Fulfilment of the Rights of People

When a person has something in his possession it can be one of two cases. The first case is the person knows that whatever he has is not fully his own, but a part of it belongs to someone else. The second case is that a person owes another person, but this person has no share in the actual goods or property in possession of the former. For example the thing he had borrowed is already used up but he is in debt to the one who had lent it. In the same way there are various types of sureties and compulsory maintenance that a person is responsible, for these should be disbursed with great care.
The first case includes the following four categories.
a) To know the quantity and the owner.
When it is known that a particular quantity of a thing rightfully belongs to such and such person, it is obligatory to return that same amount to whom it belongs and in case he is dead, to his successors.
b) When the quantity is known but not the owner.
If the exact quantity owed is known but there is a doubt regarding to whom it is owed to the extent that one feels the concerned quantity rightfully belongs to one of Three or five people. Then on the basis of precaution it is necessary to satisfy all of these people. If it is not possible to satisfy all of them, then there are Three rulings: 1. Lots should be drawn between them and one of them to be given that thing. 2. The goods should be equally distributed among all the possible owners. 3. If the doubt is with reference to a hundred and more people or if the owner is completely unknown then as a precautionary measure, by the permission of Marja al-Taqlīd the holder of these goods should give it away as charity. (Everyone has to follow his own Marja al-Taqlīd in this matter).
c) When the quantity is not known but the owner is.
Under the circumstances that a person knows that he owes some of the goods in his possession to a particular person, but does not know the exact quantity owed, it is incumbent upon him to give at least a third of the goods to the owner. As a precautionary measure he should give something more and satisfy the owner.
d) When both the owner and the exact quantity are unknown.
A person knows that he owes some of the goods he has to someone. It is Harām for him to use these goods, but he does not know the exact quantity of the goods prohibited for him nor its rightful owner. He may consider a few persons as probable owners but he is unaware as to how much of it belongs to whom. In these circumstances it is incumbent on him to give Khums (1/5) on the total goods. After this the rest of the goods or property becomes totally permissible. (For details refer to the section on Khums in the books of Practical Laws).
In the second condition something is owed by a person but it is not in the form of a tangible good or property. There are four circumstances of this type:
1) If the exact quantity and the rightful owner, are known, then without any doubt that quantity has to be returned to the owner.
2) If the exact quantity is known but not a particular owner, and there is doubt between some selected people that it could belong to anyone of them. In this case it is incumbent to satisfy each of them in the way described in the rules regarding tangible goods. But if the doubt is between a large number of people the value of the goods must be given to the Qazi or given as charity by his permission on behalf of the rightful owner.
3) If the value is not known but the person to whom it is owed is known; the duty of the one who owes it is to restore the minimum quantity supposed and also to persuade the owner to forgo the rest of it.
4) When neither the exact quantity nor the owner is known the law states that an estimate has to be made and the average of the minimum and the maximum amount paid as charity after the permission of the Qazi.
Sayyid Abdul Husein Dastghaib
Imam reza network

The Natural and Intellectual Rights in Islam

The Father:
My child! My purpose of speaking about the religious issues was for you to become familiar with a sample of the beliefs of you father and mother, and to become certain that it is not without reasons that they are fond of religion. Even, if these discussions did not convince you, and if you still are of your old opinion about them, and should think your parents are old fashioned and superstitious, this rights, to be rude to them or to treat them disrespectfully. As the rights of your parents are natural and intellectual and in any case they are inviolable.
Have you not ever heard of a Christian youth by the name of Zakariya who became Muslim and who went to Medina to Imam al-Sadiq (as) and said to him:
"I was a Christian, now I have become Muslim. My father, mother and entire family are Christians also my mother is blind. Do you see it advisable for me to stay with them?"
The Imam Said:
"Certainly, be good to your mother and pay attention to her."
- Usual Kafi, New edition, 2nd Volume, p. 16
The youth, upon the return to his home town of Kufa, started to render his services to his mother. And more than ever before, he treated her with kindness. So much so the it surprised his mother. She inquired about the reason of his extreme kindness after becoming Muslim. He told her of the Imam\'s advice. She was impressed and consequently, she too accepted Islam.
The Child:
Of course the matter of religious beliefs has nothing to do with the rights of parents. They exist whether the child is in agreement with parent\'s principles and beliefs or not.
22. The Rights of Fathers and Mothers
The Father:
My child! Even if the Holy Qur\'an and the religious leaders had not advised you on how to treat your father and mother, your intelligence would command you to honour them. And as far as human nature is concerned, treating them with due respect is a must. There are many verse in the Holy Qur\'an, as well as many statements concerning the topic.
