّهُ.

“Justice means to give to all the rightful owners (claimants) their rights.”

Hence, the concept of rightfulness is blended in the concept of justice, but to avoid misunderstanding, we mention the two concepts together.

Liberalism upholds the primacy of desire and its opposite is religion that advocates the supremacy of truth and justice. In other words, religion says

p: 195

that truth and falsehood exist and we have to identify which is truth and which is falsehood; which is justice and which injustice. Even though I want to commit injustice against others, I am not supposed to do so to anyone. The expediency of liberalism is that we respect truth and justice so long as going against them leads to a crisis; otherwise, everyone can do as he likes.

They say that compassion and fairness are concepts humanity has evolved while in a state of weakness. If you have the ability, you can do whatever you want to do unless you feel that this freedom (of action) will cause a social crisis and since its dire consequences will also affect you, it (freedom) must be restrained. Thus, the third principle in Islamic culture is the supremacy of truth and justice whose opposite is the primacy of desire.

Apart from these three pillars, there are also other elements in Western culture which lack either universality or authenticity. One of the most important of these elements is “moral positivism” which means that moral values are dependent on the desire and taste of people and have no innate reality. If today they accepted, approved and are pleased with a thing, it becomes a value. But if tomorrow they no longer want it and reject it, it will become a non-value. I have said many times that the members of our society, given their mental purity, cannot comprehend how polluted Western culture is.

For instance, in a society in which, not too long ago, it was one of the filthiest practices, today, homosexuality has become a moral value regarding which an attractive philosophy and tons of literature are presented, official associations are formed in which prominent figures of the country, such as ministers and lawyers are members! The demonstration in support of it is more crowded than any political demonstration. Why? It is because the preferences of people have changed. Before their preference was to live with individuals of their opposite sex but now their preference has changed and they want to live with individuals of the same sex. Marriage between two men or two women is officially registered in the mayor’s office!

This mindset is called “moral positivism” which maintains that moral values have no rational reality and are dependent on the demand, preference and choice of the people. The criterion is the people’s vote. Whatever the people say today is good becomes good, and tomorrow if they say it is bad, it will become bad. Apart from the desires of people, there is nothing real which serves as the criterion of values. This is only one of the many diseases infecting their society thanks to, the influence of these three main pillars, i.e. humanism, secularism and liberalism on their lawmaking process.

p: 196

that creates disorder and crisis in society, and, check any action that threatens the economic interests and security of the people. We have two options before us: We have to accept either Islamic law or Western law. Of course, in these two options there are intermixtures and intersections as stated earlier. The Commander of the Faithful (‘a) says:

یُؤْخَذُ مِنْ هذا ضِغْثُ وَ مِنْ هذا ضِغْثُ فَیُمْزَجَانِ

“Something is taken from here and something from there and the two are mixed!”(1)

Taking something from Islamic culture and something from Western culture constitutes the asymmetrical combination. Certainly, Islam does not accept such an approach, and in reproaching it the Qur’an states:

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِینَ یَکْفُرُونَ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَیُرِیدُونَ أَن یُفَرِّقُوا بَیْنَ اللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَیَقُولُونَ نُؤْمِنُ بِبَعْضٍ وَنَکْفُرُ بِبَعْضٍ وَیُرِیدُونَ أَن یَتَّخِذُوا بَیْنَ ذَلِکَ سَبِیلاً ٭ أُوْلَ-ئِکَ هُمُ الْکَافِرُونَ حَقًّا…﴾

“Those who disbelieve in Allah and His apostles and seek to separate Allah from His apostles, and say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in some’ and seek to take a way in between—it is they who are truly faithless.”(2)

Today also, there are those who want to mix some elements of Islam with some elements of Western culture, and present it to society as “modern Islam”. These individuals do not believe in Islam. He who believes in Islam, knows that Islam is a totality whose demands he must necessarily accept. I cannot claim that I do accept Islam, but I do not accept some of its demands. Therefore, our affair in legislation and in setting limits on freedom is situated between the two, one of which we have to choose.

We have to regard either the material and worldly threats, or both the material and spiritual threats as the criterion in setting limits to freedom. If we accepted the first we would accept atheistic Western culture, but if we accepted the second, would we accept the divine Islamic culture. The farther we are from the first, the nearer we come to Islam.

When only the material interests are considered, a small circle of limitations is set around the freedom of man; however, when we add the spiritual values, another circle is added to the first circle, and two circles emerge. As a result, the circle of limitations becomes wider than the circle of freedom. We cannot be like the Westerners who are unrestrained and unfettered. We have to observe the set of other values related to the spirit, true humanity and

p: 198

eternal life of man. But Western culture says that these values are not related to social laws.

Government and state laws revolve only around the axis of material affairs of society and their opposite are related to ethics, which have nothing to do with the state. Once it is said that the sanctity of religion is in danger the government official says, “It does not concern me; my duty is to protect the material interests of people. Religion is related to the seminaries and the akhunds;(1) they themselves have to go to protect it (religious sanctity). The government has nothing to do with these issues.” But if the government is an Islamic one, it says: “Religion first, then the world”.

Therefore, we need to be very careful while dealing with these two cultures. We should know that whenever we go against religious values and feel internal weakness, the reason is that we have moved closer to the atheistic culture and forgotten the truth of Islam. This Revolution was not only for fulfilling material values, but, essentially, it was for reviving Islam. All these martyrs who offered their lives and blood were meant to keep Islam alive and not merely guarantee material welfare and sociopolitical development.

These martyrs gave their lives for the advancement of the Islamic culture. Islam and Islamic values must be at the top of the agenda of the Islamic state. If some individuals incorrectly interpret certain words and quote them out of context, and distort the truth for various motives, we have no business with them. We want the dear Muslims to be aware of the scope of religion, the importance of religious values, and the sacrifices needed in preserving them. Our people are aware of the issues but the duty of a religious scholar is that whenever he feels that a spiritual ailment wants to permeate society, he has to set the alarm signal to warn his fellowmen.

p: 199

p: 200

thematic principles which must be proven earlier in another discussion. Once we assert that the law must be divine, the existence of God must be proved earlier.

Thus, if a person says that he does not accept the existence of God, we have to engage in a scholastic theological [kalami] discussion with him in order to prove the existence of God the One and Only and His right of Lordship [rububiyyah], and thus, prove the necessity of linking the government to God.

Therefore, if we want to begin with the preliminary principles, the discussions will become repetitive and wearisome. As such, we have to raise the closest acceptable principles and leave remote subjects to their relevant fields of science. This means that once we commence solving the 10th principle in a geometrical case, we can prove all the previous cases, having proved them beforehand and on their basis arrive at the next conclusions. I have mentioned this point because some people can be heard saying, “You are dealing with these subjects on the basis of your own criteria which are unacceptable to others.” Thus, it is necessary that our addressee agree with us on certain principles and cases so that based upon those principles and cases other cases can be proved. If he or she does not accept the preliminary principles, we have to return to the basic and prove those preliminary points in a different field of science.

Some have complained that we have based Western culture on humanism and liberalism and presented it as an atheistic culture whereas there are people in Western countries who also believe in God. I have stated time and again that those who say “Western culture” do not refer to the geographical west. It does not mean that all those who live in the West think like that. Of course, there are also religious individuals there who believe in God and are attached to moral values and we respect them.

But what is actually prevalent in Western societies is based upon these principles. Some consciously reject that culture. Similarly, it was stated in the previous discussions that the eclectics are those who gather ideas from different schools of thought and mix them together without proving beforehand the rational foundation of each of them, and at times, these ideas are inconsistent and incongruent with one another. As a whole, it is necessary to point out that if a person pays attention to the totality of our subjects, he or she will never encounter such problems.

In any case, we shall engage in argumentation in order to prove that the political system endorsed by Islam is the most rational and judicious system. Here, we naturally assume the principle of the existence of God and His Attributes to be axiomatic, and base our argument on this principle. Those who reject the existence of God and do not believe in some of His Attributes have to refer to scholastic theology [‘ilm al-kalam] because our present

p: 202

discussion is not scholastic.

It is related to political philosophy and, therefore, we cannot engage in scholastic discussions here.

me to perversity, I will surely glamorize [evil] for them on earth, and I will surely pervert them.”(1)

Thus, Satan also believes in monotheism in creation and the cosmic Lordship of God as well as in the Resurrection. What needs to be examined is the factor that led to his kufr. In order to recognize the source of Satan’s kufr, it is necessary to identify the foundation of monotheism in Islam. According to Islam, to be recognized as a monotheist [muwahhid] is belief in the Oneness of the Creator, Oneness of the cosmic and legislative Lord and Oneness of the Worshipped Being.

That is, man has to regard the Creator as One and Only, as well as, the Sole Authority and Agent in the universe, and, the Original Legislator. In addition, he has to believe in monotheism in divinity [uluhiyyah] and servitude [‘ubudiyyah] and to recognize God as the only Being worthy of being worshipped. In view of the foundation of ‘tawhid’, it becomes clear that the source of Satan’s ‘kufr’ was denial of the legislative Lordship and not denial of the cosmic Lordship.

Also, God, the Exalted, commands His Messenger (s) to invite the People of the Book [ahl al-kitab] during the dialogue with them to the common platform of belief in the Unity of God and worship of His Unique Essence. Then, God makes a statement to dissuade them from believing in the legislative lordship of other-than-God and save them from becoming infidels:

﴿قُلْ یَا أَهْلَ الْکِتَابِ تَعَالَوْاْ إِلَی کَلَمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَیْنَنَا وَبَیْنَکُمْ أَلاَّ نَعْبُدَ إِلاَّ اللّهَ وَلاَ نُشْرِکَ بِهِ شَیئاً وَلاَ یَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضاً أَرْبَاباً مِن دُونِ اللّهِ...﴾

“Say, ‘O People of the Book! Come to a word common between us and you: that we will worship no one but Allah, and that we will not ascribe any partner to Him, and that we will not take each other as lords besides Allah’...”(2)

The meaning of some traditions in commentary of the above verse is that the People of the Book do not regard human beings like them as their creators. Instead, they recognize their priests and clerics as their legislative lords and consider their decrees as equal to that of God. The Qur’an describes unconditional and unwavering obedience to the priests and clerics as equivalent to taking them as lords: “And that we will not take each other as lords besides Allah.”

That is, do not make unconditional and unwavering obedience to your leaders for this is a form of polytheism. But this form of polytheism is not polytheism in the creative power and cosmic Lordship. It is not polytheism in divinity and servitude either because they do not worship

p: 204

their priests and clerics per se. It is rather polytheism in the legislative Lordship. That is, apart from God, they also believe in the existence of other legislators. They say that other beings including us have the right to enact law; and not only is the law of God binding, that one should obey whatever He commands.

For example, when Iblis denied the legislative Lordship of God, he said: “I am better than him”. That is, “I am not supposed to bow down to Adam.” Although God commanded him to bow down to Adam, he said: “I will not bow down to Adam because I am better than him.” That is to say that Satan did not comply with this decree and command of God. In other words, he did not regard the right of sovereignty as exclusive to God.

This was the same source of Iblis’ kufr for, as we have said, he was not a denier of God’s Lordship and the Day of Resurrection. The source of Iblis’ kufr was the denial of God’s absolute sovereignty. That form of kufr which Islam ascribes to some of the People of the Book—calling upon them to relinquish it and return to tawhid—is legislative polytheism. As the Qur’an says,

﴿اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِن دُونِ اللّهِ وَالْمَسِیحَ ابْنَ مَرْیَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلاَّ لِیَعْبُدُوا إِلَ-هًا وَاحِدًا...﴾

“They have taken their scribes and their monks as lords besides Allah, also Christ, Mary’s son; though they were commanded to worship only the One God…”(1)

Never did they bow down on earth in front of their leaders, or prostrate and worship them. Their taking of their scribes and monks as lords means unconditional, unwavering and blind obedience to them, and in reality, it means not considering legislation as solely belonging to God.

cannot be realized.

A person may ostensibly recite the testimony to God and Prophet Muhammad (s) [shahadatayn] and even be considered ritually pure [tahir], but this is apparent purity. Its only impact is that he shall be included among the Muslims in this world.

If ever in the treatise on the practical laws of Islam [risalah al-‘amaliyyah] it is written that he who recites the shahadatayn is a Muslim, ritually pure, permissible to marry, and whose slaughtered animal is halal, it does not mean that anyone who recites the shahadatayn shall definitely be admitted to paradise and be saved from the chastisement of hellfire. He also has to accept the obligatory things in religion and be bound to them; otherwise, recital of the shahadatayn is not the end of the story. Is he who denies the Resurrection a Muslim? Or, is he who rejects prayer and zakat a Muslim?

So, recital of the shahadatayn is only a symbol and indication that he believes in “what Allah has revealed” and is apparently considered as a Muslim. But if he has no faith in God in his heart, denies the Resurrection, or does not heartily accept the essentials of Islam, he is actually an infidel no matter how ostensible a Muslim he might be. As such, outward Islam is one thing while real faith which saves one from the chastisement in the hereafter is another. When it is said that one of the criteria of tawhid is monotheism in the legislative Lordship, it refers to the source of one’s otherworldly bliss and protection from eternal damnation; otherwise, to establish outward laws, recital of the shahadatayn is enough.

As such, one should not say to himself, “This is halal and that is haram” for halal and haram do not depend on your opinion and preference. This is a form of polytheism. You have to see what God has said. In another place, the Qur’an thus states:

﴿قُلْ ءَاَللّهُ أَذِنَ لَکُمْ أَمْ عَلَی اللّهِ تَفْتَرُونَ﴾

“Say, ‘Did Allah give you the sanction [to do so], or do you fabricate a lie against Allah?’”(1)

Yes, God gave the Prophet (s) authority to legislate and to bid and forbid the people, saying: “Obey Allah and obey the Apostle”(2) and “Whoever obeys the Apostle certainly obeys Allah.”(3)

Of course, the Messenger of Allah (s) would not act according to his own desire. Rather, his action was based on divine inspiration and revelation. At times when a verse would not be revealed to him, he used to receive divine inspiration [ilham] and non-Qur’anic revelation [wahy] by the legislative will of God:

﴿وَمَا یَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَی ٭ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْیٌ یُوحَی﴾

“He does not speak out of [his own] desire: it is just a revelation that is revealed [to him].”(4)

Therefore, if a person is authorized by God to enact laws, any law he enacts becomes respected and binding. The Shi‘ah believe that such an authority granted to the Holy Prophet (s) is also granted to the infallible Imams (‘a). Of course, in scholastic theology [‘ilm al-kalam] clear proofs substantiating this claim have been presented. One of these proofs is the tradition about the two weighty things [hadith ath-thaqalayn] in which the pure Imams (‘a) are treated as partners [‘idl] of the Qur’an:

إنِّی تَارِکٌ فِیکُمُ الثَّقَلَیْنِ: کِتَابَ اللهِ وَعِتْرَتِی أهْلَ بَیْتِی، مَا إنْ تَمَسَّکْتُمْ بِهِمَا لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدِی أبَداً .

“Verily, I am leaving among you two weighty things [thaqalayn]: The Book of Allah and my progeny [‘itrati], the members of my Household [Ahl al-Bayt]. If you hold fast to them, you shall never go astray.”

Here we are not in pursuit of presenting and proving the Shi‘ah doctrines but to point out that those who believe in this principle acceptable to the Shi‘ah

p: 207

regard the infallible Imams (‘a) besides the Holy Prophet (s) to also have such authority. On the contrary, there are also those who say that only the Messenger of Allah (s) was infallible and incumbent upon us to follow. But this difference in opinion does not make such a difference as far as our subject is concerned.

Assuming that we were living at the time of the Holy Prophet (s) who appointed a governor of a city and asked us to obey the governor, was it obligatory to obey the governor under the aegis of obedience to the Holy Prophet (s), or not? Was obedience to him inconsistent with obedience to the Prophet (s) and God and the sovereignty of Allah? The answer is negative because that person was the representative and envoy of a prophet who in turn had been designated by God. Our belief is that the infallible Imams (‘a) also have the same prerogative.

For the present time, they have also designated individuals on the basis of quality and not personality, and the one who is closest to the Infallibles (‘a) and the most righteous is appointed by them to rule. Now, sometimes this belief can be proved through the Maqbulah(1) of ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah,(2) Marfu‘ah(3) of Abu Khadijah(4) and other traditions, and at times through rational proofs. Through various statements fuqaha have engaged in proving it.

Thus, the essence of the theory is that just as the Holy Prophet (s) during his lifetime appointed a person to rule and govern a region of the Islamic land and obedience to him was incumbent upon the people of the region, or just

p: 208

as the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) during his caliphate appointed individuals as governors and rulers of Islamic territories such as Bahrain, Ahwaz, Egypt, and others and obedience to them was obligatory, during this period of occultation [ghaybah] those who are like Malik al-Ashtar in political acumen and knowledge of jurisprudence and have the competence, merit and capability to lead and administer the Islamic society are designated to take charge of the government according to the principle of wilayah al-faqih and obedience to them is incumbent upon us.

This is not in conflict with the legislative Lordship of God. In fact, their sovereignty is under the auspices of Divine Lordship. Since God has commanded His Prophet (s), and the Prophet (s) in turn, appointed them as governors, or since the infallible Imam (‘a) designated his specific or general deputies, it is incumbent upon us to obey them. In other words, obedience to the governor is obedience to the Prophet (s) and God. On the contrary, opposition to him is tantamount to opposition to the Prophet (s) and opposition to the Prophet (s), in turn, is tantamount to opposition to God.

In the same vein, obedience to the wali al-faqih is obedience to the infallible Imam (‘a) and the Prophet (s), and thus, to God, and disobedience to him is disobedience to the infallible Imam (‘a) and the Prophet (s), and thus, to God. This point has been categorically stated in the Maqbulah of ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah when Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) says:

یَنْظُرُ إِلی مَنْ کَانَ مِنْکُمْ قَدْ رَوی حَدِیثُنَا وَ نَظَرَ فی حَلاَلِنَا وَ حَرَامِنَا وَ عَرَفَ أَحْکَامَنَا فَلْیَرْضُوا بِهِ حَکَمًا فَإِنّی قَدْ جَعَلْتُهُ عَلَیْکُمْ حَاکِمًا. فَإِذَا حَکَمَ بِحُکْمِنَا فَلَمْ یَقْبَلْهُ مِنْهُ فَإِنَّمَا إِسْتَخَفَّ بِحُکْمِ اللهِ وَ عَلَیْنَا رَدَّ وَ الرَّادُّ عَلَیْنَا الرَّادُّ عَلی اللهِ وَ هُوَ عَلی حَدِّ الشِّرْکِ بِاللهِ.

“They must seek out one of you who narrates our traditions, who is versed in what is permissible and what is forbidden, who is well acquainted with our laws and ordinances, and accept him as judge and arbiter, for I appoint him as judge over you. So, anyone who rejects his judgment is as if he belittles the judgment of Allah and rejects us, and anyone who rejects us is as if he rejects Allah, and rejection of Him is tantamount to associating partners with Him.”(1)

The Imam (‘a) said that it “is tantamount to associating partners with Him” because polytheism is the opposite of monotheism, and one of the pillars of monotheism is belief in the legislative Lordship. Now, if we accept the sovereignty of God, and under His auspices, the sovereignty of the Prophet (s) and the Imam (‘a) and those who are designated by God through the Imam (‘a), it follows that we have accepted monotheism in the legislative

p: 209

Lordship.

And if we reject it, it means that we are committing polytheism in the legislative Lordship. Thus, “rejection of them” means that if a person rejects the fuqaha designated to rule over the people it is as if he has rejected the Imams (‘a). That is, if a person says, “I do not recognize wilayah al-faqih,” he is saying, “I do not recognize the infallible Imam” and if a person does not accept the Imam (‘a), he has in a sense associated partners with God because he has rejected an aspect of His legislative Lordship. Of course, this is spiritual and esoteric polytheism and it does not render a person ritually impure [najis].

As such, it is established that if a person accepts that sovereignty intrinsically belongs to God alone, he has to accept also that at a lower level, it also belongs to the Messenger of Allah (s). It is under the auspices of God’s sovereignty that the sovereignty of the Messenger of Allah (s) and that of the Imams (‘a) and their deputies are realized and acquire legitimacy. If we uphold the legitimacy of rule in a different way, we have actually upheld a form of polytheism in sovereignty.

Therefore, the rational reason why the Islamic system must be based on divine laws and under a ruler designated by God is the legislative Lordship of God. If we try to properly understand tawhid, we will arrive at the same conclusion, and if certain people reject this conclusion, their faith is essentially weak and their [state of belief in] tawhid is impure and tainted with shirk.

