If we refer to the verse of Shura, we will understand this issue. The Prophet (‘a) does not need to be consulted and, in our opinion, he understands better than others, but when God commands the Prophet to consult with the people, then He has granted a right to the people that people should give their opinion and their opinions should be respected and, in other words, their opinion should be taken into account.

Note: Hujjat al-lslam wa al-Muslimin Sayyid Abu al-Fazl Musaviyan was born in Mashhad, lran in 1955. After years of attending courses taught by prominent scholars and teachers at the Qum Seminary, he received his master’s degree in jurisprudence and fundamentals of law and his doctorate in the same field from the Qum Seminary. He has been teaching at Mufid University for many years and is currently an assistant professor in the theology department of this university. Musaviyan is one of the innovative jurisprudents who is concerned with the rights of humans and citizens. We talked to him about the specific rules of the jurisprudence of citizenship rights. In his opinion, the most important rule of this newly emerging jurisprudential chapter is the principle of the lack of guardianship of individuals over each other, a rule that even extends to the Prophet (‘a) and the Imams (‘a). The details of the conversation with this innovative jurisprudent are as follows:

Ijtihad: What is the jurisprudence of citizenship rights and what does it cover?

Mr. Musaviyan: Basically, when individuals move from personal and private life to a social life, they have rights in this social life. On the other hand, they must naturally give up some of the freedoms they have in their individual lives; because in social life, the rights of other individuals are also at stake; that is, it is not just an individual right; rather, the right to exercise individual freedoms must not lead to harm and loss to others, and this creates a limitation; however, we must try to minimize this limitation!

The meaning of citizenship rights is that governments and individuals must respect the rights of others; but if any limitation is created for them, this limitation must be minimized. Those who want to express opinions on these limitations must also naturally be from the same people; That is, everyone must have a representative or, so to speak, representatives in elections, and these representatives must recognize on behalf of the people that if this freedom exists, it may interfere with the freedom of others and therefore it must be limited or prohibited from the outset.

Therefore, the requirement of citizenship is that the implementation of any law be carried out by the people themselves. In the past, in a society that was governed by tribes, these restrictions were applied by tribal chiefs and people who were in the same area; but in current societies where people from different ethnicities and religions have opinions on observing and limiting laws.

Of course, whether the opinion of the majority of people should be taken into account everywhere is also a matter of debate. Some say that if these freedoms are to be limited, it must be with the agreement of the minority; that is, it is not the case that wherever the majority decides, the same action is taken and the rights of the minority are ignored. These are citizenship rights.

Ijtihad: Are there any rules among these current rules mentioned in the books of jurisprudence that are specifically applicable to the jurisprudence of civil rights?

Mr. Musaviyan: In my opinion, there is a basic rule in these cases that, unfortunately, has been discussed less. Although this rule has been discussed among our elders since ancient times, it has been discussed less in our jurisprudence, since it is more of an individual jurisprudence than a social jurisprudence. This rule is: “There is no guardianship of one over another”; that is, the principle is that no one has guardianship over another!

This rule has been raised among our jurists in the past until recently when the late Shaykh in the book al-Makasib raised this rule and others have also accepted this rule as a basic rule. According to this rule, the principle is based on the absence of guardianship, meaning that no one has guardianship over another; therefore, if guardianship is to be proven, for example, if a father wants to have guardianship over his child, it must be proven. If the infallible Imam wants to have guardianship over the people, it must be proven! That is, the principle is that all humans are equal and all are God’s creatures, and there is no difference between them in terms of being created and their relationship with God!

According to this rule, it is incorrect to say that if someone becomes a scholar, he gains guardianship over others because of his knowledge.

The existence of this rule has caused jurists to present various arguments regarding the proof of the guardianship of the Prophet and the infallibles. For example, the late Akhund discusses even the guardianship of the Prophet (s) and the infallibles in people’s lives and concludes that we cannot prove such guardianship; because the principle is based on the absence of guardianship; therefore, the guardianship that has been proven for the Prophet (s) is in social matters, not in individual matters!

According to this rule, wherever we doubt the proof of guardianship, the principle is based on the absence of guardianship.

Ijtihad: What method do you suggest for discovering the specific rules of jurisprudence and citizen rights?

Mr. Musaviyan: The wise men of the world, with centuries of experience gained in the issue of government, concluded that the only way is for the people themselves to intervene in the issues and be the decision-makers. If you remember, the late Imam Khumayni also said at Behesht-e-Zahra cemetery: The people must decide for themselves. He also said to the government of Muh. Reza Pahlavi that even if you are the best and fully respect the interests of all the people; but if the people do not want you, you have no right to rule the people.

Therefore, a rational thing that is accepted by almost all societies today is that people should decide their own destiny, themselves, so if the authorities want to do something, they should do it on behalf of the people and by proxy. It is not that they have a mission from somewhere else and have nothing to do with the people.

We can even get this point from religious texts. Amir al-Mu’minin (‘a) in Nahj al-Balaghah and Imam Hasan (‘a) says: “I have no right to impose on you what you do not want”; That is, in society, what is acceptable to the people should be implemented.

The guardianship of officials over the people is conceivable only if we consider the people as foolish and imbecile, otherwise it makes no sense for people who are sane, mature, and mature to have others make decisions for them.

The result is that the lack of guardianship of officials over the people and the need to seek their opinion in decisions is something that is both accepted among the intelligentsia and is also indicated by the conduct of the Ahl al-Bayt and the narrational texts.

If we refer to the verse of Shura, we will understand this issue. The Prophet does not need to be consulted and, in our opinion, he understands better than others, but when God commands the Prophet to consult with the people, then He has granted the people a right that they should give their opinion and their opinions should be respected and, so to speak, their opinion should be taken into account.

Accordingly, the late Na’ini also says in “Tanbih al-Ummah”: The Prophet (s) and the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) although their opinions sometimes contradicted the opinions of the people, preferred the opinions of the people to their own opinions because they did not consider themselves to have such a guardianship that they could do something against the wishes of the people.

In addition, we have another order in religious matters that is accepted by everyone, and that is the issue of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. That is, freedoms must be fully granted so that people can easily enjoin good and forbid evil. Naturally, those who are in charge of the matter must also have all their actions transparent and fully visible to the people so that people know what is happening and what they are doing so that if they want to enjoin good and forbid evil, they have the ability to do so!

In my opinion, it is very easy to derive a series of rules from these texts that indicate that citizenship rights must be fully observed.

Of course, divine commands and the necessity of acting in accordance with them are also preserved in their place; everyone has accepted divine guardianship; therefore, if a command has been given by God, it is clear that it must be acted in accordance with it.

This note is part of the electronic magazine “Principles of the Jurisprudence of Citizenship Rights” which was produced in

cooperation with the Ijtihad Network website.