Hint: Since citizenship is a modern concept and it only shares words with the concept of citizenship in ancient Greece and Iran, naturally citizenship rights and jurisprudence of citizenship rights are also among modern affairs. This modernity and newness makes many topics about these concepts to be raised and discussed. Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtabi Nurmfidi, by establishing the first “Jurisprudence and Citizenship Obligations” group at the Contemporary Jurisprudence Research Institute, has shown his attention to this new chapter of jurisprudence. We talked with him about the fundamentals of jurisprudence on citizenship rights. This foreign professor of jurisprudence and principles of Qom seminary believes that before entering into the discussion of the foundations of jurisprudence of citizenship rights, the meaning of jurisprudence, rights and citizenship as a modern matter should be clarified. The details of the conversation with the head of the contemporary jurisprudence research institute will pass through your eyes.
– What is the jurisprudence of citizenship rights and what are its requirements?
Professor Normfidi: First of all, in the first stage, we must accept the principle of the possibility of such a concept and combination, and then see what is the jurisprudence of citizenship and basically what is the jurisprudence of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship?
In general, there are four different views regarding the relationship between religion and citizenship rights.
The first point of view is that religion and sharia, especially jurisprudence, do not have the ability to explain or outline social laws and institutions; Because religious and religious wisdom basically does not have the power to establish laws and social institutions.
The second point of view is that religion has a negative position in relation to new and modern concepts, especially the concepts that are set by man in front of the religion of God, and the issue of citizenship rights is one of the examples that after the era of church domination over Europe, the intellectual stagnation of the form and due to the severity of the action that was taken, there was an escape from religion and God, and finally, man was placed as the axis, so that he became the orbit of everything.
In the same way, citizenship rights, which are known as a modern concept, have also been abandoned and it is said that they are fundamentally incompatible with religious principles and foundations.
Based on these two points of view, there is no meaning in the jurisprudence of citizenship rights.
The third point of view, which may be an exaggeration, is in contrast to the second point of view, and it seeks 100% compatibility between modern concepts and religion and sharia.
In this view, all new phenomena are tried to be extracted from the heart of religion and sharia.
The fourth point of view is the point of view of adaptation and compatibility in general, in the sense that new concepts are neither completely rejected nor completely accepted; Rather, they place all dimensions in the scale of religion, Sharia and jurisprudence, and finally accept the part that is compatible with religious rules and teachings.
Based on the two recent views, we can enter into the jurisprudence definition of citizenship rights; Therefore, if we want to provide a definition of the jurisprudence of citizenship rights, we must first choose one of these two points of view.
Another point involved in our discussion is our definition of citizenship rights. Citizenship rights are the set of rights that people have against the government, the government, and the political system, and the government is obliged to guarantee it by establishing laws and regulations and the necessary tools. This is what is known as a right.
On the other hand, government is a modern concept that is completely different from the concept of sovereignty in the past. In the meantime, some try to trace the history of citizenship rights to ancient Greece or ancient Iran and, for example, Cyrus, while the concept of right and citizen at that time is completely different from its meaning today.
As a result, the definition and acceptance of “citizen rights jurisprudence” is based on the clarification of several points: firstly, the possibility of the existence of rights for citizens, secondly, the clarification of the meaning of jurisprudence, and thirdly, the acceptance of citizenship rights as a modern concept.
But if we want to leave these considerations aside, we can say in short, the jurisprudence of rights and duties of citizenship is the expression of the road map of human life in relation to the sovereignty from the field of jurisprudence. This, of course, is naturally based on the clarification of its various bases in various sciences, including the knowledge of theology. For example, the issue of human dignity and whether it is inherent to human beings or not should be clarified.
– Is the issue of human dignity as a prerequisite for the jurisprudence of citizenship rights, your personal opinion, or do you generally consider its acceptance necessary for the discussion of jurisprudence of citizenship rights?
Professor Normfidi: It is my opinion and I say that these matters should be revised to enter that field.
– When you believe in, for example, the inherent dignity of human beings, when you leave aside the difference in rulings between infidels and Muslims. do you give up
Stadnormfidi: In this arena, yes!
– In which field?
Professor Normfidi: In the discussion of citizenship rights. Of course, I said that we accept the citizenship rights that came from the West “in their entirety” and not necessarily accept all of its contents. In my opinion, there is general compatibility between Islam and western citizenship rights; But this feature is not general.
– It seems that the third and fourth views can only be explained based on the theory of minimal jurisprudence.
Prof. Normfidi: No, by the way, the third and fourth viewpoints are based on this basis that jurisprudence is the drawing of the way of life in all dimensions, as the Imam said: jurisprudence is the plan of human life from the cradle to the grave; Therefore, the third and fourth views can be interpreted based on a minimal approach to religion. Of course, in my opinion, the interpretation of minimal jurisprudence and maximal jurisprudence is not clear, because jurisprudence does not have minimum and maximum, but it is our understanding of fiqh that becomes minimal and maximal, so a better interpretation is “minimum or maximal interpretation of fiqh”.
What are the foundations and presuppositions of citizenship rights jurisprudence?