One may ask, “Why must laws of society be divine”? If certain people do not believe in God and His law and enact and implement laws by themselves, will the society not be reformed? If so, how have certain societies in the world reached a certain stage of life without acting upon God’s law? This is a skepticism raised by many “intellectuals” who ask, “Why should law be promulgated by God?” They are of the opinion that by using their intellect people can make laws and act upon them, without arising any problem.

dimensions and aspects, all interconnected. So, if there is a defect in one dimension, it will naturally affect the others. God who has created man and ordained social life for him has endowed his natural disposition [fitrah] with elements which naturally and innately draw him toward the establishment of social life. Therefore, God has a purpose in the creation of man which is to attain human perfection under the aegis of social life, and advance all dimensions of his existence which are at the service of the spiritual and religious dimension toward perfection, and finally, achieve the ideal:

﴿وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِیَعْبُدُونِ﴾

“I did not create the jinn and humans except that they may worship Me.”(1)

What is said must take place under the auspices of worship [‘ibadah] which is inextricably interwoven with tawhid and rububiyyah; otherwise, human perfection will not materialize. Of course, through another way, outward order may also be established in society which is worthy of reflection; for example, the “order” which exists today in countries whose symbol is America. It can be observed that in all high schools in the model of “civilized” countries in the world armed policemen must be stationed. Notwithstanding the presence of armed units, killing and crimes take place daily in these high schools. This is the order established by mankind. The same is true in cases of other corruption and crimes.

Even assuming that without acting upon divine laws and paying attention to the spiritual dimension of man, outward civil order can still be established in society, yet the ultimate purpose of his life can not be ensured. Is the life of man that of a termite? Or, is human society similar to bees which can be established through an outward order? All these systems, security measures, advancement, growth, science, industry, and technology are means to evolve the human soul and get closer to God. Who can grasp this relationship?

Who can identify which type of food or manner of living will contribute toward achieving proximity to God? Who ascertains whether eating pork and drinking wine will contribute toward the achievement of happiness? Notwithstanding their progress in the science of medicine, medical scientists of the world conclude that excessive consumption of alcohol may be harmful for the brain cells, but they do not know whether it affects the eternal bliss of man because they have no experience in this regard being beyond empirical observation.

Man’s life must be codified in such a manner that all dimensions are taken into account and the focus is not only on his physical health and wellbeing

p: 211

and political-economic condition. The interrelationship of all dimensions must take place in a cohesive and harmonious system. No one except God the Creator, with his all-embracing knowledge can establish a relationship between these dimensions and guide them toward ultimate perfection. This is the reason why it is God who must enact the law. Furthermore, which legislator will set his personal interests aside at the moment of legislation? It is clear that any group that gains power tries to enact and implement laws which serve its interests. For instance, in Muslim countries, as soon as an administration assumes office, it enacts new rules and regulations which are mostly in favor of the ruling party. It makes no difference whether it is leftist or rightist. This is human nature, and by the way, most human beings are fallible.

Only God is immune from individual or group favoritism and His interest is not served in any way. The laws of God are neither favorable nor unfavorable to Him. His only concern is what is good or bad for human beings. Thus, on one hand, His knowledge is boundless, and on the other hand, He has no personal interest in enacting laws. Moreover, He has the right of Lordship over His creatures. If man wants to attain perfection, he has to observe the right of Divine Lordship. This is another subject that requires explanation which is not possible in this limited time.

Human beings have rights over one another and they know of latitudinal rights [huquq al-‘Ardht] like the right of the farmer over the worker and vice versa, or the right of the ruler over the people and vice versa. The people know these rights, yet do they know the right of God over the people and the manner of granting it? The hallmark of the Islamic outlook is that above all rights is the right of Allah [haqq Allah].

Therefore, it must first be granted so that the rights of people can be given under the aegis of God’s right. Can the rights of men be considered in statutory laws without taking the right of God into account? It is certainly unjust if not cruel, to deny the rights of God! With this ingratitude, can one attain human perfection?

Which ingratitude is greater than ingratitude to God which the Qur’an points out:

“Polytheism is indeed a great injustice”?(1)

The greatest of injustices is injustice toward Divine Lordship. As such, if we do not take into account the right of God, we will commit a great injustice. How then will we be just to others? How can a person be just who is unjust to his Creator? As we have said, one of the forms of shirk is the belief in other than God’s having the right of legislation.

p: 212

Since God is perfectly aware of our interests, gains no benefit in legislation and has the right of legislative Lordship over man, the law of God must be observed, and rules obeyed which have been introduced by those who are designated by God as far as they are authorized, so that man is not guilty of what the following verse describes:

﴿قُلْ أَرَأَیْتُم مََا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ لَکُم مِّن رِزْقٍ فَجَعَلْتُم مِنْهُ حَرَامًا وَحَلاَلاً قُلْ ءَاَللّهُ أَذِنَ لَکُمْ أَمْ عَلَی اللّهِ تَفْتَرُونَ﴾

“Say, ‘Have you regarded what Allah has sent down for you of [His] provision, whereupon you made some of it unlawful and [some] lawful?’ Say, ‘Did Allah give you the sanction [to do so], or do you fabricate a lie against Allah?’”(1)

And in another verse, it is stated:

﴿وَلاَ تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُکُمُ الْکَذِبَ هَ-ذَا حَلاَلٌ وَهَ-ذَا حَرَامٌ لِتَفْتَرُوا عَلَی اللّهِ الْکَذِبَ إِنَّ الَّذِینَ یَفْتَرُونَ عَلَی اللّهِ الْکَذِبَ لاَ یُفْلِحُونَ﴾

“Do not say, asserting falsely with your tongues, ‘This is lawful, and this is unlawful,’ to fabricate lies against Allah. Indeed those who fabricate lies against Allah will not be felicitous.”(2)

Therefore, in order to observe the right of legislative Lordship of God, one should first refer to the law of God and then examine whom He has granted the authority to enact laws or whom He has granted the authority to implement them. The reason for this is that if the implementation of those laws is beyond His command, exercise of authority [tasarruf] over the servants of God without the permission of their Master will again take place.

In the divine perspective, exercise of authority even on oneself is not permissible if it is against the pleasure of God, let alone exercise of authority over others. As such, man has no right to commit suicide. In Western liberalism, it may possibly be said that since man owns himself, he has the right to commit suicide if he wants to, but in the divine system it is not so. Man has no ownership of himself as he belongs to God. Thus, he has no right to commit suicide because God has not permitted him to do so. The authority over the life and soul of man is with Him and with none else. Hence, how can one who has no right to kill himself, grant permission to others to kill him?

None has the right to amputate his hands or blind his eyes because the Owner of these body limbs is God who has not given him that permission. How can a person give authority to another to amputate the hand of a thief or

p: 213

imprison a person? No one has such a right because others are also servants of God and without the permission of God, one cannot exercise authority over them.

Thus, in legislation as well as in the implementation of laws, the permission of God is binding. In a nutshell, the Islamic political theory in this regard stands on the proposition that God’s legislative Lordship is a pillar of tawhid and he who does not observe this pillar commits kufr similar to that which is committed by Iblis.

p: 214

others are not supposed to transgress this right, and this is a prohibition which is embedded in law.

Thus, the legislator must have the right to bid and forbid others and this right essentially belongs to God. The first condition is that the legislator must have the most knowledge and awareness of the interests of men and the highest form of such a condition is present in God because He is the most knowledgeable of what is good for His servants. Also, the second condition is that the legislator should not consider the individual interests as more important than the social interests and the highest form of such a condition is present in God because He acquires no benefit from the actions of His servants.

For all people to be faithful does not benefit Him whatsoever. Also, for all people to become infidels does not harm Him whatsoever. Observing or violating laws does not affect Him at all. Meanwhile, the third condition is something which none except God intrinsically possesses, which is the right over others to bid and forbid. What right do some people have to rule over others? All are equal before God and it is He who is the Owner of all human beings. The entire human race solely belongs to Him and it is only He who has the right over people to bid and forbid.

In other words, human beings should recognize God’s Lordship and give His right of Lordship. Thus, Lordship manifests itself in two senses: one in the ontological sense; that is, man has to regard the management of the universe as intrinsically belonging to God. He should believe that God has set innate laws in the universe. The sun and moon move by His leave and command, and the transformations in the universe take place according to His will. Thus, He is the cosmic Lord and Cherisher of the universe, Master of the Command, and the Regulator and Maintainer of the universe. Similarly, he has to believe that God also has the legislative Lordship. During the previous session we discussed the point that legislative Lordship belongs to God and monotheism in the legislative Lordship requires that man should acquire ranks from God alone, obtain the law from Him, while the implementer implements it in society by God’s permission.

Without the existence of these rules, there would be so many accidents in the world endangering the lives and assets of people.

On the one hand, society is in need of such laws, and on the other hand, God has not enacted these relevant laws. Any driving and traffic rule is present neither in the Qur’an nor in the words of the Prophet (s) and the Imams (‘a). So, how can all laws be divine and godly and enacted by God? If common laws enacted by human legislators are also binding, it follows that we have two sources of legislative authority; one is God and the other, the people—which according to you is tantamount to polytheism in religious legislation. This skepticism is expressed in various forms, and already been addressed, but unfortunately, it is not understood the way it should be.

Thus we mean that laws, which are divine and from God, are fixed and eternal laws. Secondly, God has already determined the framework for alterable laws which are the criterion for identifying the merit of alterable laws. In this regard, the Qur’an has an emphatic expression:

﴿وَوَضَعَ الْمِیزَانَ ٭ أَلَّا تَطْغَوْا فِی الْمِیزَانِ﴾

“And set up the balance, declaring, ‘Do not infringe the balance!’”(1)

What the divine and monotheistic outlook emphasizes and demands is that since law includes both command and prohibition, the one who has the right to enact law is he who has the right to bid and forbid the people and that is no one but God. Human beings have essentially no right to bid and forbid one another, let alone enact and implement laws. If alterable laws suitable to the requirements of time and place are supposed to be enacted, the authority to enact laws must come from God because it is He who has the intrinsic right to command and forbid. He has to grant others that right so that laws they enact become binding.

to sue you in court and ask for your conviction because he had not given you permission.

Consider as another example a man and a woman who want to marry each other. They have known each other for years. They have been working together in an office and are familiar with each other’s character. They are well- acquainted with each other’s families. Yet, as long as the wedding contract is not signed or a ceremony acceptable in their custom not held, their intimate relationship will be illegitimate. It is true that the marriage contract is mere verbal pronouncement that is observed through the consent of both parties, but it is an utterance that renders thousands of unlawful things lawful and also thousands of lawful things unlawful.

The social life of man depends on the same authorization. In principle, social life exists through the same authorization, permission, signing, and rejecting. Another example; assume that somebody is supposed to be appointed as your city mayor, but his letter of appointment is yet to be issued and the meeting for his appointment is awaited, does he have the right to go to the mayor’s office, occupy the mayor’s seat and start working? He has no such right and the employees will kick him out and say, “This is the table of the mayor!”

If he says, “This table belongs to me, and a month from now I’m supposed to be your new mayor,” they will reply, “As soon as we receive your appointment, you will be our mayor.” If he says, “It’s only a matter of a signature and authority to be issued by the minister.” They will say, “Yes, it’s the same signature that will give you authority.” All social transactions acquire official status through a signature; so with legislation. When legislation is a prerogative of God, as it really is, only through His authority can rules enacted by others become binding; otherwise, those rules will never acquire legitimacy and credibility:

﴿قُلْ ءَاَللّهُ أَذِنَ لَکُمْ أَمْ عَلَی اللّهِ تَفْتَرُونَ﴾

“Say, ‘Did Allah give you the sanction [to do so], or do you fabricate a lie against Allah?’”(1)

In the absence of God’s authority, what right do you have in saying that a certain act is permissible or not, halal or haram? This is the meaning of enactment of law—that is, this act is permissible while that act is not permissible. In simple terms, this is halal and that is haram. In the absence of authorization from God, can you issue such decrees? The difference between the Islamic Consultative Assembly and the National Assembly of the ex-regime lies in this—this assembly is formed through the one who is designated by God.

That is, the wali al-faqih gives it the permission to enact

p: 219

alterable laws and his authorization gives credit to the bills of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Once the wali al-faqih is granted this right by the Imam of the Time (may Allah expedite his glorious advent), others do not have such a right. Also, once the Imam of the Time (may Allah expedite his glorious advent) is granted this right by God, others do not have such a right. The one who has been authorized by God directly or indirectly can exercise authority with respect to the affairs of others and command them to do or not to do a thing. But the one who has no authority has no right to bid and forbid, and his command and prohibition are not binding.

(In my theoretical discussions, I do not want to cite quotations from individuals, but Imam Khomeini cannot be placed in the rank of other individuals. His statements were derived from the Book and the Sunnah. As such, I shall quote his statements.) In one of his speeches, he explicitly said: “If the President is not designated by the wali al-faqih, he is taghut and it is not permissible to obey him.”(1)

The President is elected by the people through a general suffrage, but if he is not granted authority by the wali al-faqih, he is taghut as said by the Imam. His command and prohibition are not binding and it is not permissible to obey him. In all his decrees of confirmation [tanfidh] of the President, the Imam said: “I do hereby designate [nasb] you.” (In some instances, he stipulated: “By virtue of the divine guardianship [wilayat-e ilahi] I have, I do hereby designate you to the Presidency.”) This was in spite of the people’s vote, and their vote was confirmed to be valid.

Of course, the people are supposed to participate in social activities. It is their religious duty to get involved in elections. As such, during elections, the Imam would say: “It is a religious duty to participate in the elections. In the end, however, the religious credibility of the act of every legislator or designated authority must be traced back to God for it is He who is the Authority in the world. God has granted the Prophet (s) and the Imams (‘a) the authority to rule and legislate. The other person would be one designated by the Prophet (s) and the infallible Imam (‘a) through a general designation such as in the case of the wali al-faqih, or through a specific designation as in the case of the governors and deputies during their time. Such a person acquires legitimacy through the authority of any of the infallible personages. Once he is given authority, he acquires credibility.

So, having or not having authorization, having approval or not is the difference which exists in all social issues. What is the difference between a “mayor” whose appointment is not yet announced and the others? What is the difference between the “Minister” of Training and Education whose

p: 220

appointment is not yet announced and the others? It is true that the appointment is soon to be released but today he has no right to engage in any kind of official transaction. When he receives his letter of appointment, he will be officially commissioned and by means of a single signature, exercise authority over the public treasury.

A person may turn over his millions worth of property to you, and grant you the authority to spend it in whatever way you like. He may also give it as a public endowment. In any case, by uttering a single sentence, “I do hereby give my wealth,” everything is finished, and to exercise authority over his wealth becomes halal and permissible. But in the absence of his authority and grant, it is haram to exercise authority over his wealth. Anyone who exercises authority over his wealth shall be deemed criminal. In general, all social affairs follow this sort of authorization. In the absence of this permission and authority, nothing in social affairs can be deemed official. Given this, how can it be said that anyone who under the name of God wants to rule over the people and bid and forbid them is needless of any authority?

Is it possible to rule over the servants of God without His permission? As the people are not our servants, we have no right to rule over them. They are servants of God. The ruler and the ruled are equal before God. In the absence of God’s authorization, the president and the presided, the leader and the led are equal. When God authorizes a person, his command and prohibition become binding on others.

“mandate” [qaymumiyyah] is a term used in international law. After the people became aware of this global oppression and rose up to claim their rights, the principle of sovereignty of nations was raised.

Gradually, it was established in international law that every nation had mastery over its own destiny. That is, others have no mandate or colonial right over any nation. “National sovereignty” means that every nation is independent in relation to another and has mastery over its own destiny. No nation has the right to regard itself guardian of other nations and no state has the right to consider itself mandatory of other states .This is the terminology used in international relations.

The second term is sovereignty of individuals within a society. This principle is related to basic rights. A society is comprised of factions and groups, but no faction or group has the right of dominance over another faction or group. This is opposed to the class-oriented views that existed in many countries throughout the world in which the ruling class was already specified and defined. For example, a family with one thousand members had the right to rule and anyone who wished to rule had to belong to that class. The rulers belonged to the noble class, landowners, or a specific race. This principle of mastery of every person over his own destiny negates the dominance of a particular class or person. So, within society no person can automatically say, “I have dominance over other people.” No group, class or race has the right to regard itself dominant over other groups, classes, or races. This is the principle of human rights.

All these rights and principles apply to the relationship between human beings, and not the relationship between man and God. Those dealing with these principles—whether they profess any religion or not—have never considered the relationship between man and God, let alone saying that God also has no right to exercise sovereignty over man. They were not interested in it. Instead, their interest was determining relations between people—i.e., did a country have the right to exercise sovereignty over another country? Did a certain group, faction, class or individual have the right to dominate others and shoulder the burden of determining their destiny?

That every person is master over his or her own destiny does not mean that God also does not have that right. Now, let us assume that all those who drafted these laws and stipulated these principles professed no religion and did not believe in God. But it is enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic that the people have mastery over their own destiny, provided God is the absolute Sovereign. The evidence is the tens of provisions in the Constitution which stipulate that divine laws must be implemented. Given the existence of these provisions, how can a person imagine that this right of sovereignty stipulated for individuals negates the sovereignty of God?! Can

p: 222

any intelligent person have such an understanding of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic?

relation to psychological, moral and educational issues. Concerning the psychological question, the emphasis is on self-confidence vis-à-vis reliance on other people—the child must be trained in such a manner that he or she does not need to rely on his or her parents, friends, neighbors or relatives and can stand on his or her own feet. That means not to rely on other people and be dependent on them; but it does not mean to regard oneself independent of God.

Essentially, the discussion is related to a person’s relationship with other people. The concept of “self-confidence” means that you should behave and train yourself in such a way that you do not rely on others, and this is also emphasized in Islam. In the conduct of the Prophet (s) and the pure Imams(‘a) it is highlighted and emphasized, but unfortunately, we pay little attention to them, thinking they have been newly arrived at by the West.

During the time of the Holy Prophet (s) his companions were trained in such a manner that if someone was riding a horse and the whip in his hand fell on the ground, he would not ask his comrade who was moving beside his horse to pick it up for him. He would dismount, pick up the whip and ride again! This is the Islamic training which urges us to stand on our own feet, to carry our own load, not to be dependent on others, and not to covet others. But this does not mean that we should also regard ourselves independent of God:

﴿یَا أَیُّهَا النَّاسُ أَنتُمُ الْفُقَرَاءُ إِلَی اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ الْغَنِیُّ الْحَمِیدُ﴾

“O mankind! You are the ones who stand in need of Allah, and Allah—He is the All-sufficient, the All-laudable.”(1)

Is it possible for man who is in a state of total poverty and need to regard himself needless of God? This is also a form of polytheism. Not to rely on God is diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam and the entire message of the Qur’an. There are hundreds of Qur’anic verses and traditions in this regard which enjoin man to regard himself as nothing before God and to ask Him for everything. Self-confidence is meant to determine the relationship between human beings, and teach them not to rely on other people because no one is more capable than another.

This is the reply to the question on self-confidence and reliance on God Similarly, in the realm of political issues such as that of individual sovereignty and national sovereignty, the case is the same. National sovereignty means that every nation should stand on its own feet and others should not exercise a mandate over it. Individual sovereignty means that a person has no spontaneous right to rule and dominate others. It means the individual and national right of sovereignty is subservient to the sovereignty

p: 224

of God. In essence, sovereignty belongs to God, and by extension, anyone who has been given authority to rule has the right to rule to the extent that God has granted him. In the absence of God’s permission, no person has the right to dominate another person.

p: 225

p: 226

by itself? Many interpretations on the nature of justice and its manifestations have been offered by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Among them, the comprehensive and generally agreed upon concept of justice is that everyone must be given his or her rights. However, they differ on definition and scope of “rights”. Since the term “rights” is included in the definition of justice, we have no option but to embark on another discussion, and that is the relationship between freedom, law, rights, and justice.

For example, what is the relationship between rights and justice? Finally, the discussion concludes that the right of every person is that his or her natural interests and welfare should be ensured, and the just law is that which ensures the rights of individuals, i.e. what their natural needs demand, under the aegis of social life.

Now, this question is raised on the issue of rights: Who are those who have rights in social life? Do all the human beings have similar rights in social life? Or, who are those who have the right to share social benefits? In other words, some handicapped people cannot render any service to society. They are confined to hospitals and sanatoriums and cannot play any role in social life nor contribute anything to society. Do they have any rights? If rights emanate from services rendered by members of society, then such individuals have no right at all.

