Reference: Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Sayyid Ali Husayni Nayshaburi is one of those who has made the most efforts to establish environmental jurisprudence. This associate prof. of Imam Sadiq University has been working in the field of environmental jurisprudence for nearly twenty years. He has many articles and books in this field and is one of the founders of the Islamic encyclopedia “Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment”. We had a conversation with him, who has a history of teaching, research, and holding meetings and conferences in this field, regarding the presuppositions and foundations of the jurisprudence of trees and events. The details of the conversation with this environmental jurisprudence prof. and researcher will be as follows:
Regarding the rulings and rights of trees, what are the presuppositions and foundations among the jurists?
Prof. Husayni: Whether the interpretation based on the principles of jurists is correct or not is the first question. Jurists have addressed the issue of trees on several occasions. For instance, on the occasion of Anfal, they discussed forests, or for instance, some jurists, like the late Shahid, discussed the issue of trees in the explanation of al-Lum’ah al-Demashqiyyah in the discussion of expenses, whether the maintenance of plants is wajib or not, and then some people consider the maintenance of plants to be wajib, while others consider them recommended. Some jurists have also commented on some of the verses of al-Ahkam in this regard. In a broad view, it can be said that the words of our traditional jurists on this matter were scattered and on occasion, so it is not very clear what basis the jurists have in this regard.
In your opinion, trees and other plants that do not have a private owner are the property of the present generation, or do the future generations also have a share in them, and therefore it is not possible to order their arbitrary cutting?
Prof. Husayni: The first point is that trees and plants and the like are considered from Anfal. Jurists have defined Anfal in two ways. Some have said that anfal is property that is the property of the Imam, peace be upon him, and the meaning of property is specific property. That is, Anfal is the imam’s personal property; But some jurists, like the late Imam, believe that Anfal Malik is the title of the Imam and the Imamate of the Imam; This means that this property is at the service of the imam, so that the imam can manage affairs.
The second point is that there are separate definitions for Anfal, Commons, and Mubahat, and differences were made for these. The late Imam says that in addition to the fact that property is the property of the Imam, there is no difference between the three mentioned titles; Thus, every property that has a specific owner is owned by that owner; However, any property that does not have a specific owner will become a public and government property, and thus we do not have anything called common property and Anfal against each other, rather, all three titles either have a private owner or they do not. If it does not have a private owner, it will become public property. Now, if we define Anfal in this way, all the pastures, which are about ninety million hectares in Iran, and all the forests, which are about fourteen million hectares in Iran, with their various types, are the public property of the government and have no private or private owners.
But the third point: according to the general opinion of the jurists, firstly, Anfal has a private owner and the property is owned by the imam, and secondly, there are differences between public and joint ownership. Public praises are those things that can be owned with modesty, such as fish in the sea or birds in the sky that whoever catches them owns, or pastures that whoever cuts the grass owns; But common property is the property of the general Muslims and everyone can use it, and no one owns it and has no right to sell it. Like streets and roads and parks and the like.
According to this definition, pastures and forests, mawat lands that used to be Amirs and are not now are the personal property of the Imam; Thus, the law of Anfal applies to those things, which with the permission of the Imam can be taken over, revived, and the right of priority or ownership can be found; But who owns these plants? It must be said: in general, the natural resources of the earth are like the planet itself for all generations and all ages; Thus, he said in the Qur’an: “Wal add wada’aha lilanam” (Al-Rahman 10). Therefore, it is not like that our generation can have an undue possession of them and destroy them.
Despite the importance of the environment in recent years and the hole in the ozone layer, don’t the jurists have a clear and firm fatwa regarding the need to prevent the unnecessary cutting of trees and the destruction of forests? What do you know the reason for this?
Prof. Husayni: Cutting down trees and destroying forests has been discussed in Islamic jurisprudence since ancient times. Because we have many hadiths about this and verses from the Qur’an also indicate this. This issue has been discussed a lot in our jurisprudence. Just as planting a tree is one of the most important mustahabbat – of course, in some cases, planting trees is a sufficient obligation to meet the needs of the people – cutting down trees and destroying forests is also a reprehensible and forbidden act, except in the cases that will be stated.
They used to say that cutting down trees is absolutely forbidden, regardless of whether a tree is planted in its place or not, if this is not true.
&&&
We have written in the book “Plants and Life in Religious Thought” that a dry, scorched and burnt land without plants is like a cemetery that is the burial place of the dead and no vitality and blessings arise from it; But the green and lush lands with vegetation are the place of emergence and birth and life and blessing and joy and therefore the difference is from earth to heaven. Therefore, we have strange verses about this in the Holy Quran. In some verses, trees are mentioned as blessings and in others as sustenance; But there is an interpretation in the Qur’an that is one of the inventions of the Qur’an and one of the honors of Muslims, and that interpretation is “life”. In fact, the Qur’an says that the earth without plants is dead. This issue has been mentioned in several verses and it has been interpreted as life in a land that has trees and plants. Now what is the meaning of this word, it needs a separate conversation. The narrations that have been narrated only from our master Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) will become an independent book. The Prophet told his student, Mr. Mofazal, who is trustworthy, even super-trusty, about plants in the book of Tawheed Mofazal, about half a page about the benefits of plants, and then he made a point that, O Mofazal! If you look at plants, there is a joy in being a plant that no other joy on earth can compete with. In my opinion, maybe in another five hundred years, the greatness of this word will be understood. Also, in the book Tuhf al-Aqool, a narration of Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) is narrated that Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) said that pleasures are ten things, one of which is watching nature.
What do you think about the arguments of vegetarians for refraining from eating animal meat and insisting on eating plants? Is the right to life of animals different from the right to life of plants?
Professor Hosseini: The answer to this question requires a separate conversation. It is not permissible to kill animals, even slapping animals in the face is forbidden in traditions. It is the same with plants and it has been mentioned in the legal traditions for the traditions that need to be discussed separately.
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.