Note: Environmental jurisprudence is one of the newly emerging chapters of contemporary jurisprudence, and thus it is natural that its foundations and assumptions have not been seriously addressed so far. For instance, some jurists think that the default of jurists in environmental issues is not recognizing the right to life for animals and plants and not respecting the environment. In this regard, l have a conversation with Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nurmufidi, the head of the Research lstitute of Contemporary Jurisprudence.  He, who has been seriously following contemporary jurisprudence for years and has held several courses in some contemporary chapters, believes that although jurists have not dealt with environmental issues in detail, they have never recognized the right to life for animals and plants. The details of the conversation with this professor of Fiqh and Principles of Qum Theological Seminary are as follows:

Explain the meaning of environmental jurisprudence and its dimensions and scope in detail.

Ayatollah Nurmufidi: According to the definition of jurisprudence itself and the definition given for the environment, it can be said that environmental jurisprudence is a set of dos and don’ts that Shari’ah has determined regarding human behavior with the environment. Environment means the environment in which all the natural conditions and what is related to the creatures that live on this planet. In fact, environmental jurisprudence helps to understand what basis humans should adopt regarding their negative and positive behaviors towards the environment.

Of course, in this case, is the environment specific to humans or does it include all living species? There are two terms.  Sometimes the meaning of the environment is the human environment in which humans play a central role, and sometimes the meaning of the environment is the environment of all living beings, which includes all animals and plants. Of course, the discussion of jurists about the environment is usually based on the first view, and the environment is examined with a focus on humans, which itself needs discussion.

The issue of environmental protection, according to what development experts say, is one of the development goals of the third millennium and one of the three pillars of sustainable development, and this is also a result of the problems that have occurred to mankind in recent centuries. Humanity is facing a series of serious problems. In the past, the issue of the environment has not been given this much attention; But now humanity is facing serious problems in the field of water, soil and air. How many animal and plant species are becoming extinct. Many forests have been destroyed and the forest cover has decreased. The pastures are the same. Underground water resources have been greatly reduced. On the other hand, the industrial development of countries has introduced a large amount of wastewater into the water and land. Even now, factories are severely damaging the air by using fossil fuels, and this pollution has caused a hole in the ozone layer. In addition to all this, the weapons that are produced in countries either as a deterrent or to confront other countries, some of these have a biological aspect that is extremely harmful to mankind.

Thus, due to the conflict of human life with this issue, especially in recent years, which covers a wide range of issues, environmental jurisprudence includes a large set of issues, many of which have not yet been addressed and require investigation and research.

Prior to entering the environmental jurisprudence, what principles should be taken into consideration and based on it?

Ayatollah Nurmfidi: Sometimes the issues that have arisen in the new world, many of them have had a history in the past; But in the past, the issues were very simple and now they have become very complicated, so if we refer to environmental jurisprudence in ancient books and jurisprudence sources, we can see that it was given attention in a simple way; But now, due to the intensity of the relationship it has found with various matters, it has become very complicated;  Thus, it is necessary to put forward assumptions in this field.

In the case of the environment and each of its related subjects, a specific academic discipline has been created. Reqarding these complications, we definitely need previous discussions. Some of these previous debates have been raised not only in the environmental issue, but also in relation to other issues in the past.

It sounds that the defaults should be divided into two categories. The prerequisites for entering environmental jurisprudence in particular and the prerequisites for entering it, as a general, which also works in other jurisprudence.

In regard to general assumptions, the first point is that we must adopt certain approaches in relation to many issues or new issues. The social approach is the most important approach that should be considered in this regard. Perhaps, if we want to categorize jurisprudence from one point of view, we can say that a wide range of jurists have dealt with issues with an individual approach, and a group has considered a social approach. Of course, the closer we get to the recent decades, the stronger this social approach becomes. Therefore, the social approach to jurisprudence is especially important in examining environmental issues.