Of course, possibly some handicapped people can contribute to society intellectually, but do the handicapped, who since birth, have been deprived of all physical and mental capabilities have any rights? Another case is that of a person who, while strong, offered valuable services to society and later became physically disabled and could not render any form of service to society anymore. Does he have any right in society anymore?

According to some sociological tendencies, such individuals do not have any right in society and the state does not have any duty toward them. In the Marxist regime ruling the ex-Soviet Union, such individuals who made no contribution to society were eliminated under a certain pretext. Such tendencies also exist in other societies. Are rights linked with services individuals render to society?

Does the handicapped have any rights for being a human being, born and living among other human beings? Unfortunately, those who say that right is commensurate with the service rendered to society do not consider any rights for such individuals, saying that if out of compassion and humanitarian feeling, some people want to serve this stratum of society and build sanatoriums for them, they may do so. Yet, no one shall be responsible for their death!

3. The third viewpoint on the purpose of forming a government and state is the Islamic viewpoint which emphasizes—apart from maintaining security,

p: 228

implementing justice and providing material welfare—the satisfying of spiritual and religious needs.

materialize. Proximity to God is not a mere slogan. Rather, it is the true and spiritual communion of people with God. Human beings pass through different stages of life, traverse and ascend until they attain this station. Common people cannot discern that such a station exists for man, or that they can attain such a spiritual and celestial station.

Now, as God is not in need of our worship, why did He create man for worship and say,

“I did not create the jinn and humans except that they may worship Me”?(1)

The answer is that the ultimate perfection of man cannot be achieved except through the worship of God. So, one should recognize God and obey Him so that man can tread the path toward true perfection. It is through attention to these preliminaries that we say that the law desirable is that which, apart from ensuring the material needs of the active members of society, also guarantees the needs of those who make no contribution to society, such as the impotent, disabled and handicapped for, they also have rights. The Islamic state has to provide their needs for they are also servants of God and born in society. It is for this reason that in addition to justice, the Qur’an mentions kindness:

﴿إِنَّ اللّهَ یَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالإِحْسَانِ﴾

“Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness.”(2)

This injunction of God is not only a moral admonition. Rather, it is an obligatory command which must be obeyed. Thus, just as the observance of justice in society is obligatory, so is the observance of kindness because rights are not only established by rendering service. Rather, there is a series of rights that God has considered for every person. Even the one who is in the worst condition, deprived of eyes, ears and mobility has rights for the mere fact that he is alive. And the Islamic state must guarantee these rights.

So, we should not think that the sole responsibility of the state is the thing mentioned by Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other Western thinkers for, either they have not paid attention to the sublime stations of man, or they have imagined man to be wolf-like or an insect like the bee and termite. According to Islam, however, man is far ahead of such animals though they also live collectively.

Thus, law has to consider all the needs of man along his pursuit of ultimate perfection. Now, if law were to consider all interests, could it give man every kind of freedom? Can man move along any path and achieve this objective? Can those who have not recognized God, denied Him, stood up against Him and His worshippers, attain human perfection? Is not the worship of the One

p: 232

God the way to attain human perfection? If the duty of the Islamic state is to pave the ground for human perfection in all dimensions, the spiritual and religious dimension in particular, then the desires should, in a sense, be regulated, restrained and controlled, and a framework for them determined which does not conflict with sublime human interests.

nature, and the laws that restrict this kind of action are “moral laws” (without considering whether the use of the term “moral” in this context is correct or not).

That is, the jurisdiction of the state is related to society and not to the individual. But if the individual action is done in such a manner that it more or less affects others, at least encourages others to commit such a sin, it acquires a social dimension. If a person commits a sin in the street or in front of other members of the family, its hideousness will diminish and people will be encouraged and inclined to commit it, his action will no more be personal in nature. Do we have no right to interfere because it will only harm him? According to Islam showing of perversion is a social act. If a person commits a sin in front of others, it becomes a legal crime (in contrast to moral turpitude), and the state may interfere. The law that prevents such a sin is an administrative law backed by the state’s police force.

4. Damaging material interests of society is a crime. Morally damaging acts are also crimes. In every society, an attack on the integrity and honor of others, even if it is not a physical attack (libel, insult and mockery) is considered a crime and the state has the right to pursue the offender and penalize him. In such cases, the executive guarantee is law. In Islamic society, insult to religious sanctity is the most serious violation of the rights of Muslims. In Islamic society there is nothing more valuable than religious sanctity. Muslims are willing to sacrifice everything they have for its sake.

It is on this basis that the decree against apostasy [irtidad] and insult to religious sanctity can be justified and understood. This is why anyone who insults the Holy Prophet (s) and other religious sanctities is condemned to death by Islam. That is because he has committed the greatest of crimes. There is nothing more sacred than these sanctities for Muslim people and insult to these sanctities is the worst of crimes. This is also a fundamental difference between Islamic and liberal perspectives.

Offence against Islamic sanctities is not an offence against an individual for it to require a private complainant. Anyone who insults the Islamic sanctities in newspapers and speeches is condemned according to Islamic law. It is not a personal and individual issue but rather criminal and penal. No one can pardon this crime because it is a right that belongs to all Muslims, nay it is a right related to God.

These are issues which Muslim scholars, especially the students, should pay attention to and not imagine that the political and legal issues of Islam follow the limited and monolithic Western framework that only pays attention to the material, mundane and individual concerns in this world. According to Islam, the rights of society take precedence over individual rights.

p: 234

In view of what has been discussed, we can assess the distinctive features of Islamic law and the reason behind its superiority over other laws.

We can understand why individual desires are more limited in Islamic society than in secular and liberal societies. It is because in those societies the only thing that limits individual desires are individual and material interests. But in Islamic society spiritual and otherworldly interests require particular limitations. This is something which the nature of the Islamic government anchored in religious belief demands, and we shall defend these beliefs with utmost clarity and courage.

p: 235

p: 236

be performed by the bone. They have come from the same single cell but after mutation, the mutated cells become so varied that each of them can perform only the function determined for it, and they cannot be interchanged.

They say that essentially, members of society are created diversely for various tasks. One member cannot perform another’s function. Since time immemorial, thinkers and philosophers have believed that the races and classes of society have specific frontiers, and each of them has been created for a certain work—for example, the black race has been created for heavy physical work and the white or yellow race for mental work. They imagined that the difference of color and race makes each person perform a specific function. This analogy is an exaggeration, which neither science nor philosophy and religion confirm or believe it anymore.

The Children of Adam who are of one essence in creation are parts of one another.

When one part feels pain, the other parts do not remain at ease.

Undoubtedly, this similarity establishes the need for cooperation among members of society and awakens man’s emotions to strengthen his relationship with other individuals, sympathize and cooperate with them, and not deprive them of the resources he may acquire. This reasonable similarity that can prove very useful and is rooted in traditions reported from the Noble Messenger (s) and Imam as-Sadiq (‘a). The tradition of Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) is as follows:

أَلْمُؤْمِنُونَ فی تَبَارِّهِمْ وَ تَرَاحُمِهِمْ وَ تَعَاطُفِهِمْ کَمِثْلِ ٱلْجَسَدِ إِذَا ٱشْتَکی تَدَاعی لَهُ سَائِرُهُ بِالسَّهَرِ وَٱلْحُمّی.

“In performing acts of kindness, sympathy and benevolence, the faithful are like a single body. When one part feels pain, the other parts remain restless without sleep day and night.”(1)

As you see, His Holiness compares the Islamic society and the faithful to a body and Sa’di has generalized it and likened the human to a body.

An analogy is meant to highlight that aspect in one being whose existence in the other is not well known. Therefore, not all attributes and qualities of one thing [mushabbahun bih] should be passed to the thing likened [mushabbah]. For example, if we describe a brave man as a lion, it means that we want to highlight his quality of bravery. It does not imply that he also has a mane, or walks on all fours!

which, together with the blood, is distributed throughout the body. Similarly, the food nutrients produced by the digestive system are transferred to the blood. So, by the coordination and connection of the three systems—circulatory, respiratory and digestive—it becomes possible for us to survive.

Apart from the abovementioned systems, there are also other systems that guide, organize and control the activities and processes of the digestive system. For example, in the body there is a set of glands with specific functions and activities; a set of nerves that conduct their activities under the command of the mind and stimulate organs such as the stomach and others which function with the help of the nervous system.

As you can see, the steadfastness, consistency and subsistence of the body depends on the activity of various systems which engage in their own activities through a particular order and coherence and in full coordination with one another. We can compare society’s institutions and organs to the body’s systems and organs and create an analogy. For instance, the process of production of food and its distribution to the whole body is similar to the economic institutions of society. They produce the materials needed by society and then distribute them by means of distributing agents. This is exactly like the blood that is produced in the body and then sent to the organs by means of the heart and blood-vessels.

If there is malfunctioning in the circulatory system, due to the obstruction in some veins and the blood cannot circulate easily, the body will get sick. Sometimes, a part, which is deprived of food, experiences decay and is eliminated. In so many cases, it must be removed from the body, and in so many cases also, malfunctioning of blood circulation paralyzes the body. So, in order to maintain the wellbeing and life of the body, the blood must flow in the veins easily and without difficulty. Similarly, in society capital and needed items should always be available.

If the capital is confined and forestalled somewhere and its flow obstructed, the economic system—which includes the production and distribution of agricultural and industrial products and administrative services—malfunctions in such a manner that society’s needed items do not easily flow in society, making it ill, lethargic or even bankrupt. This analogy is correct and reasonably acceptable.

Likewise, the government apparatus can also be likened to the body’s nervous system which is actually the body’s commander and comprised of two parts, viz. sensory and motor. Like the body, society is in need of the brain to take decisions and give commands as well as workers to execute the command within the organs of society and stir them to action. For this reason, government apparatus consists of two vital branches: (1) the legislative branch which enacts/makes rules after identifying society’s

p: 240

interests and means of providing them, and (2) the executive branch which implements the rules and regulations.

Our sensory nerves and organs pave the ground for cognition while our motor nerves pave the ground for execution in our body. The preliminaries of the senses are provided by the sensory nerves while the brain is the tool for thinking and judgment. Of course, the soul of man has the power of thought, but its tool is the brain.

By means of the brain, the mental operation is conducted and commands executed by the motor nerves. One is the mental force of the soul which engages in acquiring knowledge and information while the motor nerves constitute the soul’s activating force. This system is similar to the government apparatus, and its status and role in society can be assessed.

prescriptions at our disposal is rendering a very valuable service and showing us the way to sound health and prosperity. So, we need to be grateful.

The case is similar in connection with society. If someone says, “I cannot understand the meaning of life at all and I do not want to live, or it makes no difference to me whether I am alive or not!” he will certainly be treated as unintelligent. If he did not want to observe the instructions, according to the law of cause and effect his actions will end up in either ailment or death. If a person has no aim in life, he should consign his fate to the turn of events.

He should eat whatever he likes and do whatever he wants, and thus, whatever is supposed to happen will happen, and he will get sick and die. But anyone who has an aim in life and wants to live long, enjoy his health to the fullest, so as to acquire spiritual growth and perfection cannot afford to be indifferent to medical instructions. That is, he will have to limit his desires in accordance with the instructions dictated by medical experts.

If we assume that society is like an aimless person for whom life and death are meaningless, who wants neither survival nor autonomy, nobility nor honor, identity nor integrity, and believes in neither spirituality nor the hereafter, such a society can certainly do whatever it likes, has absolute freedom and does not need to observe any rules.

No purposeful work is possible without rules, and to achieve an aim is impossible with absolute freedom. If there is any aim in an activity, there will also be limits. The preliminaries of every activity must be done according to specific laws and orders, even if the aim is death.

If a society has any aim, it should observe rules. That is, it must restrict its freedom and restrain its desires. If it does whatever it likes, it will never achieve its aim. If it has no aim, it will not be in need of any regulations, and such a society is like the very aimless individual who will be condemned to death after a short while. Therefore, if a society wants to survive, grow, advance and possess honor and eternal bliss, it must have precise rules and regulations.

The question here is this: How should these rules be enacted? Who should enact them? Are these rules a set of real things that must be discovered? Or, are they merely a set of conventions and traditions that must be enacted and credited? This question is very important in the philosophy of government.

In nature we have a series of real rules which have been discovered by scholars. That is, a certain microbe causes a certain disease is based upon a real relationship that exists between a real cause and effect which scientists have discovered and arranged in the form of a law and placed it at the

p: 242

disposal of all mankind. In a bid to remain immune from the disease, you have to avoid the microbe. In case the disease becomes rampant, people should be vaccinated to become immune to that disease.

Similarly, if society wants to survive it has to observe certain rules. Do those rules really exist in nature which must be discovered by certain people? Or, are they conventional, extrinsic and imaginary things that can be changed in order to win the approval of people? This question is fundamental and vital.

social benefit and harm real and true, or is it merely conventional and subjective thinking?

Since the time of Hume in the Western world, epistemology says that dos and don’ts and moral concepts do not have external reality and are devoid of rationality and argument. “Good” and “bad” are preferences of people. If a person likes pink, he cannot be questioned why he likes it because one person likes a color while another person likes another. Social issues are not as subjective as choice of colors.

There is a real relationship between the actions of people and their impact upon their individual, social, material and spiritual life, and in reality, they are cause and effect. Actions of people in the individual and social context bring about felicity or perdition. As such, it must be seen which action causes felicity so as to be permitted, and which action causes perdition and misery so as to be prohibited and law be enacted accordingly. Then, this question will be posed: Who knows best the real benefit and harm? We Muslims believe that God knows best.

In the dimension of legislation, therefore, the view of Islam is that there is a cause-and-effect relationship known as “benefit” and “harm” between the actions of people in the individual and social context and their outcome, as prosperity or wretchedness in this world and the hereafter. This benefit and harm must be identified and law enacted accordingly, and not according to the whims of the majority of people.

p: 244

he is the same person whose letter of appointment is on its way. This is because all men of wisdom have accepted the principle that as long as a competent authority does not authorize a person, he has no right to exercise legitimate or legal authority.

We can easily understand why in a society whose people have acknowledged His Lordship, a person who wants to rule without the permission of their Lord, is exactly like the one who wants to head a certain office without obtaining the permission of a competent authority. Even if his work is proper and good, he shall be reproached and even prosecuted. The people are also not obliged to obey him. According to Islam, the people are subjects and creatures of God and without the permission of their Master no one is authorized to interfere in their affairs, so only the person authorized by God has to implement His law.

It is for this reason that in accordance with the knowledge he acquired from Islam and Islamic sources, the eminent Imam (q), the founder and architect of this Revolution and political system, would always explicitly write: “By virtue of the divine guardianship [wilayat-e ilahi] I have, I do hereby designate you to this position.” In one case, he even further stipulated: “Do not listen to those who are against the path of Islam, who regard themselves “intellectuals” and want to reject the wilayah al-faqih. If there were no such faqih; if there were no wilayah al-faqih, there would be taghut. If it were not the command of God; if the president were not designated by the faqih, then he is not legitimate, it means that he is taghut. To obey him is to obey the taghut.”(1) This is not a personal opinion but rather something deduced from the noble verses of the Qur’an and ahadith, and at any rate, it is the opinion of the person who has founded this Islamic system.

Therefore, the law enforcer, even if he implements all the laws according to the Islamic standards must be authorized by God. This authority is sometimes specific in form just as in the case of the Messenger of Allah (s), the infallible Imams (‘a), those who have been personally designated by the Holy Prophet (s), those who were appointed by the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) during his caliphate as governors and rulers of the Islamic territories, and the designated special deputies of the Imam of the Time (may Allah, the Exalted, expedite his glorious advent) during the period of minor occultation [ghaybah as-sughra].

In these cases, through specific designation and personal authorization, certain individuals were commissioned to declare and implement divine decrees in the realm of their responsibility. Yet, at other times, the permission or designation is general. That is, during the period of occultation and even at the time of the Imams (‘a) from whom the

p: 246

helm of government was taken away, through general designation and authorization, competent individuals were introduced to implement the law of God. For example, Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) authorized the Shi‘ah fuqaha to implement divine commandments and engage in administration in regions where people had no access to the Imam. This fact is necessarily established during the period of occultation because when the Imam of the given time was under surveillance or practicing dissimulation [taqiyyah],(1) he would generally designate individuals to address administrative affairs of people on his behalf. Is this practice not then necessary for the period of occultation when the people have no access to the Imam (‘a) for centuries?

I do not intend to expound religious proofs and juristic basis for this subject. I only want to justify why in Islam the law enforcer must be designated by God and how God authorizes the law enforcer. We have stated that this authorization is either specific as in the case of certain personalities, or general as in the case of the duly competent fuqaha.

Regarding this theory, whether in the dimension of legislation or implementation of law, objections were expressed, the most important of which was that it is allegedly repugnant to the essence of human freedom. We refuted this argument in previous discussions. Another objection was in relation to implementation as the wilayah al-faqih system was considered inconsistent with democracy. Democracy is a system which has been accepted by all sensible people throughout the world. In practice, even the socialist countries failed to challenge democracy and had no option but to accept it. So, mankind today, at least in our age, has no option but to embrace democracy. The Islamic government project which is known as the government of wilayah al-faqih is, however, considered inconsistent with democracy.

society, and no one else is involved in enacting and implementing law. This is the meaning of the word “democracy”.

Democracy throughout history has been expressed in many forms. In the beginning, as far as history indicates, approximately five centuries before the birth of the Holy Messiah (‘a), in Athens, the capital of Greece, this theory was advanced and put into action for sometime in such a manner that all people, with the exception of slaves and minors below the age of 20 used to be directly involved in their sociopolitical affairs. Of course, it was not compulsory and the people were free to engage or not in such an important activity.

At that time, the people used to live in big cities and express their opinion about the issues and concerns of their city. Debates and discussions used to take place on the basis of which, decisions would be taken and put into practice. This form of government in which no specific person or group was in charge of the administration but the people themselves was called democracy or government of the people. This form of democracy was implemented for sometime in Athens, the capital of Greece. Apart from the fact that philosophers and thinkers strongly campaigned against this method, describing it disparagingly and branding it as “the government of the ignorant”, it also faced numerous problems in practice. As such, it did not last long.

Such a method is impractical for big countries and populous cities because it is impossible for all the people to constantly get involved in social affairs. This method may temporarily be implemented in small cities, but in cities with a population of millions, all the people cannot decide the daily affairs of their city? This method was rejected until after the Renaissance another form of democracy was presented in which the people would elect their own representatives to take charge of the administrative affairs and the latter would rule on behalf of the former because direct involvement of the people was unfeasible. Since then, this theory earned many advocates and was gradually implemented in some countries until finally, during the 19th century this method of governance was accepted by almost all countries of Europe and other continents, and governments were established on this basis.

In our country also, this form of democracy is implemented. Practically, in all government organs and institutions the people get involved by participating in various elections and selecting of their own representatives, such as participation in presidential elections and elections of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and selection of deputies by people to enact and approve bills, and also local council elections and the rest provided for in the Constitution. So, according to the second form of democracy which has distinct features in every political system, the people get involved in their

p: 248

sociopolitical affairs by means of their vote and selection of the legislators and implementers.

no one should hinder them. Once a law is passed by the will and desire of the people which makes performance of prayer in offices, ministries and universities mandatory, this is not in conflict with democracy because the people enact the law and they themselves implement it. According to the new interpretation of democracy, however, religious inclination of the people should not be manifested in sociopolitical matters.

strong and deep-rooted Islamic inclination they are trying to undermine the spirit of religious fervor and propagate democracy in this sense. By doing so, they imagine that after a few decades when the revolutionary generation will be replaced by the youth who do not know the principles of the Revolution, they will make the new concept of democracy prevail.

There are, thus, three interpretations and concepts of democracy:

(1) direct involvement of people in administrative affairs practiced in one of the Greek cities;

(2) involvement of people in government through election of their representatives, existing today in many countries including ours; and

(3) all dimensions of government, including legislation and implementation, separated from religion.

That is, to be democratic means to be secular.

and rules. In addition to the conditions set for deputies in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, with the exception of a few deputies of religious minority groups, the rest of the representatives must be Muslims committed to observe Islamic laws.

Lest there were negligence and shortcomings and Islamic laws were not observed in enacting laws, a number of experts constituting the so-called Council of Guardians are duty-bound to conform the ratified bills of the Majlis to the Constitution and religious standards and then validate them. In the case of their nonconformity, the said bills are returned to the Majlis for review. This is the type of legislative and executive mechanism accepted in our country and no one opposes it.

Similarly, executives with the President at top must observe Islamic laws and standards. First of all, the President must possess the conditions, qualities and merits mentioned in the Constitution which are taken from Islamic laws, and in taking charge of the government he must be, so to speak, authorized by God, the Exalted in the sense that after garnering the majority vote and endorsement of the people, he must be designated by the wali al-faqih. In this case, his government shall be legitimate and credible.

