Creating an institution under the title of enjoining good and forbidding evil not only does not conflict or contradict with citizen rights; rather, it is considered necessary and inevitable due to the necessity of a rational imperative; as the eighth article of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran also pays attention to this issue and considers calling for good or enjoining good and forbidding evil to be a universal and mutual duty of individuals towards each other, the state towards the people and the people towards the state, the conditions and quality of which are determined by law.
It can be said that at the time of legislation and even in the last century, few people opposed the doctrine of enjoining good and forbidding evil conceptually and generally; but with the arrival of the modern world and the creation of new legal concepts, scientific and intellectual challenges were faced with this religious doctrine, and this doctrine was considered a concept that opposed some new legal concepts such as the non-interference of governments in each other’s affairs, the right of individuals to privacy, etc. In this note, Hujjat al-lslam Muh. Sadiq lbrahimi, a PhD student in Jurisprudence and Criminal Law at Al-Mustafa University, has analyzed the relationship between the institution of “enjoining good and forbidding evil” and new legal concepts. The detailed note of this scholar from the Qum Seminary is as follows:
Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong are two religious teachings and ten branches of the holy religion of Islam that have been given great attention and emphasis in religious texts, including the Qur’an and narrations; in such a way that if someone does enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, it is exempt from the responsibility of others; and otherwise, it means that everyone has abandoned it and will be subject to punishment in the hereafter. Because the principle of its obligation, according to the consensus of Islamic jurists, is one of the necessities of the revealed religion of Islam, and abandoning the necessities of religion has harmful consequences.
In addition to the religious status of these two teachings in Islamic jurisprudence, the legal developments in the contemporary world also indicate the importance of these two in protecting and safeguarding the spiritual and social capital of societies. The concept of public surveillance in the public law system, which has been accepted by all societies, can in fact reflect these two teachings in the field of fundamental human rights, which will be discussed in this article.
Conceptual Explanation of Enjoining the Good and Forbidding the Evil
In the dictionary, the word “well-known” means “a well-known thing” and the word “evil” means “an unknown and unknown thing.” However, in jurisprudential terminology, the word “well-known” refers to an action whose goodness has been approved by the Shari’ah or reason; just as the word “evil” refers to an action whose ugliness and displeasure have been stated by the Shari’ah or reason. Therefore, the word “well-known” from a jurisprudential perspective includes all the recommended and obligatory acts of the Shari’ah, and the word “evil” refers to all the disliked and forbidden acts of the Shari’ah. Therefore,“enjoining the good and forbidding the evil” means an invitation accompanied by an order to perform the obligatory acts that have been abandoned; and “forbidding the evil” means preventing the performance of forbidden acts.
Dimensions and Scope of Enjoining the Right and Forbidding the Wrong
The dimensions and scope of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong do not have a specific limit; rather, if the conditions for it exist, it encompasses all the abandoned obligations and the performed forbidden acts, both individual and social, and all classes and classes of believers; even wives and children are required to take action towards enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong when they witness the abandonment of a good deed or the performance of a forbidden act by their father, mother, or husband, if the conditions are met.
Conditions for Enjoining the Right and Forbidding the Wrong
The conditions for the obligation of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong are:
1.Recognizing the right and the wrong: According to this condition, the one who enjoins must know the right and the wrong correctly; Otherwise, not only is he not obligated to enjoin good and forbid evil, but he/she should not engage in an act of commandment without knowledge, because he may, due to lack of knowledge, enjoin evil and forbid good. Therefore, it is not permissible to forbid someone we do not know, for example, whether the music he listens to is vulgar and haram or halal.
2.The possibility of the effect of the act of commandment: According to this condition, the person who commands must give the possibility that his act will have an effect and result, even in the future; otherwise, he will not be obligated.
3.Insistence on committing sin by the perpetrator: Based on this condition, an act of commandment becomes obligatory if the guilty person insists and persists in continuing the sin; otherwise, his act of commandment is not obligatory.
4.Absence of corruption: According to this condition, an act of commandment must not have corruption. This corruption can be a loss of life, or a spiritual and reputational damage, or a financial loss.