Along with this jurisprudential approach, the governmental approach is very important; For many of the issues we are facing are either within the scope of the government’s responsibilities, which are beyond the responsibility of individuals, or they are a part of these that are basically the result of the government’s behavior;  Thus, it is important that the government’s approach to this jurisprudence be considered.

The third issue that, in my opinion, must be taken into consideration in general and especially in environmental jurisprudence, is what must be the type of human encounter with newly emerging issues and whether we generally want to have a positive and negative attitudes when facing new issues. Let’s deal expansively and positively.

Regarding new phenomena that enter human life, they are usually treated with a negative guard and from a negation point of view. How we deal with these phenomena is very important.

But among the specific presuppositions of entering environmental jurisprudence, three issues are very important. One is basically what position we must have regarding the environment itself. To regard the environment in the general term means to say that the issue we want to discuss and analyze in jurisprudence is the preservation of the environment for humans or the environment in a general sense that is considered regardless of humans and the benefits of humans.  Different species of living things are an environment for humans;  Thus, we must find out the limits and gaps of these sources, both those that directly and indirectly affect human life.

The second issue is the position of man in relation to these resources. Anyway, do we consider human ownership of these resources to be completely private, as a range of jurists have such a view regarding the land and weather. Do we consider the ownership of these resources to be in the hands of the ruler and the government, and is it known as Baitul Mal, which is managed by the government and the ruler? In regrard to Anfal, mountains, forests, pastures, lands and the like, it must be known who owns these things.  These presuppositions are among the issues that are very influential on environmental jurisprudence and must be taken into consideration.

Another presupposition and general basis for entering environmental jurisprudence, and indeed all jurisprudence, is the problem of thematics. The late is significant from two perspectives.  Sometimes a special issue and a new phenomenon, such as the issue of the hole in the ozone layer, arises, which causes problems for humans and all creatures on the planet. This is an oath;  But in my opinion, thematics must go beyond this topic in order to be able to examine the correct formulation of the problem in jurisprudence. The correct formulation depends on considering the set of issues and problems with a macro view and based on that, we explain and research a list of issues and problems that must be investigated in jurisprudence;  Thus, the thematic discussion is important from both perspectives. In order to set up the body and formulation of environmental jurisprudence, we should first know the environmental issues themselves and the various connections that have with various branches of knowledge and the connections that have with various aspects of human life.

What were the presuppositions of jurists in solving environmental jurisprudence issues?

Ayatullah Nurmufidi: From the previous talks, the answer to this question becomes clear: First of all, environmental jurisprudence issues have not usually been raised as an issue in the past. Yes, most of the issues raised in the environment have been related to wars;  That is, the most prominent issue that has caused discussion about the environment is the issue of war, whether it is a war between infidels and Muslims or between some Muslim clans with each other, in this case, discussions such as the sanctity of cutting down trees and the impermissibility of poisoning and contaminating drinking water or the non-permissibility of burning agricultural lands and the like has been discussed.

Generally speaking, environmental issues are usually caused by human intervention.  If man does not interfere with nature, no problem will arise and nature will do its work. Man’s interventions towards nature, according to the Qur’an and hadiths, is to construct, develop and populate the lands.  Almighty God says in Surah Hud verse 61: “He created you from the earth and established you in it.” The implication of this verse is that man must construct and develop the land and his requirement is that he has no right to destroy the land. If man intervenes in nature for the purpose of construction and settlement, which is called development today, naturally, the limits and pitfalls of this intervention must be clarified.

The discussion has been somewhat discussed in the past. From this point of view, brief debates have been raised in jurisprudence; But more important than this issue and what is more important, human intervention in nature has been in wars and conflicts. Mainly, the issues that we can find in this regard are related to this sector; But the issues we are facing today are very complex and deep and have lasting and deep effects. In the past, if poison was poured into the water, the effect would appear immediately and cause poisoning of a number of people.  But today, a factory that is built, the pollution of this industry in the environment and how much it causes damage to the ozone layer, the effects of this issue continue to several mediums and are not tangible. But it threatens future generations.