This is something which is implemented in our country.

With the aim of understanding the role of the people and the domain of their involvement in the Islamic system, let me cite an example. Let us assume that we were living during the caliphate of the Commander of the Faithful(‘a) and in our own city we knew of a righteous person who deserved to be the city ruler and we endorsed him to the Imam (‘a). After receiving the endorsement, the Imam (‘a) possibly designated him as the new ruler. Now, if the majority of people had such endorsement, the Imam(‘a) would highly regard their view and designate the said person as governor of one of the regions under his jurisdiction.

So, the role of the people in the government structure and administrative decision-making, in terms of theory and legitimacy, is that people decide who is the most meritorious in enacting or enforcing the law and then cast their vote in his favor. The vote of the people is equivalent to a recommendation to the leadership. In reality, it is a pact they forge with the wali al-faqih that if he designates the recommended person to the presidency, they will obey him. It is on this basis that during the time of the eminent Imam (‘a), when the majority of people elected a person to the presidency, he would say, “I do hereby designate him, who is endorsed by the people, to be the President.” That is, “the vote of the people is like an endorsement for me to accept him.”

This is the theory of the Islamic government which has no contradiction whatsoever with the second meaning of democracy. It is functioning in our country since the Revolution and no (theoretical) problem has ever emerged. Yet, if democracy means that religion should have no role in the affairs of

p: 252

society and none of the religious symbols be seen in the government institutions, such a thing is incompatible with Islam!

Democracy in its third sense, as interpreted by the Global Arrogance that wants to impose it on others is absolutely opposed to Islam, for it means the negation of Islam. However, democracy in its second sense has been accepted by observing the conditions set by Islam for rulers, legislators, implementers, and judges. That is why the people should seriously elect individuals who deserve to legislate and implement laws, and thus, prove their cooperation and support for the Islamic state and regard themselves as participating in the affairs of the country. This form of democracy is accepted in Islam and practiced in our country. If there are violations in some cases, they are also committed elsewhere, and one should be vigilant lest they are repeated.

p: 253

p: 254

equals!

But this question remains unanswered: Why do they allow other social groups to do whatever they want and behave and wear attires in whatever fashion they like but deny the religionists the prerogative to wear special attire or cover their hair (the hijab). This is actually a denial of freedom and negation of the rights of some citizens.

class human beings but we may have first and second class citizens, and this is something which is also accepted in Islam.

We must be vigilant and aware that Western states present their dictatorship as “democracy” in order to realize their wicked motives. We should not be deceived by them. Advancing the new theory about democracy is actually a kind of dictatorship that deprives the Muslims of practicing their religious obligations in those countries.

This is while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has stipulated that religion is free and all people are free in performing their religious obligations. No condition is made in the Declaration that religious symbols and practices should not be observed in government institutions, but whenever they want, the politicians interpret the law in their favor and talk about war in the name of peace and violation of the rights of others as protection of human rights. Everyday we witness their oppressive and deceitful acts on a global level.

specific domain and in order to expand the concept of democracy, they assert that whenever there is conflict between two groups a reconciliation in the above manner will be based on democracy. The explanation for this is that in the conflict between two groups, one group may dominate the other by force and impose its view. Certainly, this approach is undemocratic. But if they agree and finally uphold the majority opinion, that means putting democracy into practice.

We do not oppose the coinage or expansion of a scientific term, but it must not be forgotten that this concept is originally related to the realm of politics and extended to other domains. In social sciences, there are many similar concepts which were initially used in one field and after extending their meanings, applied in various contexts in other fields. For instance, the concept of “strategy” is used commonly in all fields. Basically, this term means “leading an army” [sawq al-jayshi], used in military science, and “strategist” is the one who is in charge of planning and commanding the war. The area where an army encamps or stays or where an attack will commence is called “strategic area”.

Later on, this concept was gradually adopted by other sciences and is now used, in political discussions as “strategic policies”. Even in training and education and different types of management, “strategic issues” are tackled. For instance, we have provisions of the constitution that are “strategic” in nature such as the article that emphasizes the necessity of adapting laws of the country to Islam. Yet, it is astonishing that sometimes some elements talk about the Constitution as if it is above the Qur’an and divine revelation. At times, they also oppose it as if it is of no value to them at all.

Wherever the Constitution deals with honoring the will of people, they do not allow even the verses of the Qur’an to state anything against it; the Prophet (s), infallible Imams (‘a) and the Imam of the Time(‘a) have also no right to oppose it! But the provision of the Constitution which stipulates that all existing laws in the country must be compatible with Islam is forgotten and to oppose it is declared lawful. They say, “The basis is the people’s vote!”

Is it not enshrined in the same constitution that laws to be enacted in the country must be compatible with Islam? So, if some thing is haram according to Islam, how can you afford to declare it lawful by citing the Constitution? Considering this constitution emphasizes the observance of Islam, how is it that it is free to insult sanctities and essential laws of Islam by invoking freedom of the press? The press is free within the framework of law, and not beyond it. When Islamic law regards it obligatory to honor religious sanctities and not to slight laws of Islam and mock God and the Prophet (s) as it will be tantamount to apostasy, law on freedom of the press

p: 258

cannot declare such a thing lawful. The Constitution is originally codified to expound the concept of an Islamic Republic.

intellectual basis derived from monotheism and rooted in the Islamic viewpoint and not from the inclination of the clerical establishment. As I have explained before, the legislative Lordship of God demands that divine authority must be observed both in legislation and execution of laws; otherwise, a kind of polytheism is committed. This does not mean, however, that the people in this society do not have any role. The people have a total role in this system within the framework determined by Islam, and in this domain nothing else can replace the role and impact of the people. But one should make a difference between the legitimacy [mashru‘iyyah] and acceptability [maqbuliyyah] of a system.

The explanation for this is that since the Renaissance, there is no place in Western legal, philosophical and social discussions for God and religion. When, for example, they stipulate human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the relationship between man and God is not mentioned there. If freedom of religion is also mentioned there, it is because as a choice, human beings have the right to choose any religion. There is no mention of truth and falsehood, or whether God exists or not.

Whenever social rights, including fundamental rights, civil rights and criminal rights, are stipulated for individuals, there is no association of those rights with God. It is never discussed whether God has rights over man or not; whether man has duties toward God or not. They do not like to consider God in issues pertaining to their rights, but if in accordance with our own beliefs, we want to base the legal system of our country upon the teachings of Islam and divine rights, they do not have any authority to deprive us of this right. As believers in God, monotheistic people and followers of Islam, we believe that in all legal issues—social, civil, criminal, and political—God must be taken into account. Above all rights is the right of Allah. With respect to Him, we have duties and responsibilities that we must discharge.

On the other hand, the rights of men are not the only discussed issue. In fact, rights and duties must be discussed together, the most important being the duty of man toward God. The right of legislative Lordship of God over human beings is for them to accept His laws in sociopolitical affairs. If a person does not believe in God, we will not compel him to accept Islam, but as Muslims we have the right to apply our beliefs in politics and the means of administering our country. In the constitution of our country, this has been accepted and as such it is significant to the highest degree for us. Our respect to the Constitution is the same as giving value to Islam.

definite laws of Islam which is how we accept democracy. Meanwhile, concerning democracy as a method of solving differences, it must be said that as long as Islamic values are sufficient to solve differences, they shall take precedence, but in case of differences where Islamic laws have no specific way of solving them and there is also no competent arbiter, the majority view shall be preferred.

For example, a number of people form a committee within the framework of law to decide an important matter and all believe in Islam and observe Islamic values, but do not arrive at a consensus on the issue as the majority has a certain opinion while the minority has another opinion and there is no basis to prefer one view over the other—the majority view will take precedence, and opposing majority view shall be considered an undue preference.

As such, whenever we have no preferable option, we can obtain a sound opinion from the majority view which will be credible and preferred. If through the majority view of ignoramuses, we can not obtain a sound opinion, preferring that opinion will be rationally reproachable and incorrect. This method is credible to a certain extent, but it is not correct to abuse it by placing the majority of people against a minority of experts. For example, let us assume that for sketching a military plan there are ten military experts and one thousand common people who are unfamiliar with military issues.

If attention is given to the view of common people who are unfamiliar with military issues while the view of experts is rejected, this act is unreasonable. Every intelligent person says that the view of the experts takes precedence over the view of non-experts. Thus, democracy as a means of solving differences with certain limits and conditions is credible, but as the basis of giving preference to every majority over every minority it is not credible

p: 261

p: 262

second class citizens!” We have no option but to allocate this session to an examination of this allegation and its refutation.

In order to clarify this matter, one needs to pay attention to one of the serious debates among legal philosophers of the world on what is essentially the origin of rights? On what basis can we say that a person has the right to do a certain thing? Each of the different approaches in legal philosophy such as historical rights, positivism, natural law, and others, have given their own reply.

Islam also has its own distinct view. According to Islam, the source of all rights must be traced back to God, the Exalted, because all creation belongs to Him. Whatever anybody possesses comes from Him. In cosmic affairs, our existence and whatever we have belong to God—“Verily, we belong to Allah” [inna lillah]—and everything is “from Allah” [min Allah]. Similarly, legislative affairs must also derive from God the Exalted. This is our general perspective on the origin and source of rights which can be summarized as follows: It is God who grants rights to others. Does God equally and evenly grant rights to all human beings?

Or, does He grant certain rights to some of His servants which He does not grant to others? Generally, we know that God has granted rights to the prophets (‘a) which He has not given to others; a certain right to parents and another right to children. Is the divine will senseless, does God give a right to a person without any basis and deprives another person of the same, or a certain criterion is actually taken into account? If there were any basis, what is it?

The basis of rights granted by God to His servants is the station and position they have in the universe. Conditions necessitate that they should have such rights for the specific duties they have. We have all been created to move by our willpower and freewill toward true and ultimate perfection. So, we have a general obligation to move along the path of perfection, which in Islamic culture is called “worship of God”:

﴿أَلَمْ أَعْهَدْ إِلَیْکُمْ یَا بَنِی آدَمَ أَنْ لَا تَعْبُدُوا الشَّیْطَانَ إِنَّهُ لَکُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُُبِینٌ ٭ وَأَنِ اعْبُدُونِی هَذَا صِرَاطٌ مُسْتَقِیمٌ﴾

“Did I not exhort you, O children of Adam, saying, ‘Do not worship Satan. He is indeed your manifest enemy. Worship Me. This is a straight path’?”(1)

In another verse, God says:

﴿فَأَرْسَلْنَا فِیهِمْ رَسُولاً مِنْهُمْ أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ...﴾

p: 264

“And We sent them an apostle from among themselves, saying, ‘Worship Allah!’…”(1)

So, the kernel of the call of all prophets (‘a) is the worship of God, and this universal obligation of all mankind has legal implications. That is, whenever man wants to move along the path of perfection and proximity to Allah, the necessary facilities and capacities must be at his disposal. Similarly, there must also be laws in society that facilitate this movement. Whenever man wants to move toward God, he must be alive. So, the right to life as the foremost of rights emanates from this. The second right is the freedom of movement because this wayfaring is not compulsory. He must be free in his choice to choose his way.

The third right is the enjoyment of material blessings of this world because if he does not make use of them, he cannot live and subsist. In order to survive and procure the provisions for this journey, he has the right to make use of clothing and food in this world. He has the right to use the instincts that God has endowed him with, including the sexual instinct. So, he must select his own spouse. As you can observe, rights are accompanied by obligations.

In previous discussions we also pointed out the relationship between rights and duties. Since we are bound to move toward God and obey Him, we must have certain rights, by exercising which we can continue treading this path. On this basis, anything in society and public life that hinders this movement for perfection of human beings must be controlled by an Islamic government. The government must thwart elements that obstruct and hamper this movement of an Islamic society toward God. In his personal life, the individual concerned is also bound to procure the effective and influential instruments in removing obstacles on his way. The basis of possession of rights is the capability of individuals and capacity of growth and perfection. Duties and obligations will be placed on their shoulders for which they will possess certain rights.

woman are humans and they are both “first class” human beings, but because of the unique constitution of her body and her psychological makeup, woman must shoulder certain obligations. The role being played by woman in reproduction and breastfeeding can never be played by man. Therefore, certain obligations are set upon her. She is bound to play her pivotal role in bearing the fetus for nine whole months. Then, for two years she has the obligation to feed and foster the child. Correspondingly, special rights must also be considered for her.

If, on account of her natural and inherent characteristic, woman is supposed to bear a child, and then feed and foster it, and at the same time, work like man and be obliged to provide for her sustenance, she cannot discharge her main obligations, and this is an act of injustice against her. So, she must have special rights. That is, man is made responsible to provide for her sustenance and remove from her shoulder the burden of looking for her daily bread. If a woman was obliged to work, so many kinds of work would lead to her miscarriage or delay in her feeding.

Emotionally also, if the woman had no economic security and was concerned about her sustenance, her worry and stress would indirectly affect the child. It is scientifically proven that the more peace of mind the woman has, the greater are her chances of nurturing a healthier baby. For this reason, Islam has accorded special rights to women. For example, economically, the life of woman must be ensured by man. For breastfeeding her child, the wife could even ask for a stipend from her husband. That is, she must have privileges in the domain of family for her efforts and sacrifices.

Thus, concerning the rights and duties of man and woman, the notion that since both are human their rights and duties must also be the same is wrong. Woman has her own distinctions and so does man. These distinctions are the source of difference in duties as well as rights.

Therefore, one difference is natural and predestined. That is, no one has the choice of being male or female. This has something to do with the divine will:

﴿یَهَبُ لِمَنْ یَشَآءُ إِنَاثًا وَیَهَبُ لِمَنْ یَشَاءُ الذُّکُورَ﴾

“He gives females to whomever He wishes, and gives males to whomever He wishes.”(1)

So, the willpower and freewill of individuals has no hand in determining their own and their children’s gender. Therefore, these differences and distinctions which lead to differences in rights and duties are natural ones.

p: 266

The other category of differences in human beings is voluntary in nature and applied to those who acquire special skills in life. For example, a person who acquires education will have to assume an obligation in society which cannot be assumed by an illiterate or ignorant person.

Also, if an uneducated person uninformed of political issues says, “I also have the right to be president,” he will be told, “To be president you have to qualify for the post. If you have the essential capability, you can file your candidacy and if people vote for you, you can become President.” He can not say, “Since there is no first or second class human being, it means that I also have the right to become president.” It is not legally correct for any person, who goes against the goals of a nation and does not accept its constitution, to say: “I want to be president of this country since I am also a human!”

For merely being a human being, you have no right to occupy any post in the country. A post demands certain qualifications. For instance, in the Islamic republic, the president must be a Muslim. A non-Muslim—notwithstanding all the honor we accord him and the right accorded him by the Constitution—cannot be the president.

accept divine laws assert that only the will of people must be followed, but we argue that apart from the will of people, there must also be divine permission. The will, vote and right must not be against divine permission and the law of God.

In any case, no country grants identical citizenship to all individuals, or negates second class citizenship merely on account of the absence of second class humanity. This issue is also mentioned in our Constitution. I wonder why our critics have missed out the legal provision which stipulates, thus: “Those who shall adopt Iranian citizenship shall enjoy all rights accorded to all Iranians except the right to be President, minister, deputy minister, or any foreign political officer.” That is, anyone who is granted Iranian citizenship has no right to be a political envoy, ambassador, chargé d’áffaires, consul, or minister. He may have adopted Iranian citizenship and Iran may also have granted it, but he will not have those rights. This is the text of our law.

of the services rendered by him in this country. They are heedless that based on the theory of wilayah al-faqih laws and decrees of the Islamic state and statutory laws of the Islamic Consultative Assembly after confirmation by the Council of Guardians are religiously incumbent upon Muslims because they are authorized by the wali al-faqih, and his authority, in turn, is based on the authority of God.

This is a great merit that this system has. But if we do not accept the wilayah al-faqih system, then obedience to laws and decrees is based on the commitment of people to laws in accordance with their demand. They can withdraw from their commitment, review their demand, and change an article of law as they like. So, in the democratic system there is no religious underpinning of the people’s obedience to laws.

In an Islamic government, laws become binding with the authorization and approval of the wali al-faqih. Apart from enjoying people’s commitment and customary requirement backed by their vote, there is also the religious underpinning going against which is a sin that invites divine wrath. This is the difference between abiding by the laws of the Islamic government and obedience to laws whose legitimacy and credibility are only supported by the majority will. Since majority of the Majlis deputies are elected by the people, they deem it incumbent upon themselves to obey these laws.

Now, rationally speaking, to what extent are deputies who have not voted in favor of the laws, or the minority who have not voted for the deputies who approved those laws, obliged to abide by those laws? When a law is approved by the deputies of the majority of people, should the minority who opposed the law psychologically and emotionally be obliged to obey it? How can they be bound by majority will?

Obedience to Islamic laws which are ratified by the Majlis deputies and approved by the wali al-faqih has been made obligatory by God, and even those who have not voted in favor of those laws are religiously bound to abide by them. Of course, the Muslims are aware of this fact and are sincerely committed to obey the laws of the Islamic state that have divine legitimacy. They do not oppose these laws because they are familiar with the structure and rules of the divine Islamic government. This level of obedience and acceptance of laws and rules is among the merits and salient features of the divine system which has materialized in our country under the label of wilayah al-faqih system.

Through a survey of the Islamic movement and Revolution, we realized that widespread obedience of people to the Leader- Jurist-Guardian, and sincere submission to His Eminence’s commands and instructions was the key factor in our advancement and victory during the Revolution and after its victory. Also, the same factor was the reason why our nation emerged victorious with honor in the unequal war (imposed by Iraq).

p: 269

Is there anyone in the world who does not know that one of the important factors of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran was the people’s religious belief in the exigency and indispensability of obeying their religious leader? Then, as an injustice of the highest order, in a country where the Islamic system is established by the sacrifices and selflessness of martyrs who struggled and waged jihad by the order of their leader and religious reference authority, some elements write and claim, thus: “The Imam sailed smoothly over the wave of the people’s movement and portrayed it as the Islamic movement and Revolution!”

Is this claim true? If the Muslims of Iran had not been present on the scene of the Revolution and discharged their spiritual and religious obligations and opened their breasts vis-à-vis the bullets, could the Revolution succeed? Had it not been for the order of the Imam, would they have done these things? It is unfair for us to forget and deny these realities.

The truth is that religion and the Imam’s leadership played the leading and crucial role in the occurrence of the Revolution, its continuity, and then victory in the war after enduring all adversities, difficulties and problems. God willing, through the leadership of the competent successor of the eminent Imam (q) and his astute policies, these standings will continue as before under the auspices of the unity and solidarity of the self-sacrificing people of Iran, and under the shadow of the wali al-faqih’s leadership (may Allah, the Exalted, protect him), the people will reach further stages and degrees of perfection and advancement.

Summing up, categorization of citizenship is something accepted by all political systems of the world and the difference in classes of citizenship is not something we have originated. This difference in classes of citizenship has nothing to do with their essential humanity. From the perspective of their being human, all people are in the same class.

