Minimal jurisprudence does not recognize anything called a citizen at all; because a citizen is someone who has rights and makes decisions and participates and is present in society, while minimal jurisprudence does not recognize such a position for humans at all and does not recognize anything called political participation and elections and the like.

Note: Hujjat al-lslam Dr. Muhsen Muhajernia was born in Andimeshk, Khuzestan, lran in 1964. In addition to his seminary education, he received his master’s degree in political science and his doctorate in political thought from Baqir-ul-Ulum University, Qum. He has more than a hundred articles and several books in the field of political science. Due to the close connection between political science and civil rights, he has a lot of knowledge about this category. A member of the Scientific Council of the Political Jurisprudence and International Relations Group of the Contemporary Jurisprudence Research Center. In this exclusive interview, he tries to explain the jurisprudence of civil rights, its requirements and foundations. The candid interview of a member of the academic board of the Islamic Culture and Thought Research Center is as follows:

What is the jurisprudence of civil rights and what are its requirements?

Mr. Mohajernia: Before entering into the discussion, it is necessary to make a point about civil rights itself. Law is actually considered one of the sciences that is considered a macro-science; that is, it is not in the same category as other sciences. All sciences are somehow related to law, and law is the infrastructure of all of them. For example, legal discussions are in jurisprudence, sociology, and philosophy.

The category of citizenship is a phenomenon of the modern world. In the past, there was no such thing as citizenship. It is a social status that is given to those who live in a country, society, or nation. When individuals belong to a society and are considered part of the identity of the society, the society recognizes rights and privileges for them, and in return, they have a series of duties towards the society.

In the period of tradition, there was no such thing as a citizen; therefore, people had no rights or privileges, and they only had duties; that is, they had to pay taxes to the kings, do whatever they were told, go and fight for the kings; but they had no rights or privileges. These rights were so null and void that the party itself did not demand that I have any rights, neither did he himself recognize any rights for himself nor did anyone give him any rights; rather, he only had duties that he had to perform.

For this reason, in the past, there was no such thing as a citizen. Of course, we have the Shahriyar, who is also in the position of sovereignty and has nothing to do with the people.

The term ra’iyyat also indicates the situation of previous societies. Ra’iyyat means a flock of sheep. Ra’i also means shepherd! That is, the people were a flock whose shepherd was the king. A flock that does not claim any rights and does not seek freedom and is captive. In the past, citizenship had this meaning.

In the modern world, however, citizenship was born. A citizen is someone who has rights. Some of these rights are innate and not granted, such as the right to life, the right to freedom, and the like.

Some rights are also given to individuals according to social contracts; such as the right to choose, the right to be chosen, which are given to individuals according to social contracts.

Some rights have also been given to humans by religion; such as the right to worship and the right to worship.

Meanwhile, the science of jurisprudence, with the help of the five rulings, examines these rights and states which of these rights are legitimate and which are not. In addition to these rights, it also places duties on the government and citizens, such as the necessity of participating in elections, the necessity of participating in jihad, and so on.

He is judging. He is doing anthropology. Jurisprudence says that this person is one of the obedient and loyal to the rule of justice of the Supreme and therefore is a good person.

So jurisprudence actually deals with humans and judges the types of human beings who are fighters and the established, the present and the absent, and all kinds of human divisions and comments on them, and of course it can do so.

So now that this is the case, we need a broad anthropology in jurisprudence. Human beings are the subject of various jurisprudential and legal rulings; therefore, they must be carefully analyzed and examined in jurisprudence.

In the past, they used to say that the study of the subject matter is not the work of jurisprudence and jurisprudents, but that others should study the subject matter and jurists should only issue rulings on it; But as the late Imam Khumayni said in that famous letter: Today, the study of the subject is the work of the jurist. A jurist who does not recognize the subject cannot issue a correct ruling on it. It is necessary for jurists to address the category of human beings as an important jurisprudential issue; because the most important serious issue of political, social, and civic activities is the category of human beings. Human beings are among the issues that definitely require serious and specialized study of the subject in the field of jurisprudence so that jurisprudence can issue a ruling on it.

This interview is part of the electronic magazine “Principles of Jurisprudence of Citizen Rights” which was produced in cooperation with the Ijtihad Network website.