In the past, the need to preserve the environment was discussed to the extent that humans are responsible for their living environment, even for animals. Imam Ali, peace be upon him, said: اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ فِي عِبَادِهِ وَ بِلَادِهِ فَإِنَّكُمْ مَسْئُولُونَ حَتَّى عَنِ الْبِقَاعِ وَ الْبَهَائِم  The lmam says that you are even responsible for the animals. In any case, these complexities that we are facing today in the environment were basically not discussed in the past, and thus these assumptions were not considered in the words of jurists and did not become the subject of discussion. Thus, we must address what I said in reply to the previous question. In the past, we did not suffer from these issues and problems, so although the main problem of the human environment was considered; However, it was not considered that humans must use the land or that plant and animal species must be preserved.

Is it possible to consider one of the presuppositions of jurists in environmental issues to be the originality and value of humans in contrast to animals and plants and the lack of right to life for animals and plants?

Ayatullah Nurmufidi: From the previous material, the answer to this question is almost clear. There are two arguments here. It is a debate that the originality is with humans and that animals and plants are subordinate to humans. The lack of right to life for animals and plants is another matter. In the discussion of human authenticity, plants and animals have been considered useful for a better human life.  In our sources and narrations, there are many materials about preserving water and soil and taking care of the condition of imported animals, which clearly indicates the right to life for animals and plants. Even in a view that places humans as the center and the human environment as the subject, animals and plants have the right to life. Taking care of this right can be clearly traced in the words of jurists. Of course, the purpose, reference, result, and benefit of preserving plants and animals belongs to humans, but in any case, the right to life is reserved for them;  Thus, the presupposition of jurists was definitely not that plants and animals do not have the right to life. Yes, this issue may have been neglected; However, the lack of the right to life has not been the default.

Generally speaking, in the system of religious education and the intellectual system of jurists and jurisprudence, there is a balanced way of maintaining the right to life for humans and different species of living beings. Verses 204, 205 and 206 of Surat al-Baqarah must be examined. Allah the Most High says: وَ مِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يُعْجِبُكَ قَوْلُهُ فِي الْحَياةِ الدُّنْيا وَ يُشْهِدُ اللَّهَ عَلى‏ ما في‏ قَلْبِهِ وَ هُوَ أَلَدُّ الْخِصامِ (۲۰۴) وَ إِذا تَوَلَّى سَعى‏ فِي الْأَرْضِ لِيُفْسِدَ فيها وَ يُهْلِكَ الْحَرْثَ وَ النَّسْلَ وَ اللَّهُ لا يُحِبُّ الْفَسادَ (۲۰۵) وَ إِذا قيلَ لَهُ اتَّقِ اللَّهَ أَخَذَتْهُ الْعِزَّةُ بِالْإِثْمِ فَحَسْبُهُ جَهَنَّمُ وَ لَبِئْسَ الْمِهادُ (206 God Almighty says: And there is a person among people whose appearance of speech in the life of this world pleases you and [to pretend that his tongue is one with his heart] takes God as a witness to what is in his heart, while he is stubborn.  It is the worst enemy.  (204) And when [such a stubborn enemy] finds power and government (of course, some commentators take “tawalli” as meaning to move away), he tries to cause corruption and ruin in the land and destroy agriculture and generations;  And God does not like corruption.  (205) And when they say to him: Fear God, pride and stubbornness, bigotry and stubbornness will make him sin; Therefore, hell is enough for him and he is definitely in a bad place.  (206)

In these verses, God the Almighty clearly states that a group causes the destruction of generations, and he presents this as a clear example of corruption for this group.  Thus, the destruction of the human race and the human environment and natural resources, which are the most important part of the environment of living beings and plants, has been proposed as corruption; Thus, the jurists definitely consider the right to life for plants and animals, and there are many rulings to preserve them in jurisprudence, which we do not have the opportunity to deal with at the moment.

This article is a part of the file “Fundamentals of Environmental and Natural Resources Jurisprudence” and will be prepared and published in collaboration with Ijtihad Network.