However, either they naturally possess certain qualities that may be a source of difference in duties and rights, or they have acquired qualifications, qualities, capabilities, and talents which are the reason why they have to discharge certain duties, and likewise, to enjoy certain rights. So, the source of difference in rights and duties is either natural differences or differences arising from individual choice and freewill. For example, professing a certain religion, or acquiring necessary qualities and capability for the assumption of a post or position, including the acceptance of certain principles and foundations, can be contributory in the status of their citizenship or nationality.

p: 270

Dante Alighieri, 182, 183

Dāwūd (David) (‘a), 115

democracy, 15, 27, 83, 93, 100, 174, 176, 177, 191, 192, 193, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 311, 312, 313, 314, 316, 319

democratic government, 15, 192, 329

democratic republic, 316

democratic system, 135, 329

dictatorship, 15, 311, 312, 313

different interpretations, 122, 125, 154, 219

direct designation, 115

divine culture, 233, 234, 237, 238, 240

divine laws, 28, 39, 40, 45, 58, 69, 107, 131, 141, 142, 144, 155, 194, 214, 257, 259, 273, 319, 327

divine legislative will, 57

divine legitimacy, 330

divine limits [ḥudūd], 41, 42, 72, 319

divine rights, 318

divine will, 44, 317, 323, 326

economic progress, 160, 208, 282

economic security, 325

Egypt, 115, 255

Elitism, 192

essence of humanity, 73, 159, 283, 313, 322, 331

essence of justice, 19, 156

essential laws, 126, 217, 316

essentials of religion, 126, 127

establishment of justice, 279

establishment of order, 184, 207, 263

executive guarantee, 106, 111, 286

executive guarantor, 232

executive power, 38, 105, 106, 109, 110, 143, 294

existentialists, 139

Expediency Council, 171

Fatḥ-‘Alī Ākhūndzādeh (Ākhūndof), 216

first class citizen, 313, 322, 327, 329

first class citizenship, 313, 327, 329

fixed laws, 217, 266

form of government, 14, 16, 59, 93, 303, 314, 317

France, 305

freedom above religion, 224

freedom above the law, 189

freedom of expression, 94, 99, 200, 201, 204, 205, 206, 215

freedom of man, 82, 144, 145, 171, 180, 242

freedom of others, 203, 206, 210

freedom of religion, 205, 215, 216, 318

freedom of the press, 94, 316

fuqahā, 6, 26, 51, 56, 58, 118, 128, 129, 194, 217, 220, 223, 255, 257, 266, 301, 302, 317

general designation, 113, 115, 118, 270, 301

general laws, 38, 105, 131

p: 272

general successor, 114

Germany, 230

Global Arrogance, 27, 28, 133, 310

God’s permission, 327

God-centeredness, 185, 187

Gospel, 220

government apparatus, 294, 308

government of the people, 191, 303, 305

government structure, 309

Greece, 199, 303

Hābīl (Abel), 85

ḥijāb, 305, 311, 312

historical rights, 322

Hobbes, Thomas, 277, 284

holism, 135

ḥudūd, 41, 42

humanfreedom, 4, 64, 71, 83, 91, 302

human nature, 199

human perfection, 57, 82, 258, 259, 260, 281, 284

human rights, 80, 83, 136, 137, 200, 203, 205, 314, 318

human society, 134, 198, 205, 259, 280

humanism, 182, 183, 184, 187, 190, 233, 236, 239, 247

humanist culture, 190

Hume, David, 73, 74, 298

Ibrāhīm (Abraham) (‘a), 90

illegitimate freedom, 189, 225, 227

Imām ‘Alī (‘a), 18, 58, 103, 112, 113, 167, 186, 224, 241, 255, 301, 309

Imām aṣ-Ṣādiq (‘a), 30, 255, 256, 291, 301

Imām Ḥasan (‘a), 18

Imām Khomeinī, 2, 6, 8, 10, 103, 151, 210, 217, 270, 281, 300, 309, 331

Imām of the Time, 216, 240, 269, 301, 315

individual freedom, 94, 147, 181, 203

individual life, 295

individual rights, 37, 285, 287

individualism, 285

infallible Imām, 6, 42, 61, 73, 80, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 131, 211, 212, 253, 254, 256, 257, 270, 301, 315, 317

intellectual eclecticism, 163, 164, 169

international law, 34, 38, 106, 119, 120, 129, 188, 258, 272, 313, 327, 328

Iran, 6, 11, 12, 18, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 74, 94, 97, 100, 103, 106, 120, 185, 186, 190, 192, 216, 223, 272, 316, 328, 330

Islamic Consultative Assembly, 29, 92, 109, 110, 112, 151, 171, 193, 194, 210, 223, 265, 267, 269, 304, 308, 329, 330

Islamic culture, 143, 183, 184, 185, 187, 215, 233, 236, 238, 241, 242, 243, 323

p: 273

Islamic democratic republic, 316

Islamic government, 6, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 39, 58, 77, 97, 103, 104, 108, 113, 114, 151, 192, 193, 241, 247, 279, 282, 287, 302, 306, 308, 316, 324, 328, 329, 330

Islamic laws, 7, 27, 70, 91, 107, 108, 122, 128, 131, 147, 155, 156, 193, 194, 214, 217, 221, 228, 251, 285, 306, 308, 309, 315, 316, 319, 329

Islamic Republic, 6, 27, 106, 185, 194, 215, 216, 217, 218, 223, 272, 273, 316, 317

Islamic Revolution, 6, 18, 21, 74, 88, 103, 138, 150, 160, 185, 186, 217, 330

Islamic society, 28, 41, 91, 97, 114, 118, 125, 164, 184, 194, 221, 227, 255, 265, 286, 287, 300, 324

Islamic state, 23, 72, 168, 210, 218, 226, 243, 280, 284, 310, 329, 330

Islamic system, 7, 106, 111, 134, 151, 152, 190, 195, 257, 301, 309, 330

Islamic values, 72, 100, 184, 243

judicial power, 38, 105, 106, 305, 307

justice, 16, 19, 38, 40, 57, 71, 76, 115, 121, 129, 146, 152, 154, 155, 156, 158, 198, 236, 238, 263, 278, 279, 280, 283, 284

laic, 304, 306

laicism, 311

Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, 108

law enforcers, 299, 304, 308, 311

law of God, 90, 100, 194, 250, 261, 262, 301, 327

legal laws, 43, 143, 144, 147, 150, 231

legal philosophy, 134, 136, 137, 145, 152, 161, 199, 210, 321, 322, 328

legislation, 7, 81, 109, 113, 114, 116, 118, 121, 135, 174, 176, 177, 191, 193, 194, 236, 242, 251, 252, 260, 261, 262, 263, 266, 267, 269, 277, 289, 298, 302, 303, 305, 307, 311, 317

legislative Lord, 81, 194, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 256, 257, 261, 262, 265, 317, 318

legislative Lordship, 81, 194, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 256, 257, 261, 262, 265, 317, 318

legislative polytheism, 250

legislative power, 38, 105, 294

legislator, 121, 189, 233, 240, 260, 263, 264, 266, 270, 282

legitimacy, 15, 38, 44, 106, 190, 257, 269, 271, 309, 317, 329

legitimate freedom, 189, 202, 223, 224, 226, 227

liberalism, 93, 101, 134, 145, 174, 180, 183, 184, 187, 190, 204, 209, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 247, 262

limitation of freedom, 203, 204

limited freedom, 138, 189, 222

macrocosm of the Islamic government, 118

maintenance of security, 278, 279

Majlis deputies, 329, 330

majority of people, 10, 28, 155, 158, 175, 192, 298, 305, 307, 309, 319, 330

p: 274

majority vote, 70, 192, 298, 309

majority will, 329

Mālik al-Ashtar, 112, 115, 255

man’s freewill, 139

man-made laws, 108, 177, 283, 285

Maqbūlah, 254, 256

Marfū‘ah, 254, 255

marja‘ at-taqlīd [source of emulation], 98

Karl Marx , 155

material affairs, 242

material interests, 158, 160, 161, 177, 206, 207, 208, 209, 233, 240, 242, 263, 279, 280, 281, 285, 287

material needs, 159, 160, 281, 283

material progress, 160

modernism, 80, 83

monotheism [tawḥīd], 78, 81, 87, 123, 125, 167, 168, 179, 187, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 256, 257, 259, 262, 265, 276, 317

Montesquieu, Charles Louis de Secondat Baron de la Brede et de, 37, 105

moral concepts, 298

moral laws, 121, 129, 140, 141, 143, 144, 150, 231, 263, 286

moral positivism, 239

moral standards, 202

moral value, 55, 145, 172, 239, 247

Mu‘āwiyah, 58, 59, 167

Sayyid Ḥasan Mudarris , 12, 25

Murtaḍā Muṭahharī , 317

Nahj al-Balāghah, 167, 209, 225, 241

national sovereignty, 227, 276

natural differences, 324, 331

natural law, 108, 119, 121, 136, 199, 200, 322

natural laws, 108, 119, 136

necessity of enacting law, 120

Orthodox Christianity, 216

otherworldly interests, 233, 280, 281, 287

People of the Book [ahl al-kitāb], 168, 249, 250, 251

period of Occultation, 6, 255, 301

philosophy of government, 17, 296

philosophy of law, 104, 187, 198, 199, 201, 203

philosophy of legislation, 135

political philosophy, 3, 11, 14, 17, 18, 134, 137, 145, 152, 161, 247, 277, 314, 321

populism, 93, 191, 303

power, 15, 22, 23, 29, 38, 46, 83, 105, 106, 110, 139, 140, 185, 187, 191, 221, 229, 249, 250, 255, 260, 272, 306, 314

practical intellect, 73, 74

President, 100, 109, 110, 271, 300, 322, 326, 327

press, 17, 94, 98, 100, 137, 144, 160, 175, 186, 215, 265, 316

p: 275

Prophet Muḥammad (ṣ), 4, 17, 30, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 53, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 80, 97, 98, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 121, 122, 127, 131, 175, 192, 204, 211, 219, 220, 235, 248, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 265, 270, 275, 286, 291, 301, 316

Protestantism, 216

proximity to God, 5, 141, 142, 259, 263, 281, 283

Qābīl (Cain), 85

qiṣāṣ, 41, 217

ratified laws of the Majlis, 109, 111, 151, 171, 193, 223, 308

rational freedom, 202, 203

rational laws, 108, 119

real interests, 161, 190, 297, 298

real laws, 136, 138, 140

realm of religion, 57, 59, 172, 173, 176

relationship between man and God, 12, 31, 32, 44, 51, 79, 144, 219, 273, 318

relationship between religion and government, 58

relationship between science and religion, 172

religious credibility, 270

religious government, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30

religious laws, 26, 43, 58, 107, 211

religious pluralism, 165, 167

religious sanctities, 72, 99, 203, 206, 242, 286, 316

Renaissance, 105, 277, 303, 318

republicanism, 316, 317

restriction of freedom, 91

right of Allah [ḥaqq Allāh], 193, 194, 260, 261, 318

right of legislation, 39, 40, 135, 154, 177, 252, 261, 264

right of Lordship, 193, 246, 260, 264, 283

right of sovereignty, 250, 251, 273, 276

right to bid and forbid, 264, 267, 270

right to life, 324

rights and duties, 105, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 328, 331

role of the people, 17, 308, 309

Roman Catholic Church, 14

Roman Empire, 182

Jean-Jacques Rousseau , 284

rule of the law, 87, 88

Sa‘dī, 291, 313

Sayyid Muḥammad_Bāqir Ṣadr, 308

Salman Rushdie, 204

Jean-Paul Sartre 139

scope of freedom, 189, 202, 203, 206, 209, 210, 239

scope of religion, 243

second class citizenship, 313, 327, 328, 329

secular, 179, 287, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312

p: 276

secular system, 304, 312

secularism, 25, 27, 176, 180, 183, 184, 187, 212, 234, 235, 236, 237, 239

Senate, 109

separation of powers, 37, 104, 106

separation of religion and politics, 25, 27, 29, 31, 49, 184

separation of religion from issues of life, 183, 234, 235

servitude of man, 275

sharī‘ah, 69, 202, 222, 306

skepticism, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 81, 83, 84, 91, 94, 107, 108, 128, 144, 165, 166, 177, 178, 227, 258, 266, 267, 268, 275, 299, 302, 322

social democratic government, 285

social indulgence and negligence, 166

social issues, 13, 34, 57, 92, 121, 175, 176, 193, 271, 298

social laws, 35, 38, 106, 108, 121, 122, 129, 134, 145, 146, 147, 242, 258, 298

social life, 4, 34, 71, 72, 77, 79, 83, 105, 120, 122, 146, 147, 152, 160, 173, 174, 184, 197, 206, 212, 258, 268, 278, 281, 282, 285, 299, 300

social order, 42, 79, 177, 187, 206

socialist government, 155

sociopolitical development, 243

sovereignty of God, 257, 273, 274, 276

sovereignty of the Imāms (‘a), 257

sovereignty of the people, 93

sovereignty of the Prophet (ṣ), 257

special laws, 152

spiritual advancement, 55, 160, 197

spiritual affairs, 203, 242

spiritual interests, 160, 161, 177, 187, 188, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 222, 242, 263

spiritual needs, 44, 159, 284

statutory laws, 110, 112, 119, 121, 135, 154, 171, 194, 260, 329

straight path, 87, 169, 219, 323

Sunnah, 30, 33, 35, 57, 58, 61, 107, 111, 127, 175, 220, 270

ta‘zīrāt, 41, 42

tafwīḍ, 139

ṭāghūt, 86, 88, 255, 270, 301

theocracy, 14, 16

theoretical intellect, 73, 74

theory of the Islamic government, 309

theory of wilāyah al-faqīh, 14, 26, 64, 115, 197, 317, 329

three branches of the government, 37, 38, 105

Torah, 220

traditional interpretation, 219, 305

Trinity, 167, 168, 182

Turkey, 182, 307, 312

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 99, 100, 136, 137, 202, 203, 204, 205, 312, 313, 318

vicegerent of Allah [khalīfat Allāh], 75

Vietnam War, 139

p: 277

vote of the people, 100, 175, 192, 309

walī al-faqīh, 14, 15, 24, 26, 44, 64, 97, 113, 193, 210, 256, 269, 270, 309, 317, 328, 329, 330, 331

Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 185

Western culture, 12, 169, 174, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 205, 212, 214, 215, 219, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 240, 241, 242, 247, 317

Western society, 145, 185

Western technology, 184

wilāyah al-faqīh, 6, 7, 14, 26, 27, 28, 29, 64, 106, 115, 171, 185, 187, 192, 195, 197, 215, 255, 257, 301, 302, 316, 317, 329, 330

wilāyah al-faqīh system, 7, 185, 302, 329, 330

will of the people, 31, 112, 153, 174, 175, 177, 178, 191, 192, 297, 306, 315, 327

World War II, 22

worldly interests, 209, 281, 287

worship of God, 44, 90, 169, 237, 283, 323

xenomaniac [gharbzadeh], 26

Yazīd, 58, 59

p: 278

p: 279

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH,

THE ALL-BENEFICENT, THE ALL-MERCIFUL

The first of two volumes of the renowned and comprehensive text on Islamic political theory by Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi, dealing with the importance of recognizing Islam as the basis of any just political theory, methods of implementing such a theory by the government, and comparing and contrasting this Islamic system with the system predominant in most Western ans secular nations.

قال اللهُ تعالی:

إِنّما یُرِیدُ اللّهُ لِیُذْهِب عنْکُمُ الرِّجْس أهْل الْبیْتِ ویُطهِّرکُمْ تطْهِیرًا

Indeed, Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O People of the Household, and purify you with a thorough purification.

(Sūrah al-Aḥzāb 33:33)

Prophetic traditions, mentioned in both Sunnī and Shī'īte most reliable reference books of Hadīth and Tafsīr (Quranic Exegesis), have confirmed that this holy verse was revealed to exclusively involve the five individuals of the Cloak; namely, Muhammad, ‘Alī, Fātīmah, al- Hasan, and al- Husayn, peace be upon them, to whom the term ‘Ahl al-Bayt (People of the House)’ is solely dedicated.

For instance, refer to the following reference books:

(1) Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), al-Musnad, 1:331; 4:107; 6:292, 304. (2) Sahīh Muslim (d. 261 AH), 7:130. (3) Al-Tirmidhī (d. 279 AH), Sunan, 5:361 et al. (4) Al-Dulabī (d. 310 AH), al-Dhurriyyah at-Tāhīrah an-Nabawiyyah, p. 108. (5) An-Nassa’i (d. 303 AH), al-Sunan al-Kubrā' 5:p108, 113. (6) al- Hakīm al-Nayshābūrī (d. 405 AH), al-Mustadrak ‘alā as-Sa hīhayn, 2:416, 3:133, 146, 147. (7) al-Zarkāshī (d. 794 AH), al-Burhān, pp. 197. (8) Ibn Hājar al-Asqalānī (d. 852), Fath al-Barī Sharhh Sahīh al-Bukhārī, 7:104. (9) Al-Kulaynī (d. 328 AH), Usūl al-Kāfī, 1:287. (10) Ibn Bābaūyah (d. 329 AH), al-Imāmah wa’l-Tabsirah, pp. 47, H. 29. (11) Al-Maghribī (d. 363 AH), Da’aa’im al-Islām, pp. 35, 37. (12) As-Sadūq (d. 381 AH), al-Khisāl, pp. 403, 550. (13) At-Tūsī (d. 460 AH), al-Amaalī, H. 438, 482, 783.

For more details, refer to the exegesis of the holy verse involved in the following reference books of tafsīr: (1) At-Tabarī (d. 310 AH), book of Tafsīr. (2) Al-Jassās (d. 370 AH), Ahkām al-Qur’an. (3) Al-Wahīdī (d. 468 AH), Asbāb an-Nuzūl. (4) Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH), Zād al-Masīr. (5) Al-Qurtubī (d. 671 AH), al-Jāmī’ li-ahkām al-Qur’an. (6) Ibn Kathīr (d. 774 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (7) Al-Tha'albī (d. 825 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (8) As-Suyūtī (d. 911 AH), al-Durr al-Manthūr. (9) Ash-Shawkanī (d. 1250 AH), Fath al-Qadīr. (10) Al-'Ayyāshī (d. 320 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (11) Al-Qummī (d. 329 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (12) Furt al-Kūfī (d. 352 AH), Book of Tafsīr; in the margin of the exegesis of verse 4:59. (13) Al-Tabrīzī (d. 560 AH), Majma‘al-Bayān, as well as many other reference books of Hadith and Tafsīr.

p: 2

ISLAMIC

POLITICAL THEORY

Volume 2

(Legislation)

p: 3

The second of two volumes of the renowned and comprehensive text on Islamic political theory by Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi, dealing with the importance of recognizing Islam as the basis of any just political theory, methods of implementing such a theory by the government, and comparing and contrasting this Islamic system with the system predominant in most Western ans secular nations.

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صلی الله علیه و آله:

إنِّی تَارِکٌ فِیکُمُ الثَّقَلَیْنِ: کِتَابَ اللهِ وَعِتْرَتِی أهْلَ بَیْتِی، مَا إنْ تَمَسَّکْتُمْ بِهِمَا لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدِی أبَداً، وَإنَّهُمَا لَنْ یَفْتَرِقَا حَتَّی یَرِدَا عَلَیَّ الْحَوْضَ.

The Messenger of Allah (s) said:

“Verily, I am leaving among you two precious things [Thaqalayn]: The Book of Allah and my progeny [‘itrah], the members of my Household [Ahl al-Bayt]. If you hold fast to them, you shall never go astray. These two will never separate from each other until they meet me at the Pond [hawd] (of Kawthar).”

Some of its references:

Al­Hakim an­Nayshaburi, Al­Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn (Beirut), vol. 3, pp. 109-110, 148, 533.

Muslim, As-Sahih, (English translation), book 31, hadiths 5920-3.

At­Tirmidhi, As-Sahih, vol. 5, pp. 621-2, hadiths 3786, 3788; vol. 2, p. 219.

An-Nassa’i, Khasa’is ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, hadith 79.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Al-Musnad, vol. 3, pp. 14, 17, 26; vol. 3, pp. 26, 59; vol. 4, p. 371;

vol. 5, pp. 181-182, 189-190.

Ibn al­Athir, Jami ‘al­Usul, vol. 1, p. 277.

Ibn Kathir, Al­Bidayah wa’n­Nihayah, vol. 5, p. 209.

Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, vol. 6, p. 199.

