The President of the Islamic Sciences and Culture Academy stated that we possess abundant resources in the jurisprudence of international relations, inasmuch as the Prophet (PBUH) frequently interacted with polytheists and unbelievers during the Medinan government, and ample material is available in both the Quran and the books of maghazi (military expeditions) and sirah (biography). He remarked: Today, we harbor no jurisprudential ambiguity in international relations—at least with regard to strategic concepts, we encounter no difficulties, though challenges may arise in particular applications.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Najaf Lakzaee, President of the Islamic Sciences and Culture Academy, during the conference entitled “The Capacities of Jurisprudence in International Relations with Emphasis on the Principles of Dignity, Wisdom, and Expediency in Line with the Statement of the Second Step of the Revolution,” held on September 19, 2019, posed the following questions: What does the Statement of the Second Step of the Revolution pursue in the realm of international relations? And how can jurisprudential rules contribute to its realization? He stated: The central point in international relations reveals itself through the dual concepts of agreement and conflict; that is to say, in the international arena, we engage in both conflict and agreement with others, centered on goals and interests.
He emphasized that an actor—such as Iran, the United States, or others—in the international arena pursues its own goals and interests, and clarified: The starting point in this matter is need; for if we have no need, we do not seek relations with others. Need, moreover, crystallizes weakness, compelling us to approach others to satisfy it, while the counterpart demands something in exchange for fulfilling that need.
Lakzaee observed: When some advocate turning threats into opportunities, it means extricating ourselves from weakness; hence, the discussion of false and genuine needs emerges here.
We Have No Jurisprudential Ambiguity in International Relations
The President of the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, noting that we possess abundant resources in the jurisprudence of international relations—since the Prophet (PBUH) frequently dealt with polytheists and unbelievers in the Medinan government, and ample material exists in both the Quran and the books of maghazi and sirah—declared: Today, we have no jurisprudential ambiguity in international relations—at least in strategic concepts, we face no issues, although there may be problems in specific applications.
He added: For instance, rules such as prioritizing the more important over the important, necessity (idtirar), no harm (la darar), or specific rules like dissimulation (taqiyyah), expediency (maslahah), denial of domination (nafy al-sabil), prohibition of aiding sin and aggression, the rule of justice, preservation of the system, and others lie before us. Furthermore, rules pertaining to war—such as respect for the property and life of Muslims, the rule of safe conduct (aman), immunity of envoys, and similar provisions—determine strategic directions.
The professor at the Qom Seminary, asserting that peace is inherently more valuable, added: Surahs al-Tawbah and al-Mumtahanah constitute the surahs of jurisprudence in international relations. In verse 8 of al-Mumtahanah—“Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes—from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly”—the Quran divides unbelievers into two categories: those who fight you on account of your religion, seek to make you abandon it, and even occupy your land, and those who sometimes say, “Your religion for you and our religion for us.”
Incompatibility with Oppression Is Among the Self-Evident Principles of Jurisprudence
Lakzaee emphasized: It is among the self-evident principles of jurisprudence and macro-policy that Islam cannot reconcile with oppression and arrogance; consequently, the jurisprudential foundations in this regard are so evident that extensive effort is unnecessary, and Islam possesses the capacity to draw humanity toward Iran’s international slogans.
He added: The rule of denial of domination (nafy al-sabil) applies across all economic, political, familial, and other systems; at the macro level, it must be heeded, as the rejection of the domination system also derives meaning therefrom.
Lakzaee stressed: One of the most critical challenges in state-building is that grand policies delineated by the Supreme Leader are not executed in certain instances. Another issue is appointing individuals excelling in engineering or other fields as cultural managers—or the reverse—which inflicts damage.
Today’s Society Needs Righteous Action More Than Speech
Thereafter, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Firouzi, faculty member of the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, remarked that countries’ foreign relations have expanded more than in the past and hold immense significance today: The domestic affairs of countries are profoundly influenced by each nation’s international relations, and in our country, economic, political, and social indicators are impacted instantaneously by the international environment.
He added: Accordingly, countries strive to calibrate their relations to maximize benefits. Naturally, nations governed by particular religious and cultural frameworks adhere to additional principles, such as the rule of denial of domination or the principle of supporting oppressed nations and liberation movements.
