Note: Last year’s riots in Iran created an important challenge for scholars of citizenship rights jurisprudence. The need to observe the hijab in order to create a clean and healthy environment in society or the permission to not wear the hijab, which one is included in the citizenship rights. Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Husayn Adabi, in this special note, tries to deal with the different dimensions and aspects of this question.
As a general rule, every government that comes to work in a geographical territory has the rational right to determine the culture and religion that governs the society. Obviously, the desired culture has its followers and there are always those who do not fall within the framework of the ruling religion and its orders and laws. Basically, throughout history, there has never been a unified government that has a cultural and religious thought. Governments are obliged to provide rights for their citizens, including the right to security, freedom, prosperity and fair distribution of wealth. The Islamic government is not an exception to this rule; But what is important is that in the conflict between the mentioned rights for different ranges of citizens living in an Islamic territory, which group of citizens is prioritized?
For instance, if security, which is the inalienable right of Muslim citizens in an Islamic government, conflicts with the right to freedom of citizens of other religions, which one comes first? In the initial conception, reason dictates that citizens aligned with the Islamic government, in culture and religion, must be prioritized and the freedom of other people must be overshadowed. This is a rational principle that is considered in all governments of the world. But if we look more closely at the way of governing and facing various risks compared to the Islamic government, we will find complications that make the initial answer doubtful and difficult.
In the cultural war between the front of disbelief and the Islamic regimes, the opposite front uses any means to attack the Islamic regime. These tools are used to undermine the public trust in the government to the extent that not only the citizens who oppose it, but also the citizens who support the Islamic government lose trust in it and stop being with it.
For instance, in the current situation of the Islamic society of Iran, when the issue of hijab became important, the moral security intended by the rulers was damaged and not only the ground for the removal of hijab was not provided, but the hijab of more people was also lost, and in the meantime, citizens adhering to hijab and public modesty who also constitute the majority of the society, were exposed to the risk of moral insecurity. The society was thrown into chaos by some people, and the Islamic government apparently retreated from its moral and religious positions due to special considerations in fighting this combined war.
This retreat provided the illusion of the victory of the opposite front in the offending and opposing citizens and made them encourage more boldness. Religiously bound families, for whom security should have been provided in the first priority, are now faced with moral insecurity for themselves and their family members. There is no longer complete security in public spaces for citizens wearing tents, as in the past; The children of religious families are no longer immune from the immoral prostitution of some in the society, and their right to moral security has been violated.
On the one hand, the government must calm the conditions of the society to deal with the all-out combined war, and on the other hand, provide the citizenship rights of citizens who adhere to religious laws. The jurisprudence of governance in such cases should have a predetermined protocol to deal with so as not to be surprised. But unfortunately, the actions and reactions of the reference groups in this field were extremely passive and no jurisprudential basis was developed to answer it.
Appropriate handling of these events is tied to security jurisprudence on the one hand and passive defense jurisprudence on the other hand, all of which must be codified based on the principles of governance jurisprudence; Basics that do not exist in our current jurisprudence. Basics do not mean the basic principles of jurisprudence, but the appropriate rules of governmental jurisprudence to be used in such situations.
For instance, governmental jurisprudence must not only use the rule of priority, but must also explain the indicators of priority in the scope of the government and with its requirements, otherwise such conflicts, which are not rare among the citizens of governments, including the Islamic government, will increase day by day and cause mistrust. It provides Islamic government and jurisprudence as current instructions in the government. Compilation of appropriate rules is due to the substantive differences between individual jurisprudence and governance jurisprudence.
In addition, these superstructural questions must also be replied, whether the Islamic government must basically be tolerant with the society in terms of jurisprudence? Does this tolerance mean tolerance in the implementation of Islamic laws? If such a statement is accepted, what must be the level of tolerance used in the society? How is the right of citizens to adhere to Shari’ah laws, whose moral security is overshadowed, calculated? If, in some cases, a gathering is organized by the opposition to express their opposition and then this gathering turns violent, how will the citizenship rights of the businessmen whose businesses are closed or threatened by rioters be calculated? There are dozens of instances of these questions, but until there is a clear basis in this field, it is not possible to make a process for the social and cultural rulings of the society and provide a comprehensive instruction.
Thus, it may be better to say that in the current situation, the jurists of the Islamic government must make more efforts to provide the scientific foundations of governance jurisprudence so that the Islamic governance method can be codified based on it and overcome the current challenges.
This article is a part of the electronic magazine “Fundamentals of Civil Rights Jurisprudence” which was produced in collaboration with the Ijtihad Network website.