The Almighty, in the Holy Qur\'an says:
"And your Lord has decreed that you shall not worship except Him and honour your parents. For as long as they live, one of them or both of them, you shall not speak harshly to them or mistreat them; you shall speak to them amicably. And lower for them the wings of humility and kindness and say: My Lord, have mercy on them for they brought me up from infancy.
- The Holy Qur\'an 17: 23-24
The Almighty Allah in another place in the Holy Qur\'an says:
"We enjoined the human being to honour his parents; his mother bore him as he got heavier and heavier and cared for him for two years until weaning. You shall be appreciative to Me and to your parents. To me is (thy final) goal."
- The Holy Qur\'an 31:14
The Holy Prophet (p.b. u.h.) in answer to a person who had asked what right has father to his child, said:
"The child should not call him by his name. Neither should he walk in front of him: nor be seated before he is seated and he should use no evil words, to anyone, except after one has used evil words against his father."
- Usul al-Kafi, New Edition, vol.II pp. 159-161
A foster sister of Prophet once went to his visit. The Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) treated her with utmost love and respect. After she had left, her brother went to his visit. But he did not receive as much attention from him. People present at both meetings, asked the reason. The Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) explained:
"The reason is that she had treated parents with more respect and kindness than he had."
- Usul al-Kafi, New Edition, vol II.159-161
Our Fourth Imam, Imam Sajjad (as) says:
"You are indebted to your mother for she carried you in a manner that no one else did. She fed you the essence of her life whereas no other person did. she fed no other person such food.
She used her entire being for the purpose of protecting you. Whereas, she would not care about herself being hungry or thirsty, she fed you and quenched your thirst. She dressed you well when she had no cover for herself. If she were in the sun, she would put you in the shade.
She deprived herself of a peaceful sleep for you sake, She protected you from heat and cold. She did all these so you would stay alive for her. Oh human, without Allah\'s help. you shall never be able to thank her enough! And you are indebted to your father for that he is your roots. If he were not, you would be not give him credit for all good fortunes you may have, because he is the one, who is the basis for them. Be grateful and appreciative to him. And there is no power except by Allah."
- Wafi, 3rd part, 0.127
Imam al-Rida (as)1 quotes the Holy Qur\'an where Allah say:
"Oh human give thanks unto me and unto your father and mother."
- Oyoon Akhbar al-Rida, p. 143
Therefore, he who does not appreciate his parents, he does not appreciate Allah.
Again Imam al-Rida (as) says:
"He who does not express his appreciation for a gift, given to him by someone, has not indeed thanked Allah."
- Oyoon Akhbar al-Rida, p. 194
The Child:
Of course, the wisdom advises one to honour one\'s father and mother. And Holy Qur\'an as well as our religious leaders confirm such as advise.
23. The Chid\'s Rights
The Father:
My child! In order not to judge in a one sided manner, I should tell you that as any child is obligated to his parents, they in return are obligated to him too. In reply to a man who had asked about his obligations to his child, the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) said:
"It is for you to give him a good name and to raise him in a good manner and to teach him an appropriate trade"
- Wafi, 12th part, pp. 210-211
The Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) has other points in this respect such as:
"Teach your children swimming and archery."
- Wafi, 12th part, pp. 210-211
"Parents are equally obliged to discharge their responsibilities towards their children and are accountable in case of failure. Similarly children are responsible to discharge their obligation towards parents"
- Wafi, 12th part, pp. 210-211
"May Allah have mercy upon those parents who help their children so that the children could reciprocate the same towards them. They asked how can they help. He replied by accepting any easy task he may fulfill; and by not requiring him to do hard labour; and by not being rough and unfair to him."
- Wafi, 12th part, pp. 219-211
Imam Ali (as) says:
"Do not force your children in having the same characteristics as you do. Because they created in an era which is different from yours."
- Al Imam Ali, vol. III, p 733
Further he said:
"A father has three obligations towards his child: 1. To give him a good name, 2: To raise him in a good manner, and 3: To teach him Holy Qur\'an.
- Nahjul Balagha, p. 546.
I think, by this, he does not merely mean the pronunciation of Qur\'anic words, but rather the practice and implementation of its commandments, method, and its exalted moral guidelines in their day of day lives. You should familiarize yourself with the sublime realities in the Qur\'anic text, so that you can meet your spiritual needs. What better honour is there to lead a life according to the teaching of the Holy Qur\'an.
