Note: Undoubtedly, human societies are so profoundly interconnected that no nation can live in complete isolation from others. Numerous vital factors compel universal cooperation and collaboration, to the point that state relations today mirror interpersonal relations within a single country, city, or neighborhood—an interdependence that only deepens over time. As Imam Khomeini (may God’s mercy be upon him) observed: “Today, the world resembles one family and one city, comprising diverse yet interconnected neighborhoods.” Grounded in this vision and imperative, he unequivocally declared: Given the world’s present condition, we must not remain isolated; we ought to foster relations with nations aligned with us and that pose no threat… Islam constitutes a comprehensive social and governmental system aspiring to engage the entire world. In this vein, the Vasaʾil platform presents a detailed interview with Hujjat al-Islam Qasem Shaban-Nia, associate professor at the Imam Khomeini Institute (may God’s mercy be upon him). The full text follows for readers’ benefit.

Please elucidate the jurisprudence of international relations and the linkage between these domains.

The topic entrusted to me addresses a critical contemporary need in our nation. It demands broad dissemination and practical operationalization. Discussions in the jurisprudence of international relations must yield actionable outcomes, for forty years after the Islamic Revolution’s triumph, we are expected to implement jurisprudential rulings—effectively enacting Qurʾānic injunctions and the directives of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)—within foreign policy and international relations.

Concerning the concept of international relations, several key terms arise in foreign policy discourse: “foreign policy” and “international relations.” Foreign policy denotes strategies a state pursues externally.

Analyzing international relations from one state’s vantage—its ties with others, intertwined with specific national policies—constitutes foreign policy.

Yet international relations, abstracted from bilateral state ties, harbors a profound concern: achieving global peace and security. Realizing such peace while averting war and bloodshed necessitates pursuing defined policies and strategies.

Elevating discourse to interactions among states, nations, and international organizations—the principal actors—distinct from domestic policy or externally imposed national stances, the jurisprudential approaches capable of fostering international peace and security fall under the jurisprudence of international relations. International relations encompass interactions among global actors; jurisprudentially delineating their obligations places the subject within this field.

The forthcoming discussions encompass both the jurisprudence of foreign policy and international relations, as these are inextricably intertwined. Separating them is untenable when seeking to define the Islamic state’s duties internationally and identify jurisprudential teachings enabling contributions to global peace and security.

I propose titling the subject “Jurisprudence of Foreign Policy and International Relations,” reflecting their profound interdependence. Addressing the jurisprudence of international relations in isolation from Islamic state foreign policy yields little fruit.

Divine rulings pertain to international system dynamics and ultimately impose obligations upon specific entities—individuals, states, or nations. Thus viewed, the discourse inevitably intersects with Islamic state foreign policy, rendering discussions interwoven across both domains.

Given the jurisprudential lens, Islamic rulings possess designated addressees. Jurisprudence assuredly targets neither infidel regimes nor those rejecting religion’s veracity.

Hence, Islamic states, peoples, and organizations—regional or global—constitute the Qurʾānic verses’ intended recipients, imposing duties upon a defined collective. Yet realizing international peace and security renders the two domains inseparable.

Can the jurisprudence of international relations prove practical and operational, considering diverse actors—including self-styled Islamic states potentially indifferent or hostile to Islamic interests?

One must examine rivals to religious international relations theory in practice. Liberal culture and human-constructed theories have birthed international laws rooted in liberalism.

Post-World War II international law and rights primarily served then-dominant powers’ interest in perpetuating hegemony, compelling adherence to preserve the status quo.

Can laws emerge devoid of underlying ideology? Prevailing global norms, which we deem invalid in origin and substance, contrast with Islam—a veridical, universal religion whose teachings must prevail worldwide.

Islamic law addresses humanity universally, though primarily obliging Muslims, while safeguarding collective human welfare—including that of polytheists and unbelievers.

Islamic teachings for Muslims (states, peoples, organizations) in international affairs possess global scope, delineating duties even toward unbelievers and polytheists.

A pivotal yet inadequately explored issue in this jurisprudence is the primacy of peace versus war. Some writings suggest Islam’s default is war (citing offensive jihad); others assert peace.

An exceptionless principle eludes both: peace prevails in certain contexts, war in others. The decisive criterion is Sūrat al-Dhāriyāt (51:56): “I did not create jinn and mankind except that they worship Me.” Thus, guidance and divine servitude overshadow the jurisprudence of international relations universally.

Achieved sometimes through war, preferably peace (which holds certain precedence), this servitude extends to all humanity, not merely Muslims.

Contemporary globalization seeks to universalize falsehood; Islam, however, affirms every servant’s right to rightful, legitimate sovereignty—divine sovereignty must globalize, safeguarding universal welfare.

Islam’s program for international relations—addressing even People of the Book interactions—encompasses all spheres, though rulings bind Muslims.

