Note: Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Seyyed Sajjad Izdehi is renowned for his precision and frankness in practical discussions. The advanced lecturer in political jurisprudence at the Qom Seminary has been writing and teaching in the field of political thought and governmental jurisprudence for several decades. We asked him about the challenges of research in international relations jurisprudence. In his view, even if Shiites are in a position of weakness and minority, the roadmap should not be organized based on taqiyya. He also considered the division of places into dar al-Islam and dar al-harb different from geographical borders and did not regard it as meaning not recognizing infidels. The detailed and engaging exclusive interview of Contemporary Jurisprudence with the head of the Islamic Systems Research Institute at the Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought follows:
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the most important challenges facing research in international relations jurisprudence?
Izdehi: The most important challenge facing research in international relations jurisprudence is appropriate topic recognition in the international domain. In existing jurisprudence, we have not yet dealt much with the international category. The reason is that jurisprudence, at the time of its compilation, faced a society that only had connections with surrounding countries; because roads were not developed, there were no air routes, and there were no mass communication spaces, so we cannot speak of a macro society and world in the past and want to examine the relations and structures governing it.
In past times, we were not at all faced with something called international that had a managing institution, governing laws, a structure suitable for world administration; for this reason, we also had no ruling in that regard.
The international issue is indebted to technologies, development of relations, development of roads, the internet, and such, which practically created a specific society, and practically that society needs rulings, structure, and agents, and since in the past we were mostly in the domain of foreign policy and considered one country’s connection with others; therefore, the category of international relations jurisprudence with all its requirements in society was not produced. Identifying foreign policy and international relations and considering both as one knowledge and assuming one solution for it led to us practically not being able to speak of international relations discussions as a distinct knowledge with different topic and requirements. Although this does not mean we do not have international relations jurisprudence and cannot infer its rulings; rather, our jurisprudential knowledge has the ability to respond to all its issues, but the point is that practically this has not happened. This topic is a new topic and demands new structure and agents.
After topic recognition, the second problem is methodology suitable for this topic for inference; and the third problem is the lack of a distinct jurisprudence from the foreign policy domain for international relations.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: With rules such as the rule of no domination and rulings like initial jihad and permissibility of violating, backbiting, harming the infidel, and the like that express the superiority of Muslim over infidel and Shiite over Sunni, can international relations jurisprudence, which is based on equal rights and footing of states and nations, be organized?
Izdehi: I do not refer to specific rules, but what is certain is that in our jurisprudence, we have many rules that oversee the administration of a macro society and with them a world can be administered.
Most rules that existed in the past were rules overseeing foreign policy; meaning country is considered against country. This while Islam as a desirable model for world administration that is based on authentic values and at the same time based on justice, negation of oppression and tyranny and arrogance, can administer a world; but can this be done with things like the rule of no domination? In my opinion, certainly we can, but it needs a series of rereadings, re-recognitions, and new topic recognitions.
For example, whether we interpret no domination as a country’s independence from other countries, or negation of foreign domination over self, or placing disbelief as an alternative to Islam; but at the same time, certainly based on Islam’s foundations, oppression and arrogance toward others is negated, and promoting values toward other societies is certain.
Also regarding jihad, it should not be considered as meaning combat, but based on the logic of the Supreme Leader, a religion that is global, final, and for all times and places must jihad for the development of this religion’s values, but not meaning combat and war against the enemy; although of course sometimes combat and war are necessary, but the initial principle in initial jihad according to the Supreme Leader’s expression is effort for developing the religion against other religions.
These rules and concepts are both rereadable and we can, in accordance with them, present a new order for the world in a way that is both documented to foundations and religious evidence and at the same time effective and brings justice to society. This can certainly be done.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given the non-acceptance of geographical borders in traditional jurisprudence and positing dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, can international relations fundamentally be imagined in the current form?