Professor Normfidi: The foundations of jurisprudence of citizenship rights are divided into two theological and jurisprudential parts. I briefly explained the theological basics in the previous discussions. But in relation to jurisprudence, it should be said: citizenship rights include various rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, the right to determine housing, the right to privacy, etc. Perhaps it can be said that one of the most important jurisprudential foundations of citizenship rights is the acceptance of the concept of Haq al-Nas versus Haq Allah. Haq al-Nas has a wide circle that includes human life, property and reputation. Among the important topics of Haq al-Nas, one is its image in front of Haq Allah, and the other is its priority or delay in the case of conflict with Haq Allah. In jurisprudence books, this matter has been mentioned in various topics, such as the period between the obligatory Hajj that a person has completed and the Hajj that he wants to go to perform the religion, or the period of the command between Jihad and the performance of the religion, offering prayers and performing the religion. From the totality of fatwas and arguments, it is possible to prefer the rights of people over the rights of Allah; But the discussion of the right of the people, what it is, its dimensions, limits and loopholes, the evidence of each of the theories, etc., these are topics that should be thoroughly discussed as one of the foundations of the jurisprudence of citizenship rights.
– It seems that in addition to the importance of the discussion of human rights, one of the most important topics in this area is the discussion of new examples of human rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to entertainment. Accepting or not accepting these examples causes important changes in the fatwa. For example, not holding a halal music concert does not seem important at first sight; But if we consider holding a concert as an example of halal happiness and consider happiness as one of the rights of citizens, then opposing the holding of a halal music concert is considered as a violation of citizens’ rights.
Normfidi: Yes, the right to happiness can be considered as one of the rights of citizens. I think; For example, in the next hundred years, there will be new examples of citizenship rights that jurisprudence must comment on.
Another important basis for jurisprudence of civil rights is the issue of justice. It seems that many civil rights that talk about the equality of different classes are actually examples of justice.
Another basis of jurisprudence of citizenship rights is the question of God’s servitude. From the point of view of Islam, man was created to achieve happiness, and this happiness can only be achieved by serving the Almighty God: “And we created the jinn and the human beings except for Liabdon”. It seems that this issue can be raised as one of the important differences between the views of Islam and the West on the category of human rights. Of course, the late Martyr Sadr mentioned the relationship between Abd and Mullah in the theory of Haq-ul-Ta’ah; But this issue has been raised before him.
Due to the existence of this view of Islam in relation to human beings, naturally some of the rights that are claimed as human rights; But we cannot accept that they are in conflict with this relationship between Abd and Mullah. Of course, this point does not mean that we cannot accept any of the rights that Westerners have raised as human rights, but it seems that we should talk and discuss about each of these rights separately; Some of them are acceptable and others are not.
– Is it possible to deal with the jurisprudence of citizenship rights with the theory of minimal jurisprudence?
Prof. Normfidi: As it was said before, if your view of minimal jurisprudence is a jurisprudence that believes in the limitation of the presence of jurisprudence in the field of individual issues, it is natural that, therefore, there is no place to enter this field and there is no place for discussion.
– In your opinion, to what extent is the view of jurisprudence on humans effective in changing the propositions of citizenship rights?
Professor Normfidi: In my opinion, instead of the expression “jurisprudence’s view of human being”, the expression “jurist’s view of human being” should be used; Because it is the perceptions, views and opinions of the jurists that differ, but the view of the jurisprudence is the same. For example, the Qur’an’s view of man is a single and clear view, but this is the view of the commentators of the Qur’an, who are different from each other.
If the question is whether the way jurists look at “man” is how effective it is in the analysis of citizenship rights, it must be said that it is very effective; Because at one time, we consider a human being as a mere duty-oriented being, and at one time, in addition to being duty-oriented, we also consider him to have some rights. Naturally, in the first case, there is no time to discuss citizenship rights at all.
Even if we consider humans as having rights, it makes a difference whether we consider these rights to be caused by something other than God, such as the nature and essence of man and the world, or whether we consider it as something granted by God Almighty. These two views make a lot of difference in the jurist’s confrontation with the evidence.
For example, about natural rights, Mr. Motahari believes that these rights are the documents of human indebtedness. According to him, a human, being a human, has a right, such as the right to life. This right has been granted to him by God himself, but at the same time, it is also part of the citizenship rights. According to the dignity that God has given to man, he is the best of creations, he was created in the best of times, he is worshiped by the angels and the caliph of God. It means that all the rights and duties that he has determined for him are to achieve this goal. If he has forged a task for man, it is to achieve it. If he has set rights, it is the ultimate goal to achieve it. Well, this view of man will be very influential in the rights we give to him.
For example, if God Almighty says that there should not be reluctance in religion, it is because reluctance in religion does not lead him to that ultimate goal. Or if he says that he should be free, or that his privacy should be protected, or that he should determine his own destiny (Allah does not help us with our people, even if we are different from him), these are all for achieving that happiness. Almighty God considers the violation of these rights to be contrary to that eternal happiness; Therefore, the jurist’s view on the human category and what is the origin of these rights will be very influential in the propositions of the rights and duties of citizenship.
– It seems that the traditional approach to jurisprudence does not recognize rights for humans; Rather, according to him, it is Muslims who have certain rights, not human beings. According to this article, based on the traditional approach to jurisprudence, is it basically possible to describe the rights of citizens?
Professor Normfidi: I do not accept your premise that traditional jurisprudence does not grant any rights to human beings. After all, even in the most solid views of jurisprudence, human rights are imagined, although these rights are very limited and are far from the rights of citizens that the advocates of civil rights believe.
This interview is a part of the electronic magazine “Fundamentals of Civil Rights Jurisprudence” which was produced in collaboration with the Ijtihad Network website.