Nasir ad-Din al-Albani, Silsilat al-Ahadith as-Sahihah (Kuwait: Ad-Dar as-Salafiyyah), vol. 4, pp. 355-358.

p: 4

ISLAMIC POLITICAL THEORY

Volume 2

(Legislation)

Professor Muḥammad Taqī Miṣbāḥ Yazdī

Translator

Mansoor Limba

Cultural Affairs Department

The Ahl al-Bayt(‘a) World Assembly

p: 1

نام کتاب: نظریه سیاسی اسلام جلد ١

نویسنده: استاد محمّد تقی مصباح یزدی

مترجم: منصور لیمبا

زبان ترجمه: انگلیسی

Islamic Political Theory (Legislation) Volume 2

Author: Professor Muḥammad Taqī Miṣbāḥ Yazdī

Translator and typesetter: Mansoor Limba

Project supervisor: Translation Unit, Cultural Affairs Department, The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly (ABWA)

Editor: Sayyidah Effat Shah

Publisher: ABWA Publishing and Printing Unit

First Printing: 2008

Printed by: Laylā Press

Copies: 5,000

ISBN: 978-964-529-454-8

© The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly (ABWA)

www.ahl-ul-bait.org

info@ahl-ul-bayt.org

p: 2

SESSION 27 —47

A PERSPECTIVE ON THE DISTINCTIVE STRUCTURE OF THE ISLAMIC STATE —47

FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT IN ISLAMIC AND SECULAR SYSTEMS —47

PRESENTATION OF A SECULAR STATE MODEL BY THOSE ENAMORED BY WESTERN CULTURE —48

STATE’S MISSION TO PRESERVE AND PROMOTE ISLAMIC MOTTOS —48

METHODS EMPLOYED BY THE STATE TO FULFILL ITS RESPONSIBILITIES —49

MODEL OF TOTALITARIAN AND LIBERAL STATES —50

ISLAM’S IDEALISTIC AND REALISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON STATE —52

DEFECTS OF A STATE’S CENTRALIZED SYSTEM —54

SESSION 28 —57

OBSERVANCE OF VALUES AND LEGITIMATE FREEDOM IN AN ISLAMIC STATE —57

A GLANCE AT THE STATE’S RAISON D’ÊTRE —57

FIRST PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN CONDUCT —59

ISLAM’S INSTRUCTIVE APPROACH IN ENACTING PENAL AND CRIMINAL LAWS —60

THE STATE’S FIXED AND ALTERABLE DUTIES —62

DIFFERENCE IN MANNER OF IMPLEMENTING LAWS BETWEEN ISLAMIC AND OTHER STATES —63

SESSION 29 —67

THE POLITICAL HIERARCHY IN THE ISLAMIC STATE —67

SPECIFIC DUTIES OF AN ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT —67

QUALIFICATIONS OF ISLAMIC STATE OFFICIALS —68

1. Knowledge of law —68

2. Moral excellence —69

3. Managerial skill and experience —69

NECESSITY OF DETERMINING ORIGIN OF STATESMEN’S QUALIFICATIONS —70

REJECTING THE VALUE-LADEN APPROACH OF KANT IN THE REALM OF BEHAVIOR —70

ISLAM’S NON-JUDGMENTAL APPROACH IN VALUE-GIVING AND ASSIGNING DUTIES—72

WORSHIP HAS DIFFERENT DEGREES OF VALUE —73

CATEGORIZED MODELS OF ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT —74

RATIONAL PROOF OF THE WILĀYAH AL-FAQĪH SYSTEM —75

p: 4

SESSION 30 —79

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ABSOLUTE GUARDIANSHIP OF THE JURIST AND THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENT —79

BALANCE BETWEEN PREROGATIVES AND DUTIES IN THE ISLAMIC STATE —79

CONNECTION BETWEEN ABSOLUTE GUARDIANSHIP [WILĀYAT-E MUṬLAQ] AND GOVERNMENT PREROGATIVES —80

PEOPLE’S SKEPTICISM ON ABSOLUTE GUARDIANSHIP —80

INVESTIGATING THE STRUCTURE OF ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT —81

1. The extensiveness and irrevocability of Islamic laws —82

2. Presentation of government models derived from Islam —83

PRECEDENCE OF THE NOTION OF “STATE WITHIN A STATE” IN ISLAM —84

IMĀM KHOMEINĪ’S PRESENTATION OF “ABSOLUTE GUARDIANSHIP OF THE JURIST —86

DESCRIPTION OF WILĀYAT AL-FAQĪH IN THE MAQBŪLAH OF ‘UMAR IBN ḤANẒALAH’88

ISLAM’S VIEW ON SEPARATION OF POWERS —90

GROUNDS FOR OVERLAPPING OF FUNCTIONS —91

SESSION 31 —93

AN EXAMINATION AND CRITICISM OF THE THEORY OF SEPARATION OF POWERS —93

HISTORICAL TREND LEADING TO THE THEORY OF SEPARATION OF POWERS —93

REASONS BEHIND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS —94

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF TOTALLY SEPARATING AND DELINEATING THE POWERS —95

NEED FOR AN INSTITUTION THAT COORDINATES AND SUPERVISES THE THREE POWERS—97

WILĀYAH AL-FAQĪH AS THE UNIFYING AXIS OF SOCIETY AND THE POLITICAL SYSTEM98

SESSION 32 —101

THE EXIGENCY OF ELUCIDATING THE IDEOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE ISLAMIC SYSTEM —101

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT —101

1. General understanding —101

2. Specialized and technical understanding —102

3. Average understanding —103

A REVIEW OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LAW AND ITS NECESSITY —104

ANOTHER REVIEW OF THE QUALITIES OF THE IMPLEMENTERS OF ISLAMIC LAWS —105

THEORETICAL CONNECTION OF ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES AND FOUNDATIONS —106

LOGICAL AND RATIONAL BASIS OF ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT’S LINEAR DEGREES —107

PRESENTING SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT —109

SESSION 33 —111

ISLAM AND DIFFERENT FORMS OF GOVERNMENT —111

SKEPTICISM ON ISLAM’S ALLEGED LACK OF GOVERNMENT PLANNING AND PROGRAM— 111

p: 5

REFUTING THE ABOVEMENTIONED SKEPTICISM AND STATING THE ISLAMIC VIEWPOINT ON THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT —113

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PRESENTING A FIXED GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE —113

SKEPTICISM ON ALLEGED TEMPORAL AND WORLDLY NATURE OF GOVERNMENT AND OBSOLETENESS OF ISLAMIC LAWS —115

REFUTATION OF THE ABOVE AND THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ISLAM’S IMMUTABLE AND ALTERABLE LAWS —116

DIVINE LAWS’ JURISDICTION ENCOMPASSES ALL SPHERES OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES —120

SESSION 34 —123

THE POSITION OF ISLAMIC LAWS AND OUR SYSTEM’S SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER SYSTEMS —123

CONNECTION OF THE IMMUTABLE LAWS OF ISLAM WITH GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ALTERABLE LAWS —123

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY LAWS AND THE SECONDARY LAWS’ ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH ISLAM —124

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS —127

EXIGENCY OF THE POWERS’ COORDINATING AGENCY —128

THE COORDINATION OF POWERS IN THE WILĀYAH AL-FAQĪH SYSTEM —129

THE WILĀYAH AL-FAQĪH SYSTEM’S SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER SYSTEMS —130

1. Internal cohesion —130

2. Internal and external executive guarantee —131

3. The Leader possessing the highest degree of piety and merit —133

4. Observance of the spiritual and real interests of human beings —134

SESSION 35 —137

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN FREEDOM, STATE AND LAWS —137

THE ALLEGED INCOMPATIBILITY OF AN APPOINTED RULER WITH FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY —137

EXAMINING INTRINSIC FREEDOM AND NEGATING THE THEORY OF PREDETERMINATION— 137

NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE INTERNALLY VALUE-ORIENTED SYSTEM AND FREEDOM —139

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN RELIGIOUS, OBLIGATIONS AND FREEDOM —141

THE CONNECTION OF ḤUDŪD AND TA‘ZĪRĀT WITH FREEDOM —143

THE EXISTENCE OF STATE AND LAWS NEGATES ABSOLUTE FREEDOM —145

THE EXIGENCY OF LINKING SOVEREIGNTY WITH ALLAH —146

SESSION 36 —151

NEED FOR DECISIVENESS IN IMPLEMENTING ISLAMIC ORDINANCES —151

SOCIAL IMPACT OF HUMAN ACTION AND THE NECESSITY OF GOVERNMENT —152

THE LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF GOVERNMENT AND THE ENIGMAS OF DEMOCRACY —152

1. First objection —153

2. Second objection —153

p: 6

3. Third objection —154

THE GOVERNMENT’S LEGITIMACY IN ISLAM —155

THE PROPHETS AND THEIR WAY OF GUIDING PEOPLE —156

THE NEED TO REMOVE OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY OF GUIDANCE —157

THE NECESSITY OF PRESERVING DIVINE VALUES AND NEGATING WESTERN VALUES—159

DECISIVENESS IN IMPLEMENTING LAWS AND STRUGGLING AGAINST ENEMIES OF THE SYSTEM —160

WARNING PEOPLE AGAINST CONSPIRATORS AND MERCENARIES —162

SESSION 37 —165

A SCRUTINY OF THE ISSUE OF VIOLENCE —165

THE ENEMIES’ SINISTER PROPAGANDA AND ACTIVITIES AGAINST ISLAM —165

THE WEST AND ITS PRETENTIOUS DEFENSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS —166

RESORTING TO VIOLENCE AND PLOTTING TO TOPPLE DOWN THE ISLAMIC SYSTEM —167

PAVING THE GROUND FOR THE ABSENCE OF PEOPLE FROM THE SCENE —168

THE EXIGENCY OF CONFRONTING CULTURAL CONSPIRACIES AND MISGIVINGS ABOUT RELIGIOUS SANCTITIES —169

ISLAM’S DESCRIPTION OF GOD’S MERCY AND WRATH —172

THE NECESSITY OF CONFRONTING ENEMIES AND HYPOCRITES, AND ELIMINATING IMPEDIMENTS TO GUIDANCE —174

OPPOSITION TO THE PENAL AND CRIMINAL LAWS OF ISLAM —176

VIOLENT MEASURES NOT CONFINED TO THE DOMAIN OF PENAL AND CRIMINAL LAWS— 177

ISLAM AND THE NEED TO ANSWER ALL ACADEMIC OBJECTIONS UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES —180

CONFRONTING THE CONSPIRACIES AND REACTION OF FOREIGNERS —181

THE QUR’AN AND THE NEED TO REPUDIATE AND BE INIMICAL TO ITS ENEMIES —182

SESSION 38 —185

CONFRONTATION OF WESTERN IDEAS AND BELIEFS’ WITH ISLAMIC LAWS —185

THE CONSTITUTIONAL MOVEMENT AND PROPAGATION OF WESTERN VALUES —185

SOME WRITERS’ DISPLEASURE AT THE PRESENTATION OF IDEAL FREEDOM IN ISLAM—186

ISLAMIC DECREE ON ENEMY COMBATANTS AND AGENTS OF CORRUPTION ON EARTH—187

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE LACK OF DECISIVE STEP AGAINST CONSPIRATORS —188

IRRESPONSIBLE STANCES AGAINST THE ISSUE OF VIOLENCE —190

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SYNONYM OF THE WORD “VIOLENCE” IN THE QUR’AN —190

THE WESTERN AND ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE —191

SESSION 39 —195

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIVITY OF VALUES AND RELIGIOUS NARRATIVES —195

RELIGION AS ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE —195

THREE APPROACHES ON THE RELATIVITY OF KNOWLEDGE —195

p: 7

1. First approach on the relativity of knowledge —196

2. Second approach on the relativity of knowledge (relativity of values) —197

THE ABSOLUTENESS AND INALTERABILITY OF SOME VALUES —198

THE BASIS OF ABSOLUTENESS OF SOME VALUES —200

THE RELATIVITY OF ALL VALUES AND RELIGIOUS NARRATIVES IN WESTERN CULTURE— 200

3. Third approach on the relativity of knowledge (relativity of religious knowledge) —202

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DOMAIN OF RELATIVE INTERPRETATIONS AND THE DOMAIN OF ABSOLUTE INTERPRETATIONS —204

SESSION 40 —207

RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE: FICTION OR TRUE REFLECTION? —207

THE STATUS OF REALISTIC AND UNREALISTIC LANGUAGES —207

THE MOTIVE OF INTRODUCING THE LANGUAGE OF RELIGION AS SYMBOLIC AND UNREALISTIC —208

WESTERNIZED INTELLECTUALS, THE PROMOTERS OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY OF RELIGION —210

ECLECTIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE STORY OF HĀBĪL AND QĀBĪL —211

THE PRESENTATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS IMAGE OF RELIGION —213

COMPARING THE QUR’AN WITH THE LANGUAGE OF POETRY AS A JUSTIFICATION OF PLURALIST INTERPRETATIONS —214

THE PLURALITY OF INTERPRETATIONS AND TRENDS OF KNOWLEDGE IN HERMENEUTICS —217

WORDS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF THEIR ARRIVING AT DIFFERENT TRUTHS —218

THE POSSIBILITY OF ACQUIRING ABSOLUTE AND REAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUR’AN—219

THE RELATIVISTS’ UNFOUNDED CLAIM OF QUR’ANIC LANGUAGE BEING UNREAL —220

IMĀM ‘ALĪ’S (‘A) EXPRESSION OF CONCERN OVER CULTURAL CONFUSION AND THE DISTORTION OF RELIGION —222

THE NECESSITY OF REMOVING PERSONAL PREFERENCES FROM THE DOMAIN OF RELIGION —225

INDEX —227

p: 8

p: 9

p: 10

This Assembly is also engaged in the study and publication of valuable works of pious predecessors and outstanding Shi‘ah personalities so that seekers of truth can quench their thirst from this refreshing fountain of knowledge offered by the Holy Prophet’s Household (‘a) as a gift to the entire world.

It is hoped that our readers do not deprive the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly of their valuable views and suggestions as well as constructive criticism in this arena.

We also invite scholars, translators and other institutions to assist us in propagating the pure Original Islam of Muhammad (s).

We ask God the Exalted, to accept this trivial effort and enhance it further under the auspices of His vicegerent on earth, Hadhrat al-Mahdi (may Allah the Exalted, expedite his glorious advent).

We express our utmost gratitude to Professor Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi for writing the book, Mr. Mansoor Limba for translating it, and all our honorable colleagues, especially the dear ones in the Translation Office for accomplishing this task.

Cultural Affairs Department

The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly

p: 12

The forms of government and the existence of fundamental differences in the structure and approach of grand administrative systems of societies are based on different epistemological systems, various worldviews and their concept of human beings. If a human being is considered as a mere physical body, the ultimate aspirations for him would be to be well provided materially and his welfare, comfort and happiness be ensured. From this perspective, all efforts would be directed toward animal needs and pleasure. However, if we treat man as superior to materiality, and lay the foundation of a political system based on the multi-faceted material and spiritual dimensions of human existence, a government would pursue man’s material welfare and spiritual ascension. It is through this criterion and outlook on man and the choice of ideals that we shall examine the political thoughts as well as the performance of governments; because the origin of political thoughts is the very insight and ideal and without them political thoughts have no essence.

Nowadays, in the realm of political discussions, only a few pay attention to the fundamental perspective on man and his sublime aspirations. The sociological approach focuses mainly on the material benefits totally sidetracking human aspiration and insight. Yet, it must be noted that in the school [maktab] of the prophets (‘a),(1) who were the true custodians of the establishment of exalted humane systems, optimism and idealism have been the foundation of movement and transformation. It is for this reason that through a comprehensive perspective consistent with the Qur’an, we realize that the creation of man, life and death, the sending down of the prophets (‘a), and socio-religious systems are all based on a purpose, and the axis of all activities and programs, including the setting up of government, is guidance [hidayah] toward that basic purpose.

As such, governments must be set up not only for the physical administration of societies but for their spiritual growth as well. One-dimensional governments strive only for the material welfare and comfort of people. If, however, they are in pursuit of man’s material comfort and spiritual ascension, they will also engage in guiding him. Man possesses God’s spirit, and the essence of his existence consists of spiritual and celestial dimensions beyond the base material ones. To confine him to physical administration without spiritual guidance is tantamount to belittling him.

If the ultimate goal of government is the good and of man (in this world) and attainment of divine proximity [qurb-e ilahi] and the axis of government is revolved around the guidance of mankind, undoubtedly the one most worthy to govern people is he who is the most aware of the real concerns and interests of man and perfectly cognizant of the dimensions and aspects of his existence, and that is nobody but God. The corollary of rational proof [burhan-e ‘aqli] which is also confirmed by verses of the Qur’an is that the perfection of man lies in obedience to the One who is fully aware and omniscient of the truth behind him, this world and the hereafter, and the

p: 14

mutual link between him, this world and the hereafter, is nobody but God. So, worship and guardianship inevitably belong to Allah alone.

That is, the Sole Master of man is God, and sovereignty of other than God, only if it is anchored in His will and permission, will be legitimate. As such, the theory of the guardianship of the jurist [wilayah al-faqih], which is the axis of the Islamic government, needs to be established during the period of occultation [ghaybah] of the infallible Imam (‘a). It is a theory which in recent centuries has drawn the close attention of Islamic scholars and jurists [fuqaha], and has reached its apex during recent decades. In comparison to the negation of religious authority, it turned out to be a useful, dynamic and socially transforming theory in the scene of the world of politics.

The Muslim world, during this contemporary era, has witnessed two truly momentous phenomena. One is the negative view on politics and religious authority. This perennial view, which permeates all religions particularly Islam and leads to the political isolation of religious thought and the decrease of religious movement, is a meta-religious onslaught that requires the scholars and intellectuals in the Muslim world to engage in elucidating and fortifying the pristine religious beliefs through profound and serious studies in order to be equipped with rational defense against it.

The second phenomenon is the presence of political thought based on wilayah al-faqih. Though, theoretically, this phenomenon has many precedents and different variations, its actual and concrete practice is traceable to the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

The Islamic Revolution of Iran—after a long and persistent struggle—attained victory under the wise and ingenious leadership of Imam Khomeini (q)(1), and through the overwhelming vote (98.22 %) of the Muslim people of Iran, the Islamic Republic was established. After the victory of the Islamic Revolution, a constitution based on Qur’anic verses and luminous laws of Islam was codified by a group of mujtahids,(2) Islamic scholars and experts of the nation which, as acknowledged by legal authorities and experts, is regarded as one of the most advanced constitutions in the world.

Up to this stage, the legal standing of the Islamic Republic was specified and fixed, and wilayah al-faqih stipulated in the constitution as the symbol of Islam, the truthfulness of the system, the guarantor of its survival and immunity from possible danger, and, the main pillar of the Islamic Republic. However, the events after the Revolution, the entanglement of the intellectual revolutionary forces with current problems, and the emotional, exaggerated and superficial presentation of wilayah al-faqih resulted in an improper scientific study, examination and elucidation of this issue.

Nevertheless, the Islamic system successfully handled the problems and society moved toward peace and stability. Due to the critical inquiries of theoretical rivals, more

p: 15

attention was paid to it and its various angles were elucidated by intelligent and wary scholars who were well aware of the conditions of the time.

In view of the exigency to explain: (i) the Islamic political theory and present its position in political systems; (ii) to deal with the existence of doubts, concerns and intellectual challenges behind this theory; and, (iii) to confront the pervasive efforts of the external and internal enemies in opposing this wilayah al-faqih system; the wise, vigilant scholar struggling to defend and guard the sanctity of religion and revealed teachings, His Eminence Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi (may Allah prolong his sublime presence), presented a series of discussions on Islamic political theory before sermons [kutbahs] of the Friday congregational Prayer of Tehran.

The present volume is the transcript of the said discussions compiled and edited by Mr. Karim Subhani and presented to you, dear readers, in two volumes (legislation and statecraft). It is hoped that this book is accepted by the concerned authorities and approved by Hadhrat Wali al-‘Asr [His Holiness, the Master of the Age] (may Allah the Exalted, expedite his glorious advent).

Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute

Tir 26, 1378 AHS (July 17, 1999)

p: 16

better than the absence of any government.(1) It is because in the absence of government or the executive, there will be chaos, the rights of individuals violated and the interests of society trampled upon. So, according to Islam, one of the most important social obligations of people is the establishment of an upright government so as to guarantee the interests of society.

origin of the new Western civilization, and their hallmark is the separation of religion from the realm of social concerns. It was during that time that philosophers discussed about politics, wrote books, founded schools of thought, and consigned moral virtues and spirituality to oblivion.

Among these philosophers was Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, who believed that the only function of government was to prevent anarchy. According to him, like wolves, human beings by nature would be at each other’s throats and destroy one another. Accordingly, a body was needed to curb the wolf’s instinct in them and prevent their aggression against one another. Following him, John Locke, who was the founder of Western liberal thought and whose ideas are still discussed and more or less accepted in all political and academic circles in the world, presented maintenance of security as the purpose of government.

According to him, what human beings need in life is a controlling agent called “government” in the absence of which social order will not come into being, anarchy will prevail, security will be lost, and the life and property of people will be endangered. He says, “We want government to fill this vacuum, other matters have nothing to do with government.”

Of course, the separation of religion from government and social affairs does not mean that none of these theoreticians gave importance to moral virtues and spiritual values. In fact, they said that individuals would have to pursue these matters themselves because they had nothing to do with government. Those who believe in God have to go themselves to the temple, church or anywhere they wish and engage in worshipping God. Similarly, moral virtues such as honesty, good conduct, respecting others, attending to the poor, and others are valuable, but considered personal matters. Individuals themselves have to strive to acquire these pleasant moral virtues, for government has nothing to do with them.

So, the objective of social law, i.e. what government must implement, is only maintenance of security in society so as to protect the life and property of people. Likewise, executive power has no function except maintenance of security and protection of people’s lives and properties. In the words of Locke, apart from protection of life and property, protection of personal freedom is also considered part of security. Regarding moral and spiritual interests, the maximum thing he said was that social law must be such that it does not conflict with morality nor hinder the worship of God.