What relationship obtains between the jurisprudence of international relations and individual-oriented jurisprudence? Does confronting international issues not demand a macro, governmental perspective?

Historically, jurists focused on individual mukallaf duties amid unprepared conditions for globalizing Islam or establishing rightful universal governance—particularly during occultation. Yet this does not necessitate abandoning individual jurisprudence for international engagement. Rather, we should harness antecedent jurisprudential capacities (often individual-centric) while augmenting them.

For instance, queries arise: Does Islam provide rulings for contemporary international issues? Islamic jurisprudence’s distinctive features—rules (qawāʿid) like nay sabīl (prohibiting non-Muslim domination over Muslims), classically individual-focused—offer expansive application in international relations, especially governmentally construed.

The jurisprudence of international relations need not discard predecessor scholarship; past jurists resolved myriad issues via such rules. Examples include restricting non-Muslim building heights in Islamic lands to prevent symbolic domination—specific yet individual-duty-oriented.

Imam Khomeini in Taḥrīr al-Wasīla ruled contracts enabling non-Muslim domination obligatory for Muslims to abrogate. Beyond extant rules, new ones—e.g., from “Islam is superior and nothing surpasses it” (reinforcing nay sabīl)—must be formulated.

When individual rulings address unbeliever relations versus collective Muslim/international interests, fresh perspectives on classical jurisprudence, incorporating human societal maslaha, enable deriving additional rules and prioritizing conflicting obligations.

Individual jurisprudence may prioritize one ruling; governmental/collective approaches elevate communal maslaha—underemphasized in classical individual usūl al-fiqh yet central governmentally and internationally.

Principles for this jurisprudence partly inherit classical sources, partly require construction.

Imamate and wilāya are not merely domestic; divine sovereignty and wilāya must permeate globally. Extending wilāya al-faqīh as continuation of infallible imamate—precluding simultaneous imams yet affirming singular global sovereignty—transforms issue perspectives.

Researchers entering this field must adopt dual lenses: confronting extant international relations (dominated by unbelief’s leaders—arrogance’s front) and implementing Islam’s desired order.

Negotiations, then, transcend transient national fixes, aligning with Islam’s long-term vision—entered proactively, not passively, assessing Islam’s advancement.

Islam permits negotiation under conditions preventing oppressor empowerment or non-Muslim domination (detailed in works like Negotiation of the Islamic Government with Other Governments from the Perspective of Islamic Jurisprudence).

Leveraging jurisprudential relations with the status quo propels the world toward unprecedented sustainable peace and security—historically elusive yet achievable via Islamic teachings.

Discussions must retain sight of the desirable future horizon, contrasting individual jurisprudential focus on immediate mukallaf duty with systemic, programmatic vision—demanding holistic rather than superficial rulings.

What is Islam’s stance on the primacy of peace versus war?

Several viewpoints exist. “Principle” here denotes an unexceptionable foundation.

Claims of war’s primacy (citing offensive jihad) falter, as Islam rarely endorses war—exceptional when peace proves unattainable.

Peace-primacy assertions struggle explaining offensive jihad—e.g., Muslim duty to aid oppressed unbelievers or intervene against aggression.

Qurʾānic and Ahl al-Bayt sources prioritize guidance: creating conditions for divine worship requires guiding humanity. Guidance prevails unexceptionably—via peace preferably, war when necessary.

Offensive jihad targets invitation-obstructing unbelief leaders, not coerced conversion; Sunnis often term it jihad al-daʿwa—facilitating others’ right to hear Islam.

Both war- and peace-primacy views admit exceptions if unexceptionable. Guidance alone is absolute—peace-preferred yet war-permissible when unavoidable.

Alternative proposals (e.g., Mr. Varai’s maslaha-based principle) remain subordinate to guidance, which tolerates no exception—attained variably through peace or war.

If you have final remarks or recommendations on the jurisprudence of international relations, please share them.

Mastery requires dual proficiency—absent either, contributions lack weight.

First: familiarity with international relations literature. Contemporary discourse demands thorough topical grasp, necessitating political—especially international—engagement to identify global challenges, origins, and achievements. Understanding extant events and theories (helpful or rejectable) is foundational.

Second: robust capacity to deduce divine rulings—the jurisprudential core. Regrettably, some approaches superficially rationalize prevailing international realities.

Such acquiescence risks distorting the field: mastery must preclude intimidation or status-quo justification (e.g., forcing Islamic rulings like qisās into incompatibility with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, deeming them obsolete).

Proficiency in extracting sharia rulings—unswayed by external voices—must precede determining international action based on Islam’s pronouncements.

Challenges include researchers unfamiliar with novel topics or jurisprudentially weak, becoming apologists and critics. Balanced expertise in both arenas—urgently needed, particularly among seminary scholars—is essential.