Correspondence of Enjoining Right and Forbidding Wrong with the Legal Concept of Social Supervision
In the modern world, the right to participation and public supervision, as an important principle in the management of societies, is a completely accepted and obvious thing. In Islamic teachings, the concept corresponding to this right is the doctrine of “Enjoining Right and Forbidding Wrong,” which refers to both individual and social issues. Public supervision or the right to participate in the management of society has the following four forms:
1.Public supervision of the government: Both public supervision and enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong are completely equivalent in this sense; since public supervision means controlling and monitoring government officials, and enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong also means exercising supervision and command over rulers and governors by the people; that is, just as public supervision is a right and duty of citizenship, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is also one of the duties of the nation towards the government and rulers; because from a religious perspective, rulers perform their duties as trustees of the people, not as owners of power and government; therefore, they must perform their duties in the fullness of their imamate and within the limits of the powers that have been specified for them, and the people must also monitor and supervise their behavior so that if they commit a violation or omission, they can prevent the deviation of governance by enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.
2.Government supervision over the people: The two concepts of “public supervision” and “enjoining the good and forbidding the evil” also have fundamental and important correspondences and overlaps in this area. Of course, there are serious differences to some extent in the origin and source of this supervision; because the origin of public supervision is the public law of modern societies and human validity; but in Islamic thought, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil originates from the validity of the legislator and divine decrees. However, in the course of its implementation, almost both systems of legal public supervision and religious commandment occur through legal institutions and the establishment of laws. In religious thought, a commandment can be implemented through the following channels: 1. A commandment by the rulers and leaders of Muslims; 2. A commandment through policy-making and the formulation of public regulations; 3. A commandment by the executive branch; 4. A commandment by the judiciary.
3.Public surveillance of the people: Public surveillance in this sense and form has a comprehensive correspondence with enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, in terms of nature and function; because both concepts mean the realization of a kind of human connection that follows the logic of cooperation to maintain the health of society; in such a way that each member of society, through active and responsible activism, calls each other to goodness and honesty and prevents them from committing inappropriate behavior that is contrary to social interests.
Non-conflict of the institution of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong with citizenship rights and privacy
Since every right also has a duty and obligation towards man, it can be said that enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil is one of the duties of citizenship in Islamic society; because right and duty are two concepts that are complementary and interdependent; that is, when someone has the right to occupy his property in any way he wants, it means that others also have the duty, based on this right, not to occupy his property aggressively without his consent. As a result, right and duty are mutually forged; that is, wherever a right is forged, a duty is also forged. Of course, it should be kept in mind that a right is an optional matter; while a duty is an obligatory matter. If a person has a right in a matter, he is free to use the right or not; but others are obliged to respect his right.
Considering this, if we do not consider enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil as a right of citizenship; At least, we cannot ignore it as a civic duty; because reforming society and overcoming its problems is largely dependent on protecting the rights of citizens, and enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong can play a very effective role in securing such a right.
On the other hand, one of the rules that reason understands well is the obligation to maintain order; the reason of all humans understands that a kind of stable order must prevail over human life, and this requires that there be centers in society that protect and safeguard society against threatening factors. Therefore, the provision of matters that can play a role in maintaining the order becomes a rational necessity. One of these matters can be enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, which plays an important role in stabilizing social life and preventing possible harm to society from harmful factors; Because man is inherently a civil being and is influenced by others in his beliefs and behaviors; in such a way that the deviation of an individual not only brings him down, but also affects the social environment and leads the society to ruin; therefore, reason commands that all individuals, with their comprehensive supervision, protect the society from disasters and harms as much as possible. Of course, this does not contradict the privacy of individuals; because as long as individuals are within the confines of their own homes, they can commit any sin they want and no one has the right to investigate; but when they enter society and a public sanctuary, they do not have the right to commit sins and moral deviations openly and in public view; because this causes damage to the public privacy; therefore, the Shari’ah has made this duty obligatory to protect the public privacy. Just as in the case of contagious physical diseases, the health of the society must be preserved by preventing the spread of the disease; This responsibility also exists in the case of mental and moral illnesses, and any negligence in dealing with it will lead to the downfall of society and the spread of corruption in it.
Therefore, it can be said that the creation of an institution under the title of Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil not only does not conflict or contradict with the rights of citizens; but it is considered necessary and inevitable due to the necessity of the rational imperative; as the eighth article of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran also pays attention to this issue and considers calling to goodness or enjoining good and forbidding evil as a universal and mutual duty of individuals towards each other, the state towards the people, and the people towards the state, the conditions and quality of which are determined by law.