With respect to preservation of moral values, however, social law and government would not assume the responsibility of preserving religious values and creating an atmosphere for spiritual and religious growth. Nowadays, this statement of Locke is the gospel and constitution of most schools of philosophy. Their principal motto is that the only duty of government is preservation of

p: 19

security and freedom, and it has no responsibility towards religious and moral affairs. This is the fundamental difference between Western thinkers in the world today and Islam.

However, if to provide for all material interests will undermine religion within a limited period, one should only provide for material interests that will not undermine religion, because spiritual interests take precedence. But in Western countries what we have said is not credible. They are only concerned with material objectives and the state is not responsible for spiritual interests.

Possibly, they would complain to us, saying: “In principle, in the Western countries the state levies taxes from people for the church. Why do you accuse them of being heedless to religion and spirituality?” This is the reply: This is also not dictated by liberal thought. In fact, their purpose is to win the hearts of the religious and make use of the power of the church.

Our concern here is their philosophy and their frame of mind. If ever they engage in some religious activities, it is meant to protect their own interests. In a bid to win elections, they strive to win the hearts and votes of the religious. Sometimes, during the presidential elections in the U.S of America, presidential candidates are seen going to church and drawing the attention of people. It does not mean that they are proponents of religion in the affairs of government.

but we knew that that government was not Islamic and some of its policies were anti-Islamic. Thus, the absence of the ground for implementation of the commandments of Islam does not make us say that Islam has been changed.

Even today, in some cases, we may not be able to implement Islam yet we are not supposed to say that Islam is exactly what we are doing. We have to understand Islam as it really is, and if we cannot practice an aspect of it, we have to beseech the forgiveness of God for our failure to do so, and if ever we have any shortcomings, God forbid, then we have to ask apology from the Muslim nation for our shortcomings in implementing Islam. So, we should not make any change in Islam and we should bear in mind that Islam is the same religion which was propagated by the Prophet of Islam (s) 1,400 years ago.

“government” has been treated as synonymous with “power” and one of the key concepts in political philosophy is the concept of “power”. In any case, we should bear in mind that the government must have power.

Since time immemorial, along with developments in human society, there existed different concepts of power. In simple and primitive governments—like the tribal governments which existed thousands of years ago in approximately all parts of the world—power basically focused on physical power which existed in the tribal chief or ruler. In those societies, the person who was physically the strongest was recognized as ruler; for, if there were any violator, the ruler used his physical power to punish him. Thus, in those days, power was only physical.

When social conditions became complex and there was further social growth and advancement, the physical power of a person was transformed into the power of an institution. That is, even if the ruler was not physically strong, he could have people at his disposal that had considerable physical strength. He could have a strong army and military force composed of strong men. With the advancement of knowledge, power went beyond the physical realm and was transformed into scientific and technological power. That is, the ruler was supposed to possess instruments that could successfully perform physical tasks.

With progress and development in societies and advancement of various industries and technologies, including the daily qualitative and quantitative advancement of military equipment, the state had no option but to acquire and equip the military with sufficient physical, industrial and technological power, to be able to suppress any uprising, prevent violations and people from embezzling property and endangering lives, by means of the power at its disposal.

Thus, the executive official must also possess social authority and acceptability. As such, in order to prevent any problem in the domain of management and pursue social interests, the distinctive qualities of executive officials must be determined so that they can guarantee the objectives of the government and law. That is, they really qualify to run the government and guarantee implementation of law. This is discussed in various forms in political philosophy and is usually known as social legitimacy and popular acceptability.

It means that the government must have a rational basis and adopt the correct way of implementing law, and people must consider it legally credible. In addition to the fact that the executive official must enjoy physical power to be able to prevent violations, the people must believe in his credibility and regard him deserving to rule. Thus, we have three types of authority. The first two types have been recognized in all societies. Of course, there are differences in forms of implementation in different schools and forms of government. Yet, what is most important for us is the third form of authority.

p: 25

p: 26

The Qur’an also opposes this notion and indicates that in human societies with different motives there will always be violation. Of course, social scientists are discovering and identifying the factors behind individuals’ violation and commission of crime, and have identified some as ignorance, illiteracy, genetic and environmental factors. This is not our concern at present as we only intend to state that violation of law and commission of crime and sin always existed, and will be the same in future.

Of course, we believe that by the grace and blessing of God, a time will come when through Hadhrat Wali al-‘Asr (may Allah expedite his glorious advent) the ideal Islamic and divine society will be established. It must be noted, however, that even that society will not be totally free from violation of law, in addition to the fact that it will also not persist forever. It is even mentioned in some traditions that some will revolt against the Imam of the Time (may Allah expedite his glorious advent) and cause his martyrdom.

It cannot even be expected therefore that during the rule of Hadhrat Mahdi (‘a) society will become totally ideal and desirable and completely devoid of sin and transgression. Of course, the structure of that government and his exercise of authority will be such that no oppression and corruption will continue unanswered, the implementation of justice will be all-encompassing, and violations in social and public life will diminish, but they will not be uprooted in total. This is because man will not acquire an angelic nature. As in the past, there will always be room for insolence, sin, violation, and transgression in him.

Thus, paying attention to reality prompts us to acknowledge the exigency of state and government. One must mingle with people and observe their conduct and behavior—see how even good and meritorious individuals commit sins and offences sometimes. Naturally, in order to deal with and prevent violations, sound and necessary laws must be implemented (and I dealt with the necessity of codifying and enacting them), for if laws for implementation and execution in society are codified, they must have implementers and executive guarantors. The fundamental reason for having a government is to guarantee the implementation of laws at all levels of society. This is the point we are presently concerned with. God willing, we shall deal with the duties and prerogatives of government, its organizational structure and other related issues in future discussions.

reason, in political philosophy the concept of power is pivotal. In fact, some have even described “politics” as “the science of power”. Admitting the necessity of a government or executive power possessing power and authority, the question arises: What is power and on what basis do certain people acquire power and authority to implement laws and deal with violations?

Some members of human society always tend to commit crimes due to various reasons such as weakness of intellect, lunacy, bad upbringing, and the like. They set a place on fire, open fire on innocent people, or commit crimes which, thank God, are rarely committed in our Islamic society. But statistics show that that same usually happens in the most advanced Western or European countries. As stated in reliable sources, in the capital of one of those countries, a certain number of murders are committed every minute.

These statistical records are reflected in the official papers of those countries. But if a murder or another crime is committed in a certain part of our country of 60 million people,(1) we will be surprised why such a crime is committed in the Islamic republic! In a bid to confront and deal with these crimes, there must be an institution possessing physical and material force to guarantee the implementation of laws.

Thus, the first condition in guaranteeing implementation of laws and dealing with violators is the possession of material, physical, and even bodily force and power. With the advancement in science and technology, sophisticated arms, instruments, tools and electronic devices are at the disposal of law-enforcers to penalize criminals. Keeping in view this necessity, each government—big and small, advanced or not—has a disciplinary force for dealing with crimes and maintenance of internal security.

The quantity and quality as well as the arms and equipment at the disposal of the disciplinary force are concordant with the type and structure of the government employing it. That is, the smaller and not-so-advanced governments tend to have meager forces and simpler military equipment while the more advanced, extensive and complex governments tend to have larger forces and more sophisticated and powerful arms, equipment and arsenal.

Without possession of brute force, implementation of laws cannot materialize. There must be brute force to call criminals to account, punish them and act as a deterrent.

Similarly, in order to protect and defend the frontiers against external enemies, the exigency of a potent deterrent force with sufficient equipment and facilities can be well understood. In the structure of states, the burden of

p: 30

this responsibility is shouldered by the army and disciplinary forces so as to defend the country’s frontiers.

government and implement law? On what basis does a person acquire the right to occupy the highest post in government? In a country of 60-million population with many experts, highly educated and meritorious figures, why is it that only one person occupies that highest post? Who grants him this power? Basically, what is the criterion of legitimacy of government and government officials?

The different political and legal schools have given diverse answers to the abovementioned questions, but the answer which is shared by the world today is that power is granted by people to the ruling body and chief executive. This power is granted to a person only through the general will and approval of people, and other ways of transferring power are illegitimate. It is not possible for a person to inherit such power from his father. In monarchical systems the notion is that power or sovereignty is hereditary. When a monarch dies, power is transferred to his son as an inheritance. This hereditary power is transferred from father to son, and people have no role in it.

This form of government still exists in some countries but the dominant culture in the world today and world public opinion does not accept this system and theory. Assuming that a person deserves to rule the people, it does not follow that after him his son is definitely the most competent person to take charge of government. People do not consider it as the most appropriate option. Besides, they clearly witness that there are others far more competent than the person who inherits political power.

It is on account of the unpopularity of the monarchical system that monarchy has become ceremonial in nature and its power delegated to a person elected by the people, for example, the prime minister. In reality, in those countries only the royal title remains for the monarch and actual power lies with the elected representative.

In the dominant democratic system of today, the person who is competent to take charge of government and executive power is the one who is elected by the people, and it is only through their will that the government acquires legitimacy. Of course, there are different forms of elections and the people’s will is manifested in different countries in different ways. In some countries, the chief executive is elected through the direct vote of the majority of people while in other countries the chief executive is chosen by parties and deputies elected by the people. In reality, the parties and members of parliament serve as the medium between the people and the chief executive. In any case, once a person is directly or indirectly elected by the majority of people, the power to rule is granted to him and thereby, as the chief executive he assumes the function of leading and guiding society.

According to this contract, during a temporary period of two years, four

p: 32

years, eight years or even a lifetime, the people are subject to the command and order of the elected ruler in accordance with the law accepted in various systems and countries.

Under this assumption, the power of the law enforcer or his government is derived from the people. He will not succeed, if the people do not approve of him. This idea or theory has various dimensions; philosophical, anthropological, conventional and empirical. Having experienced and observed the various forms of government, a given form of government has been identified as the best and most efficient form.

Once the legitimate government is formed, the people are bound to accept its laws and agree on following and obeying it. The Islamic system tackled and accepted this matter prior to its discussion in other schools and societies. The participation of people, their election of government officials and public consensus on it has long been theoretically discussed in Islamic society. Besides, it has also been put into practice. Imposing authority on others on the basis of inheritance or by the use of force is not only doomed to failure but also condemned by Islam. Thus, though Islam acknowledges the necessity of public consensus the question is: Is public consensus and people’s acceptance enough for the legitimacy of government according to Islam, or legally speaking, does the Islamic government only do what is approved by the people?

In some newspapers, articles and books, it is written that in the world today acceptability [maqbuliyyah] and legitimacy [mashru‘iyyah] go hand in hand. The basis and proof of a government’s legitimacy and right to rule is that the majority of people vote for it. In other words, legitimacy emanates from acceptability. Once the people accept a person and vote for him, his rule shall be legitimate and legal. This is the democratic viewpoint generally accepted by the world today. Our question is: Does Islam accept this view?

أَلْمُؤْمِنُونَ کَأَسْنَانِ الْمَشْطِ یَتَسَاوُونَ فِی الْحُقُوقِ بَیْنَهُمْ

“The believers are like the teeth of a comb; they are all equal in rights.”(1)

So, as servants of God, all are equal and as such there is no difference and distinction between them. All humans are equal in humanity and none is superior to others. Man and woman, white and black are all equally and essentially human. How, it can be asked, and on what basis does a person acquire power through which he exercises sovereignty over others? We accept that the law enforcer must possess brute force which he can employ in times of need. We stated that executive power without brute force cannot perform its duties and the raison d’être of executive power is nothing but brute force through which it compels people to obey the law.

Now, if brute force is not at work and the government can call on the people to obey the law by means of mere counsel and admonition, the presence of the ‘ulama’ and moral teachers would suffice. The philosophy behind the existence of brute force is that it can be employed in times of need to deter any violation of law, so that anyone who infringes upon the property and honor of another can be apprehended, imprisoned or punished.

The execution of punishments prevalent in the world today and also determined by Islam for violators—one of which and the most known is imprisonment—deprives man of some liberties. A person forcibly confined to an enclosed space has been deprived of his most fundamental freedom. The question is this: On the basis of which right can a person deprive a violator of his freedom? Law enforcers’ power to deprive a violator of law of his liberty and rights must be legitimate and rightful.

It is true that the offender must be punished, but why is this punishment exercised by a certain person and not just anyone? Selection of a given person for implementation of law and bestowing of legitimacy to his action must have some basis, because his action is an exercise of authority over human beings. He who imprisons the criminal actually exercises authority over his being—depriving him of freedom and rights, confining him to a limited space and not allowing him to go wherever he likes. He is like a king who is punishing his own slave.

Since dealing with criminals and violators means deprivation of their freedom and rights and is an exercise of authority over human beings, in the Islamic perspective, the basis of legitimacy of executive power is something more than majority vote. The basis of legitimacy is the permission of God because human beings are all servants of God and He has to grant permission to others to exercise authority over His criminal servants. All people—including criminals—have freedom and this freedom is a divine

p: 34

grace bestowed on all human beings and no one has the right to deprive others of this freedom. The one who has the right to deprive others of freedom is the Master of them all and that Master is none but God.

As such, in the Islamic perspective and approach, in addition to that which is regarded in all humane and rational systems as necessary for the formation of executive power and in essence government, another basis or criterion is also necessary which is rooted in Islamic beliefs and tenets. According to our beliefs, God is the Lord and Master of the universe and mankind. Such belief demands that exercise of authority over His creatures must definitely be done by His leave. On the other hand, laws that define crooked actions and consequently restrain liberties cannot be implemented by the citizens themselves as it requires an institution to pursue their implementation. Consequently, a government or executive power possessing brute force must be formed.

Undoubtedly, a government or executive power cannot function without exercising authority over God’s creatures and restricting the liberties of individuals. We have stated that exercise of authority over creatures, though only in the form of restriction of freedom of the criminals and offenders, is justifiable for the One who has such a prerogative, and this prerogative or merit is delegated to others by God only because He is the Master and Lord of mankind and He may authorize the government to exercise authority over His creatures.

The advantage of the theory of wilayah al-faqih over other theories about government introduced in political philosophy is that it is rooted in Islamic doctrines and monotheism [tawhid]. Under this theory, the government and the exercise of authority over people must be sanctioned by God. On the contrary, to believe that to exercise legal authority on the action and liberties of others does not require the permission of God is a sort of polytheism [shirk] in the Divine Lordship [rububiyyah].

That is, if the law enforcer believes that he has the right to exercise authority over the servants of God without His permission, he actually claims that just as God has the right to exercise authority over His servants, he also has the same right over them, and this is a form of shirk. Of course, it is a form of shirk which does not render a person as apostate [murtadd]; rather, it is a lower form of shirk which is equivalent to transgression and disobedience, which is a not a minor sin. How can a person consider himself equal to God and claim that just as God exercises authority over His servants, he also has the right to exercise authority over them by relying on their vote? Do the people have any authority that they can delegate to others? The people are all servants of God and the authority over them is in the hands of God.

If we correctly analyze the Islamic perspective and approach on governance, we will arrive at the conclusion that in addition to that which is acceptable to

p: 35

all rational people in the political systems in the world, there is another thing that must be taken into account, and that is the government’s need for the permission of God to exercise authority over His servants. According to this theory, the legitimacy of government is derived from God while the acceptance and vote of the people is the condition for the formation of government.

p: 36

subjective operations and activities based on personal preference cannot bring any good result and cannot stop the enemies’ satanic forces and their organized and well-planned military manoeuvres. Through efficient programs and schemes designed by an organization which is comprised of military experts, who are familiar with the dangers posed by the enemy and their level of facilities and capabilities, military forces must be organized for war operations. Such need can be met only by an organ which enjoys full authority over all members of that society.

By designing special programs and rules, it is the government which can mobilize people to participate in the war to thwart the danger to their country. In addition, to be prepared to confront external and internal threats, necessary defensive armaments and facilities must be acquired and efficient military training of individuals must be taken into account so that the country can have sufficient guards for external threats, as well as for internal security. This important task can only be shouldered by the government whose orders are obeyed and regarded as binding by the people.

The examples mentioned in relation to the second reason behind the need for government, i.e. meeting the public needs of society, give importance to defense issues of the country and confronting external enemies. In our country, the armed forces, comprising of the army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), are discharging this crucial and vital duty. Also, the examples we mentioned in relation to the first reason, i.e. guaranteeing the implementation of law, pertain to the maintenance of internal security and practical ways of compelling offenders to obey the law. This important duty has been placed upon the disciplinary forces.

Among public needs which cannot be met by individuals and must be addressed by the state are the medical needs of society. Society has always been on the verge of succumbing to contagious diseases some of which pose serious threats, and if not prevented can cause heavy human loss. In the past, human societies had been afflicted with contagious and infectious diseases such as cholera, plague, and small pox which caused heavy human losses because of the lack of advanced knowledge in medicine and hygiene and overall programs. Through interstate programs and the use of obtained knowledge and facilities in medicine today, prevention and elimination of those diseases became possible.

For instance, infantile paralysis (poliomyelitis or polio) caused heavy human loss to us, but through planning, grand medical activities and initiation of vaccination programs, our country has obtained valuable results. Undoubtedly, without state planning and public participation, such programs could not have materialized. A power superior to that of individuals, i.e. the government, by planning, providing facilities, issuing required orders, and codifying special rules and regulations must take a step in the scene of action and people must follow

p: 38

government orders so that society’s health need can be met and the root of diseases that threaten society be eliminated.

Similar to the above is the war against the smuggling, distribution and use of narcotic drugs, for this ruinous catastrophe seriously threatens the physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing of society. Without interference of the state, serious steps and well planned programs, it will not be uprooted, nor the limited measures of individuals make considerable difference. As such, because of the multiplicity of those needs and the difference among them, a ministry has been considered for meeting each of them

Of course, individuals can meet many needs of society, but the motive to meet them does not exist in everybody nor is it equally strong. Left to individuals, they cannot be met satisfactorily and sufficiently. Some sections of society will still be deprived of those facilities and needed things. Therefore, meeting those needs has also been delegated to the government so as to avoid any shortcoming. For example, people can be entrusted with the construction of schools, learning centers, academic curricula and provision of the budget needed by those centers throughout the country as done before.

Today, in some advanced countries, the administration and maintenance of many of these centers has been entrusted to the people but, unfortunately, all individuals do not have a strong motive to construct or provide the budget for those educational institutions where children can pursue their studies on different levels. Of course, we do not deny that there have always been philanthropists who shoulder heavy expenses of construction of schools, but their activities are limited and do not cover all levels of society. If the government delegates this need to volunteers, the interests of society will not be ensured.

Therefore, the government must have a pertinent program and policy in order to serve the interests of society. The budget for these needs must be allocated by the people. That is, by levying taxes and other custom duties and considering necessary ways, the government must make people pay the expenses for those needs, or itself provide the budget through national resources. Whatever means are employed, education must be at the disposal of all members of society for its welfare. If circumstances change and some volunteers shoulder the expenses of building and administering academic centers, a heavy burden will be removed from the government’s lot.

this vital and fundamental issue must be entrusted to government alone. Of course, after assuming the responsibility of war and defense, planning, policymaking and facilitating ways, the government can permit people to voluntarily take part in the war as popular mobilizing [basij] forces, and defend the Islamic country and government.

Therefore, there is no need for the government to assume all social responsibilities. In fact, people themselves can shoulder many responsibilities and voluntarily provide the pertinent budget. It is true that the government must play a pivotal role in order to have cohesion and avoid any discordance, make room for public participation and assumption of responsibilities, design overall and long-term programs. The main role of some ministries is policymaking and the rest of the work is done by the people.

For example, the main function of the Ministry of Trade is not to engage in trade, as, in principle, domestic and foreign trade must be carried out by people. Because of abuses committed by those affiliated with the monarchy during the previous regime, in high-level commercial transactions whose benefits the masses were deprived of, it is stipulated in the Constitution that trade and high-level commercial transactions will be carried out by the government.

In principle, business and commercial activities must be carried out by the people and not the government. It is known that the government is not a suitable trading agent. Once it directly engages in commercial activities, it fails because in trade and industry, and in economic affairs in general, personal motivation and group competition play a very important role, and when properly guided, such motivation brings about progress, development and dynamism in trade and industry. Once trade becomes a state affair, motivation no longer exists. As a result, no progress is made.

In totalitarian governments and centralized states such as the socialist and communist regimes in China, Cuba, the erstwhile Soviet Union, and countries of the former Eastern Bloc, the state directly assumes all activities, policymaking and planning, and in all economic, commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities people do not play any role as the state’s executive agents. All affairs are entrusted to the state, and the people, i.e farmers and factory workers, work as public workers and wage-earners. Contrary to this, the Islamic government believes in principle that functions that can benefit by being entrusted to the people should be handed over to them and their ownership and autonomy respected.

centers with free medication to serve those who cannot afford their medication expenses. As such, hospitals have been built for this purpose within the framework of social insurance law. In advanced countries such centers render extensive services to the people by exempting them from paying medical fees, and the state is obliged to provide medical expenses for people through taxes or national resources.