Izdehi: In my opinion, your question is incorrect; because in jurisprudence, even though we have dar al-Islam and dar al-harb and dar al-kufr, this does not mean that the Islamic system only recognizes dar al-Islam and does not recognize the rest; rather, Islam recognizes dar al-sulh, recognizes dar al-kufr and shirk, and when we discuss these, it means these exist.
The issue of “dar” in Shiite jurisprudence is more than the name of other countries and more than meaning geographical bordering; it is the meaning of dar al-Islam’s governing policies toward them. When we say dar al-harb, it means we are with a country today for reasons in the position of war, but this same relation may become dar al-sulh next year, and this same may become dar al-dhimma the year after; therefore, the dar issue in Shiite jurisprudence is not meaning conventional borders, but meaning dar al-Islam’s policies toward them. It is not necessarily that everyone opposing Islam is dar al-harb; just as inside dar al-Islam, dar al-iman and dar al-dhimma are also accepted; meaning it is accepted that infidel or polytheist individuals live under the Islamic system and are supported.
Therefore, it is not that in Islam we do not recognize national borders. That in the past, various dars meaning existing borders is also incorrect. At all, the logic of past time has also differed from today’s time. In the past, countries were inherently vast countries, and small Islamic countries did not exist; mostly countries like Rome, Iran, China, and India existed, and generally large countries existed, and small countries did not. Of course, inside large countries, small countries also existed that were distinct from each other; for example, inside the Islamic country, there was Egypt, Iran, Sham, Azerbaijan, various regions of Iraq that were distinct from each other, just as they were distinct for other countries; therefore, borders in our jurisprudence are not subject to our will, but borders are a real matter that exists independent of the Islamic country’s will, and the Islamic system’s policy toward them shows itself in the form of dars, but today that the topic of borders has changed. Borders of past time have changed not only in dar al-Islam itself but also among other countries; once Europe as a whole was one country and all were administered under the church or Rome, but today they became multiple countries.
Today, the criterion of borders has changed. In the international domain too, if the criterion of borders has changed, naturally new borders can be accepted and recognized on the same basis, and this has no contradiction with being dar al-Islam; just as today when we speak of dar al-harb, it means the collection of those who are infidels; for example, in the past, there was a country called Europe or Rome, then it turned into various countries, and again these came and based on a pact established Europe and became the European Union.
Another point is that the discussion of the Islamic world against the world of disbelief is more than a border category; it is a unity category. Today we speak of the Western world. The Western world means countries that follow Western logic, may be in Japan and Australia but is the Western world. The Islamic world can also be based on a trans-border logic that exists in other countries but not within our borders; therefore, the border category is a different category and has different requirements and topic recognition.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: For active presence in the international arena, one of whose requirements is joining international conventions, to what extent can one disregard jurisprudential rulings?
Izdehi: We should not disregard any jurisprudential rulings, and this is certain. But the important thing is that each jurisprudential ruling has rankings; some are in the domain of secondary ruling, like expediency; and some rulings are primary, like no domination of infidels; and some of these are detailed rulings, like fulfill contracts. Naturally, since rulings are for all conditions and all times, one cannot deviate from them, but the important thing is which ruling to use relative to what time and relative to what position?
What is certain is that today international institutions are based on the will of disbelief, dominance order, and arrogance. Joining them is inevitable from one aspect and entails domination and path from another. That in the position of conflict between these two matters, what should be done requires using all rules and examining requirements and conditions and current position.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given the minority of Muslims and especially Shiites in global society, can international relations jurisprudential rulings be inferred based on natural conditions?
Izdehi: Taqiyya is the strategy for minorities to escape during the rule of the majority. Naturally, we cannot set rulings based on taqiyya, because taqiyya is in the state of being a minority. When we are in a state of weakness and minority, we will not draw the roadmap based on weakness; rather, the roadmap is set based on becoming the majority and based on becoming strong. Taqiyya creates for us the strategy of escaping weakness and turning into strength; therefore, our issue in the international domain is administering the world based on power. The taqiyya issue is escaping weakness toward power in the time of being minority.