Firouzi stated: Since the Revolution, Iran’s foreign policy has rested upon these principles, and the Supreme Leader has articulated the three principles of dignity, wisdom, and expediency—drawn from the Quran—as the foundations of our foreign policy, reiterating and emphasizing them in the Statement of the Second Step. In several passages, His Eminence referenced the principle of independence and territorial integrity, and in the sixth recommendation, addressed national dignity, foreign relations, and demarcation from the enemy.
The secretary of this academic conference declared: Religious teachings and jurisprudential rules exert considerable influence on our country’s foreign relations; hence, identifying numerous jurisprudential rules—such as the principle of preserving the system, the rule of pulse (nabd), or unwritten rules—is indispensable for fostering more suitable international relations. Moreover, determining whether peace or war holds primacy in international relations remains a pivotal topic.
Referring to the term “foreign policy,” he explained: In foreign policy, the mode of conduct forms the basis, whereas in international politics, policies are formulated by governments; in international relations, actors encompass both governmental and non-governmental entities—thus, even sporting exchanges fall within this domain.
We Should Not Fear Establishing Jurisprudential Rules for International Relations
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Reza Islami, faculty member of the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, likewise remarked: Certain rules have been laid down by the Quran and the Imams—among them the rule of denial of domination, no harm, and others—yet inferred rules serve as the starting point for contemporary ijtihad endeavors.
He added: Should we succeed in introducing a new rule in international relations, it would be most welcome and a blessing; if not, we may establish principles at the level of general rulings, framed as a principle—lesser in scope than a full rule yet constituting a general Sharia ruling whose applications the public can comprehend.
Islami continued: We ought not harbor fear in establishing rules for novel issues; undoubtedly, in international relations, rule-establishment is requisite, and we may draw particularly from the rules in the chapter on transactions.
This researcher added: Employing established and recognized rules, such as denial of hardship (nafy al-haraj)—which is proven—represents one of the capacities of jurisprudence in international relations; its applications, a complex and arduous task, must be scrutinized in light of contemporary issues.
This researcher and scholar, asserting the need to distinguish between international politics and international relations, observed: In international relations, certain individuals—such as actors—can exert influence, whereas international politics is formulated by governments. Beyond individuals and states, international organizations have emerged, and some even posit an international system within which international relations are defined.
The faculty member of the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, stressing that rules must be derived from international issues such as international trade, declared: Trade and politics mutually affect one another; a single policy may alter Iran’s trade environment. Even ceremonial matters—such as handshakes with women or consuming alcohol—can impact international relations.
Islami added: Hence, in foreign relations, we should not accept any delegation regardless of composition or appearance, and we ourselves must enact formalities rooted in our convictions—just as, in the Prophet’s time, seventy delegations called upon him, yet his treatment of dispatched groups varied, and he initially declined the Najran delegation owing to their unsuitable appearance.
Emphasizing the deployment of hard and soft instruments to assert our dignity and wisdom, he stated: Covert diplomacy, soft warfare, and soft propaganda are vital concerns in international relations. As witnessed in Daesh, a novel form of slavery has arisen: the master wields no whip, yet the subject pursues demands with love and devotion—soft power having so thoroughly indoctrinated that actions are undertaken with affection, allegiance, and a sense of accomplishment. We must not remain heedless of this arena.
The faculty member of the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture added: The principle of prioritizing peace over war is derived from evidentiary sources; the principle of universalizing invitation—requiring that invitation precede any exercise of power, with no action taken absent communication; the principle of reciprocity; the principle of kindness and mercy; the principle of severity as a specific principle; the principle of supporting the oppressed; the principle of Islamic unity; the principle of winning hearts; the principle of deterrence (Quranic intimidation); and the principle of tolerance toward people—not merely Muslims—are all extractable from the Quran and Sunnah. Thus, we can harness the potential of peoples worldwide.
Priority of Dignity over Other Principles
Referring to the linkage between the principles of dignity, wisdom, and expediency and jurisprudential rules, he stated: This framework has been delineated by a jurist and thus remains within the bounds of Sharia; accordingly, His Eminence does not assert that dignity permits acquiring power by any means. In my view, these constitute three distinct principles rather than one, with dignity being foundational, while the wisdom and expediency pursued serve the attainment of dignity.
Islami, highlighting the role of custom in international jurisprudence, added: Should global custom perceive one of our actions negatively, we are compelled to moderate it—even if intrinsically correct—such as certain discretionary punishments unfavored in international custom, which we have consequently set aside. Likewise, if some jurists regard qameh-zani (blade-striking) as an expression of lamentation yet it causes disgrace in custom, we must abandon and suspend it.
Source: Ijtihad.