Our fourth Imam, Imam Sajjad (as) says:
"You should be aware of the fact that your child has come from you and that people associate his good or bad deeds with you. You are responsible to teach him good manners, and to guide him to the way of the Creator of the World and to help him on obeying Him. Most assuredly, you will be rewarded for the being good to your child, and will be punished for abusing him."
- Wafi, Part III, p.127
Imam al-Sadiq (as) says:
"He who is beneficent to his child, is so to his parents"
- Wafi, part II, p. 211
Our seventh Imam, Imam Musa al-Kazim,1 (as) says:
"It is appropriate to encourage a boy during his childhood to do difficult work in order to grow up a patient and meek adult."
- Wafi, Part II,P. 211
The Child:
As you admit for the most part, rearing a child and preparing him for a material and spiritual life is up to his parents.
24. The Responsibilities of Fathers & Mothers
The Father:
My child! based on the verse in the Holy Qur\'an that advise benevolence to parents, next to worshipping of Almighty Allah, it is understood that next to our obligations to Him, there is no greater obligation than that to our parents.
The Child:
My honourable father! Your responsibilities to me as parents are as great as your authority over me. It is all up to you as to how you raise and rear me and how to educate me. Our times are different from each others. Our environment too is different from that in which you were growing up. A simple life, with no means of corruption and not too many social obligation or luxuries, raised you to the way you are. But I was born into this world in the age of Atom, machine and cinema and in a polluted environment.
As if I were to spend all day and night serving you would not be too, much, you should do likewise for me, and have a watching eye day and night one me in this rough sea (of life). If I am about to drown, grab my hand and rescue me. Parents should periodically go to their children\'s schools and inquire about their education and behaviour from their teachers. Ask about their associates and close friends and particularly to ask about where they spend their time when they are out for the evening.
At night at home they should help their children with their homework by offering them guidance. If they are about to engage in an unwise activity, they should stop them by explaining to them the harms that may be involved. In this way, they will learn from their parent\'s past experiences. Of course, their involvement should not be detrimental to the children\'s independent personality or to their confidence building.
25. Rearing of a Child
The Father:
My child! Speaking of rearing of a child, I must agree that a child is capable of being trained. If it were not so, we the parents, would not have been obligated for your upbringing.
He also is capable of improving. Many evil doers who received the right kind of advice became righteous people. And many ill-tempered accepted guidance and converted into good natured gentle individuals. So, in this manner, it is only wise for parents to offer their good advice to their children whenever they note the later are starting to misbehave or the weaken their religious beliefs. Not by beating them up or by putting them under material pressure, or by kicking them out of the house. Rather, by offering advice or by having a mutually trusted individual talk to them and give them guidance. Furthermore, in a sympathetic way, they should pray to Allah that the child be corrected. they should rest assured that he will then be guided.
A man named Dawood (David) went to Imam Musa al-Kazim (as) complaining about his own son that he had wasted a large amount of his money. The Imam said to him:
"Try to correct your child. And know that compared to the blessings of having a child, one hundred thousand Dirhams (dinars) are nothing."
- Wafi, part XII, p. 211
The Child:
As you just mentioned, the best way to rehabilitate a child and bring him back to doing good deeds again, is by telling him the solutions in a soft voice and in a respectable manner. One should avoid harsh words so the child would feel that all that is being said is well intended and is only for his welfare and that the purpose is to change his course to the right path in life.
26. Importance of Mother\'s Rights
The Father:
My child ! please be aware that the rights of mothers are more important than that of the father. An individual once asked the Holy prophet (p.b.u.h) "To whom should I be kindest?" He replied: "Your mother." Then he asked: "After her, to whom" He again said: Your Mother". The man asked the same question for the third time. The reply was the same, Your Mother". And he repeated his question for the fourth time, the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) answered him "Your Mother."
- Usul Kafi, New Edition Tehran, Vol. II p. 159
Again a man asks the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) about being kind to parents. In reply for three times, he said: "Your mother": and only then he said " Your father."
- Usul Kafi, New Edition Tehran, Vol. II P. 162
Perhaps there are two reasons for this importance: (A) Motherly affection, and (B) Mother\'s influence on the child\'s character.
26.1 A. Motherly Affection:
It is the mother who suffers more pain in taking care and in protection of the child. She nourishes and brings up the child in her love filled lap until she delivers him to the society. One would be quite astounded to realize what a mother does for her child. Only then, one would agree that none would match a mother. Not even an affectionate maid or babysitter. Suppose a maid or a babysitter is able to offer the services, they do so in return of a wage, not merely for the affection to the child.