Once the taxation system is formulated for the procurement of a part of the state budget, including social and medical insurance, the people are obliged to pay their taxes according to the low. In advanced countries complex methods are used through which no one can evade taxes. The tax-payers also enjoy the benefits and utilities of taxes, but the low-income and vulnerable strata benefit from the free services of social and medical insurance. But the question is: Is it better to entrust public welfare activities and building medical centers to the people so that patients can benefit from their services, or the state should compel people to pay taxes and itself engage in constructing medical centers so that the low-income strata can benefit from their services?

Indisputably, the first option is better and more desirable. This option is preferred in the philosophy of Islamic laws. In Islam the people have been recommended to spend some of their earnings on public welfare works and let others benefit from them, for in this way, the value of charity will be preserved and the doers will attain self-perfection and otherworldly rewards, while the needs of society will be met. But if people are compelled to give a portion of their earnings, the value of volunteerism will be lost and they will not earn any spiritual reward nor acquire perfection.

The institution of pious endowments is an example of the voluntary work of charity by our benevolent Muslim people throughout history which has brought enormous benefits to our society. It can be said that there is no village in this country which has no pious endowment benefiting people. However, in recent years, unfortunately, this endowment has diminished and fewer people establish pious endowments, notwithstanding the value, nobility and sanctity of this pleasing-to-God work. In addition, we have many pious endowments which are either forgotten or not properly managed.

No doubt, if a pious endowment were revived and its status recognized again, many of the needs of the state would be met, and if many pious endowments were reestablished, a heavy burden would be removed from the state, and thereby, the people would also receive more spiritual rewards. Once the people engage in charity work out of their own freewill and volition with more freedom and autonomy of action, the more rewards they will receive.

However, if people do not take any action and social needs are not

p: 41

sufficiently addressed, the state becomes duty-bound to compel people to pay their taxes through the enactment and implementation of compulsory laws, and satisfy social needs.

prevalence of profit-oriented Western culture among people which urges them to help themselves rather than others. Western culture is based upon profiteering, individualism and freedom from responsibility, which prevailed in the West after the Renaissance and gradually permeated Muslim countries and weakened the spiritual and moral motives of Muslims.

It dissuaded man from thinking for others and helping the needy and activated the sense of indifference towards fellowmen. This culture persuades a person to avoid accepting social responsibilities and only pursue his interests. This culture is diametrically opposed to Islamic culture which has been prevalent for centuries among our people, urging them to think about the interests of society and serve the needy.

Heedlessness to Islamic traditions and values and penetration of Western culture in recent years has hindered the thriving of the noble tradition of pious endowment [waqf] and the number of endowed buildings and lands has tremendously decreased compared to the past. Also, other voluntary public welfare works have diminished and the spirit of civility which existed in Islamic society has weakened. As a result, the government’s obligation has multiplied and its burden has become heavier. If by the blessing of the Islamic Revolution, Islamic and human values are revived and people pay heed to their spiritual, moral and religious responsibilities by engaging in charitable work, the government’s burden of responsibility will decrease and it could entrust some of its responsibilities to the people. This state of affairs, in a sense, will be a return to Islamic civil society.

which is extensively promoted today—all members of society have equal opportunity to occupy all government and public posts.

If they say that Iranian society must be transformed into a civil society, it implies that a Jew could also become the president of Iran because all human beings are equal in humanity and we have no first or second class human beings. Under the rubric of “civil society” they are striving for the official recognition of an atheistic and deviant sect affiliated with Zionism. Under the pretext that all human beings are equal, they want members of notorious groups inclined towards America and Zionism to also have the chance to occupy important positions, such as the presidency.

If we claim that to some extent distinction among citizens is present and accepted, this is because in occupying certain political posts, some qualifications have been laid down in the Constitution, and God also says, thus:

﴿وَلَن یَجْعَلَ اللّهُ لِلْکَافِرِینَ عَلَی الْمُؤْمِنِینَ سَبِیلاً﴾

“And Allah will never provide the faithless any way [to prevail] over the faithful.”(1)

Such a view is not inconsistent with civil society. According to Islam, “civil society” in which disbelievers and Muslims have equal rights and opportunities to occupy political posts is not acceptable. We openly announce that Islam does not allow disbelievers to prevail over Muslims in Islamic society. Neither does it allow a Zionist-affiliated atheistic sect and party to obtain official recognition. It makes no difference whether they label this difference in rights and qualifications as “discrimination in citizenship” or any other.

made you nations and tribes that you may identify with one another. Indeed the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the most God-wary among you...”(1)

In the above verse, human beings have been declared equal in their intrinsic and essential qualities, and thus, difference or classification among them is inconceivable. However, the latter part of the verse points to the contingent [‘aradhi] differences.

That is, some valuably acquired characteristics and attributes make some of them superior to others. As such, the God-wary people have a sublime station in the sight of God, and it cannot be said that all human beings are equal before God. Similarly, in view of differences between individuals due to possession of merits and qualifications, they differ in capability and cannot hold any post that requires specific qualifications. For example, in all parts of the world an illiterate person can not be President. Can it be said that considering the condition of literacy for the assumption of the presidential post is contrary to the equality of men? Does it mean that human beings have two classes the literate and illiterate?

In all parts of the world special conditions are taken into account for key positions such as the Presidency. The Islamic nature of our political system has also laid down certain conditions. The President must have sufficient literacy and education, be a devoted supporter of Islam and not be associated with an enemy of Islam. These are in accordance with Islamic principles. So, if the condition of being Muslim is stipulated for becoming a Majlis deputy or occupying other posts, this does not mean discrimination of human beings according to classes. In Islamic society, commensurate to the rights and obligations that Muslims have in lieu of the khums and zakat they pay, distinct rights and obligations are considered for followers of other religions. This does not signify a discrimination of human beings according to classes, though it can be said that those differences are related to classes of citizenship.

To claim that the position of the Supreme Leader, Presidency or other key and strategic posts can be held by those opposed to Islam and the Islamic system and who do not accept the Constitution, is equivalent to entrusting Islam to its enemies! Such a thing is neither rational nor possible, and if, God forbid, some would like to do so, Islam will not allow them because God has not given the faithless dominion over the Muslims and does not accept such domination over Muslims. This is our belief and we do not care if they accuse us of classifying citizens.

p: 45

mentally and financially capable Muslim [mustati‘].

The fuqaha, by citing traditions [ahadith], in their books on jurisprudence, have written that if the situation is such that in a Muslim society and country Hajj does not become obligatory on anyone because no one can afford the traveling expenses; or those who are physically, mentally and financially capable, on whom Hajj is obligatory, do not voluntarily go to perform it and the House of Allah is devoid of any pilgrim, it becomes obligatory upon the Muslim states to dispatch a group of pilgrims by spending from the public treasury, so that the performance of Islamic rites which preserve the interests of all Muslims should not be suspended.

Thus, it is true that Hajj is a devotional affair and cannot be directly considered a political and mundane affair and people are obliged to perform it and spend their personal money on it, but if people refuse to perform it or cannot afford to do so, the Islamic state is obliged to provide facilities and grounds for the performance of this divine obligation with the aim of preserving Islamic rites and ensuring implementation of laws.

Therefore, the fundamental and basic difference between the Islamic and secular states is that the Islamic state, before anything else, must be concerned with the performance of religious rites and implementation of social laws and ordinances, and give priority to them. Of course, in practice there is usually no contradiction between spiritual and material affairs, but should there be any contradiction, spiritual affairs must be given priority.

Thus, the Islamic state’s foremost obligations are the performance of Islamic rites, preservation of Islamic laws and culture, prevention of any action that weakens Islamic culture and propagates atheistic rites in society.

completion must be specified and its budget provided.

Next, the group that is supposed to implement the project must be organized. It must be specified how a given project is to be completed, the hierarchy of implementers and workers provided and their statuses and functions determined.

Consider for example the Imam Khomeini (r) International Airport Project. Initially, there was a debate about the necessity or otherwise of implementing the said project, related to the overall planning and development in the country. After accepting the necessity of the project, its implementation was planned and its scope, facilities, amenities, plan and design was specified. Then, the qualifications of the contractor and implementer of the project, its timetable and budget was determined, and finally, tenders were called for so that it could be awarded to the lowest bidding contractor.

In such cases, the government, after policymaking and planning, also takes charge of implementing the project and commissions a government ministry to implement it and allocates a budget, utilizes facilities, manpower and government services; or after expressing commitment to implement the project it allocates a budget for it and employs a company to implement it. In both cases, the government has committed to implement the project. Yet, it is possible that after policymaking and planning, the government will only supervise the implementation of the project. That is, the government will send inspectors to supervise the process so as to prevent violation of laws and rules, improper implementation of design and misappropriation of public funds to ensure that the project is implemented according to the original policy and within the framework of national interests.

undertaken by the state to prevent the oppressive actions of capitalists and those who endanger the interests of society to advance individual interests and personal goals. The emergence of this collectivist thought and the formation of socialist and communist countries was a reaction to the cruelty committed in capitalist countries against the masses.

In Western counties the capitalists committed oppression and tyranny against the deprived and downtrodden to such an extent that this extremist tendency emerged, propounding that all activities must be entrusted to the state which would distribute public benefits and earnings equally among people so that all of them could equally enjoy them. Eradication of oppression of people was the bedrock of socialist thought in the realm of social, political and economic issues which considerably flourished in past decades. in powerful countries like the former Soviet Union, China and their satellites states. Since then, they have been recognized as the archrivals of the capitalist bloc.

This reaction and its slogans gained currency in our country as well and supporters rallied behind it. As a result, in past decades socialist and communist parties were formed in our country but collapsed with the rise of the Islamic Revolution. Historical experience showed that the state’s absolute takeover in economic, political and social domains was an incorrect and ineffective way and led to the disintegration and collapse of the communist countries, especially our great northern neighbor (the former Soviet Union). We all witnessed how communist thought destroyed the economic, social and political foundations of a powerful country like the ex-Soviet Union and led to the dismemberment and downfall of that great empire.

At the opposite end of the communist-socialist thought is liberal-capitalist thought which maintains that all affairs are delegated to the people and they are free to do whatever they like. The state interferes in the realms of social life only to the extent necessary and that is to prevent chaos and maintain security. Naturally, in the liberal system in which individuals enjoy much freedom in social, political and economic spheres, those who have more resources, means and capabilities acquire more capital and gain in all spheres.

In the economic sphere in particular, they are ahead of others in the so-called competitive market. As a result, with the expansion of profitable economic activities, they gain enormous capital. The deprived and weak members of society become poorer and more deprived day by day. This wide economic-class gap, taking possession of national and public capital by a small class in society and the spread of poverty and deprivation in other strata of society, led to mounting public protests, revolt and insurrection against politicians, their expulsion from the political scene and the formation of the communist system—a scenario which seemed to have more advantages for the deprived class. In order to avoid and prevent revolution

p: 51

and public uprising in liberal countries, amenities were provided to the poor and low-income earners.

In many European countries which are adopting the liberal system, socialist parties are active and even some governments are controlled by socialist or social democratic parties. For example, the Labor Party which sometimes succeeds in garnering the majority vote in forming the cabinet in Britain has socialist inclinations. This inclination, preference and provision of facilities for the deprived classes of society are meant to dissuade them from rising up against politicians, because once there is relative welfare for all strata of society, the deprived classes have no more reason to revolt. Among the amenities considered for the general public are insurance for the unemployed and retired, health insurance and construction of many small houses of low rental value intended for the deprived classes by the city mayor’s office.

Thus, in political philosophy there are two dominant and diametrically opposed theories about state. The first theory is socialism which pays more attention to society and gives preference to collective interests over individual interests. By putting this theory into practice, the state’s interference and control increases in the realms of social life to prevent misappropriation of public funds and oppression against the deprived and downtrodden. Opposing socialism is liberalism. Based on their reasons, the proponents of this theory believe that the state should have minimum interference in the affairs of society. The maximum or minimal extent of interference by the state related to the abovementioned theories can be observed in speeches, articles, newspapers, and books.

Western and European governments are liberal governments. They have delegated government institutions to private companies. For example, the Post and Telegraph Department is not government controlled but rather privately undertaken by companies who control the selling, transport and transfer of telephone lines, and provide different services in various cities. The role of the state is confined to planning and supervising private companies. Similarly, providing water and electricity and other public needs of citizens has been entrusted to the private sector. In our country most of the above are undertaken by the government.

social activities must be delegated as much as possible to the people.

Islam has a moderate perspective on the state which is an amalgamation of idealism and realism. Many of the theories and views presented in class sessions, both at the university and seminary are fascinating, but in spite of being ideal and desirable cannot be translated into action in the practical world. For example, one supposition is that if the moral growth of people reaches a level where all of them observe laws there would be no need for controlling and deterring agents. It is a very attractive supposition but that level will never be reached.

On the other hand, because there will always be transgression in society, it is not justifiable to say that maximum harshness is desirable so that no one dares to violate laws. In Marxist and fascist countries under martial law, government orders are strictly implemented and the police and disciplinary agents are so harsh in dealing with violators that no one dares to violate laws. An example of those countries was our western neighbor (Iraq under the Ba‘athist regime) which imposed an unsolicited war on us for eight years. A powerful police force which deals harshly with any violation and protest is ruling. A person who commits a minor violation is gunned down or executed without any trial or investigation.

When the deprived and poor members of society see that bribery and overcharging are rampant and subject them to unendurable pressure and difficulty, they wish that these profiteers are dealt with severely and some of them executed so that no one would dare to practice bribery and overcharging anymore! In socialist countries, more or less, such wishes are realized, but it must be seen what Islam says about severity to violators and criminals.

Based on what we can infer from the Qur’anic verses and traditions, Islam has considered a moderate and balanced approach for the Islamic state.

In the penal laws of Islam, severe punishments have been considered for some crimes, violations and licentious acts. On the other hand, however, it has also set certain conditions and limitations for proving and establishing these crimes so that in practice only a few cases can be proved. Consequently, those laws and heavy punishments can be implemented only in very rare cases—for example, one or two cases every year. For instance, the Qur’an thus says regarding the punishment for theft:

﴿وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُواْ أَیْدِیَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا کَسَبَا...﴾

“As for the thief, man and woman, cut off their hands as a requital for what they have earned.”(1)

And regarding the punishments for those who committed licentious acts, it

p: 53

says:

﴿ٱلزَّانِیَةُ وَالزَّانِی فَاجْلِدُوا کُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلاَ تَأْخُذْکُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِی دِینِ اللَّهِ إِن کُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْیَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلْیَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِینَ﴾

“As for the fornicatress and the fornicator, strike each of them a hundred lashes, and let not pity for them overcome you in Allah’s law, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day, and let their punishment be witnessed by a group of the faithful.”(1)

Yet, on the other hand, Islam has set very difficult conditions to prove and establish the crime of fornication [zina], stipulating that such a decree shall be executed provided that four just witnesses who personally witnessed the act of fornication give testimony in a court of law. In case less than four witnesses be present in court, not only will the crime not be proved but the complainant will be lashed for calumny.

Islam neither obliges the state to meet all needs of society including unnecessary luxuries nor totally forbids it from interfering in social activities. Instead, the magnitude of the state’s interference is in accordance with the changing circumstances which necessitate interference by the state.

Sometimes the situation is such that civil society must be formed based upon the first Muslim community established by the Prophet (s) in Medina in which the guiding principle was that whatever can be done or assumed by the people must be delegated to them. They must assume the responsibility of meeting the primary needs such as training and education, electricity, water and the sewage system, and not allow certain profiteers and opportunists to take advantage and encroach upon the rights of the underprivileged and deprive them of their basic needs. In such a case, the state must enter the realm of social activities to counter the devious plans of profiteering capitalists. For example, if a private telecommunications company offers expensive services to people, the state has to offer cheaper services or delegate to itself all telecommunications services.

entail a huge budget which will cause further problems for society.

The second and more serious defect is that once an organization of such magnitude is created, irregularities within it are greater and ample grounds for violation and abuse within it are provided. For instance, if the state wants to prevent fleecing, it has to assign elite inspectors to report fleecing cases by conducting surprised inspection of shops. Now, if the government assigns an inspector for every shop, you can imagine how large a work force will be required.

Besides, some of these inspectors will violate the law by getting bribes from some shopkeepers so as not to report their fleecing. As a result, a separate department to investigate the performance of inspectors will have to be created. For whatever reason, experience has shown that such schemes are not practically successful as they do not bring any good result. In fact, they cause further violations and bribes.

The third defect of a centralized system which is notably serious according to Islam is, compelling human beings to mold themselves and do good deeds not through coercion and pressure. Man’s action is valuable only if it stems from his own free choice and will, but once compulsion and force prompt man to act, the spiritual and sublime effect considered by Islam ceases to penetrate the soul of man and the ultimate goal is lost.

p: 55

p: 56

upon another’s property, the executive power punishes him.

In some cases, an ambiguity creates tension between two groups or individuals and a dispute arises between them. It is even possible that none of the parties intends to violate the law but because of their ignorance of what is right, they do not know their own duty and status. In such cases, the judiciary expounds the cases according to the law and determines the rights of both parties and announces its verdict. If the conflicting parties are not satisfied and do not want to abide by the verdict, it is forcefully implemented by the executive. A legal official will also be necessarily involved and be part and parcel of executive power. According to the categorization of many political philosophies, however, judicial power is a separate branch of government distinct from executive and legislative powers.

Under this categorization, the special function of legislative power or legislature, is the ratification of laws, determining rights of individuals and specifying the type of punishment for every violation. For example, according to a certain law ratified by the same legislative power, it is clear whether a certain transaction is valid or not. If there is doubt whether a certain transaction is according to the relevant statutory law or not; whether it is valid or not; or there is a dispute between two parties; it has to be referred to a court of law because, as an integral part of judicial power, the court’s function is to examine the conformity of statutory laws to actual cases.

If the announcement of the judge’s decision says that Mr. “A” has to give a certain amount of money to Mr. “B” and the two parties accept the judge’s verdict and abide by the law peacefully and willfully, the case will be closed; otherwise, the executive power interferes and uses the police force under its command to get the required amount and give it to its rightful owner.

Although one of the main functions of executive power is to guarantee implementation of laws and social decrees, it must be borne in mind that the implementation of laws is not a monopoly of executive power. Others are also expected to implement laws. Similarly, the function of executive power is not only to implement laws, but also engage in making laws in some cases. It is impossible to separate legislation from execution of laws, and their interrelation is more or less accepted by all forms of government.

It is true that the main function of the government or executive power is implementation of laws but in some cases it also engages in making laws and formulating rules and regulations. On the other hand, legislative power also engages in executive work and certain executive works have to be ratified by parliament; for example, signing of contracts with other states and foreign companies on the exploitation of natural resources such as oil and others. It is true that signing a contract is an executive function but without the ratification of parliament, it will never become binding.

So, it is not true that

p: 58

there is a redline separating the three powers from one another and one can not interfere in the others’ business, i.e. neither the government issue any executive order nor parliament interfere in executive affairs. Still, each of the three powers has its own special function.

However, the Islamic system is different from others with respect to the issue of legislation. In the laic systems, the basis and pivot of law is material collective interests of people and in addition to their ratification, the execution of laws is also based on those interests. In Islam, however, the material and worldly interests of people must be taken into account in legislation but not at the expense of neglecting their spiritual and otherworldly interests. In fact, in the codification of laws spiritual interests take precedence over material interests.

This is the essential and fundamental point that distinguishes the Islamic system from the materialistic, laic and secular systems. Naturally, in such a system, the burden of responsibility of the executive is heavier than that of other systems. That is, apart from urging the people to observe social rights and not oppress each other and prevent chaos and disorder, the executive must also observe Islamic values and implement them.

individual and family issues or social and international issues—is to pave the ground for choice and selection so that he selects the right path by his own choice and freewill, and not by imposition. Sometimes, however, social interests require that pressure must be exerted on man. In reality, the existence of executive power and naked force is based upon secondary, and not primary, interests.

To say that there must be executive power to implement laws and even compel violators to abide by them, in some cases, is contrary to the primary principle. The primary principle is that law must be at the disposal of people who act upon it willfully and volitionally, and no one violates it. No one cheats another, receives bribery, steals, and violates the lives and properties of people. Yet, violation of law is also committed in society and the existence of brute force to prevent any violation of law becomes necessary; otherwise, corruption will engulf the world and there will be no chance of improvement for those who want to choose the right path.