The Guardian Council has two duties: reviewing the resolutions of the parliament and monitoring the elections. If those who are members of this legal institution, whether jurists or lawyers, believe that the government in general has a divine aspect, that the people do not have the right to determine their own destiny, and that elections have a formal and ceremonial aspect, they will react differently when faced with the election debate and may not be sensitive enough to protect the people’s votes.

Note: As much as civil rights are considered as an emerging science, the “jurisprudence of civil rights” is much newer and more recent than it. This has led to the fact that research on this emerging jurisprudence has not had much of a history. Perhaps one of the people who has been engaged in research and content production in this field for many years is Mr. Sayyid Javad Vara’i. Born in Tehran in 1963, after receiving his diploma, he obtained his bachelor’s degree in theology and Islamic studies from Tehran University while studying at the seminary. Then, in 1986, he went to Qum city and benefited from teachers such as al-Ayaat al-ldaam Fazil Lankarani, Vahid Khurasani, Musavi Ardebili, Sayyid Kazem Ha’eri, and most of all, Sayyid Musa Shubayri Zanjani. Books such as “Rights and Duties of Citizens and Statesmen,” “Introduction to the Generalities of Citizenship Rights,” and “Citizenship Rights in Islamic Thought” are some of his efforts in this field. In this oral note, which is taken from a scientific meeting at the Contemporary Jurisprudence Research Institute, he discusses the challenges facing research in the jurisprudence of citizenship rights.

“Jurisprudential Challenges of Citizenship Rights” is considered an important issue because “citizenship rights jurisprudence” is essentially a newly emerging jurisprudence; Although the discussion of “citizenship rights” itself has a long history in the world and also a long history in legislation.

Examining this issue from a jurisprudential perspective is a new and novel discussion. The challenges of citizenship rights are a set of questions that we face in relation to “citizenship rights”, from its definition to its components; whether something called “citizenship rights” is recognized in Islamic jurisprudence in principle or not? Is “citizenship rights” something different from those concepts known in our jurisprudence, such as “members of the Islamic Ummah”? Is the relationship of citizens with the government the same as the relationship that the Ummah has with the sovereign? Do we consider the will of citizens to have a role in running the government and determining their destiny, or is their duty only obedience?

Challenges of the Jurisprudence of Civil Rights

The challenges of the jurisprudence of civil rights are expressed in several categories:

Theological challenges

The first category: Theological foundations that a jurist adopts before entering jurisprudence. When every jurist enters the science of jurisprudence, he has assumptions that have been discussed in other sciences. In the science of theology, the foundations are adopted by a jurist and then he enters the science of jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is the inference of religious rulings from reliable sources, namely the Book and the Sunnah. For example, the disagreement of jurists on the issue of the inherent or acquired dignity of man in the science of theology causes their disagreement in jurisprudence and, at a later stage, causes their disagreement on the issue of “civil rights.”

The Basis of State Legitimacy

The Second Category: Challenges related to the basis of state legitimacy: Do we consider government to be a divine command and the source of government legitimacy to be revelation, or do we believe in dual legitimacy and believe that the right to rule has both a divine and a popular origin, or do we believe that in the era of occultation, the source of government legitimacy is the Muslim people?

There are different views on this subject among Islamic thinkers. What our basis is here is influential in the discussion of “citizenship rights.” When we come to this discussion, there are different views on whether or not we should grant people the “right to rule,” the “right to self-determination,” and the “right to monitor rulers.”

Making a distinction between classes of people

The third category: The differences that we recognize in jurisprudential rulings between the classes of offenders. When jurists go to the sources, they encounter differences. For example, in the rulings of retribution, there is a difference between Muslims and non-Muslims and between men and women. In the rulings of inheritance, there is a difference between men and women. When we come to citizenship rights, these differences in rulings prevent us from accepting some of these rights.

For example, one of the citizenship rights is the “right to be elected.”In jurisprudence, there is a difference between jurists as to whether the condition for guardianship or judgment is manhood and being a man. This difference of opinion causes a difference of opinion on the “right to be elected,” which is one of the “rights of citizenship.”Therefore, a jurist’s fatwa in the branches of jurisprudence can be influential in the issue of “citizenship rights.”

Different perceptions of the concept of citizenship rights

Fourth category: The different perceptions that our scholars and jurists have of “citizenship rights” are influential in their fatwas. This challenge may not be exactly jurisprudential; but it is not unrelated to the views of jurists and jurisprudential views. Its relationship is with jurisprudential issues, not with rulings. In the previous category, different fatwas were influential on the issue of “citizenship rights”; but in the fourth category, the different views of jurists on issues related to citizenship rights have an impact.

For example, in the issue of what is the “right of sovereignty” and “national sovereignty”? The definition that a jurist has of “national sovereignty” is influential in the ruling that he will issue.

The views of jurists in office

Fifth category: The views of jurists in office; Today, there are positions in the country that, according to the constitution, are held by jurists, such as half of the members of the Guardian Council of the Constitution who are jurists. The Guardian Council has two duties: reviewing the approvals of the parliament and supervising elections. If those who are members of this legal institution, whether jurists or lawyers, believe that the government is generally divine, that the people do not have the right to determine their own destiny, and that elections are formal and ceremonial, they will react differently when faced with the election debate and may not be sensitive enough to protect the people’s votes.

These challenges do not have a direct jurisprudential aspect; but in the view of the jurist, they affect “citizenship rights.”

This interview is part of the electronic magazine “Principles of Jurisprudence and Citizenship Rights,” which was produced in collaboration with the Ijtihad Network website.