26.2 B. Mother\'s Influence on the Child\'s Character:
The mother lays the basic foundation of the child\'s bahaviour and character. As through her mild she provides nourishment for the body, through her teachings, she strengthens his spirit. Consequently, the child inherits his mother\'s mannerism, habits and other characters since early infancy and will keep them throughout his life. Finally, the child\'s happiness depends on the way he is reared by his mother.
The Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) says:
"Do not select stupid women or women with visual important for nursing your children because milk affects character."
- Wafi, part XII, p. 27
Imam Ali (a.s.) says:
"Be careful as to who nurse your children since they will grow up with same milk."
- Wafi, Part XII,PP. 27-27
He also says:
"No milk is more blessed for a child than that of his own mother."
- Wafi, Part XII, pp. 27-28
Imam Baqir1 (a.s.) says:
"Choose good natured women for nursing your children and avoid the evil one because milk transfers character."
- Wafi, Part XII,pp.27-28
Samuel Smiles says:
"Those who swing children\'s cradles are more influential than those who run the government."
- The Book of Ethics, Part 1, pp. 38-48
"Rearing of a child begins at the time of his first smile."
- The Book of Ethics, Part 1, pp. 38-48
"Infancy is like a mirror. It reflects whatever is placed in front of it."
- The Book of Ethics, Part 1, pp. 38-48
"The model constantly present in front of the child is his mother"
- The Book of Ethics, Part 1, pp. 38-48
"Mother has far more influence on the child than does his father."
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
An Ancient Greek once said:
"If you put your slave in charge of rearing your child, soon you will have two slaves."
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
George Herbert says:
"One good natured mother is worth one hundred teachers."
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
John Randolph, the will known American politician says:
"Only one thing saved me from becoming atheistic. That was the thoughts of the moments when my mother in her death bd took my hands and placed me on her lap and made me repeat after herm her belief in the Lord."
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
It has been said that:
"A good mother is nature\'s masterpieces."
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
Napoleon Bonaparte used to say:
"A child\'s good and bad behaviour always depends upon that of his mother."
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
Adams, the American President, says:
"During infancy, I had the great blessing anyone could have. That, having a mother who was capable of raising a family in an excellent instructions from her. If there are any shortcomings and deviations in my life, it is of my own fault and it has nothing to do with her"
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
Joseph Demister, after discussing the inventions and art works produced by some famous men, continues that:
"It is true that women have produced no such things, but what they have done is far more important than all these works because it is women who have raised such pious and industrious men."
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
He throughout his works, refers to his mother with love and respect. In one instance, he says:
"Good natured mother was a heavenly angel who was bestowed a human body temporarily by God."
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
Goethe had a great affection and love for his mother. About her he says: "My mother had excellent qualities for living."
- The Book of Ethics, Part, pp. 40-54
And when he was in Frankfurt, he would meet with all people who had in any way been kind to his mother and would thank them for that.
Samuel Johnson talks with extreme respect about his mother.
"She was a wise and well educated woman who enforced religious sentiments in him since early childhood. And in appreciation, he, with his small income, would provide all kinds of conveniences for her."
- The Book of Ethics, and Editions, Part 1, pp. 50-54
The Child:
I admit that the rights of mothers are extremely important. That is why to mother, I say " I shall never forget about your contribution as my mother, I have read that Heaven is under the footsteps of mothers like you and happiness comes through being obedient to you. I consider that a big mistake on my part if I am not a decent and worthy child, for you. And a life in which I do not fulfill my obligations to you would be a miserable life."
I am certain that you will be happy with me even if I am not good to you. And no matter how nasty I am. you will forgive me. Your being happy with me, and your forgiveness is enough to make me happy in life on this earth and to save me forever from Allah\'s wrath on the Day of Judgment.
Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Hakim
Imam reza network

Rights of the Relatives and Friends

Merits of the Relatives
Relatives are the family to whom one belongs. Man's relatives are the most similar, affectionate, and helpful. Describing the relatives, Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said:
"Man, though wealthy, cannot dispense with his clan. He is in need for their defending him with hands and tongues. They are one's greatest backers, best reuniters, and most affectionate when a misfortune befalls." 499
The best relatives are those who love, sympathize, and cooperate with one another for achieving their goals and interests. For its elevated social rank and great influence on reforming the Islamic society, the Islamic Sharia has paid the greatest attention to the family affairs.
Regard of Relatives
The leading moral principles on which the Islamic Sharia has imposed and confirmed is the regard of relatives by means of showing kindness, rendering material aid, protecting against misfortunes, and participating in sorrow and joy:
The Prophet (s) said: "I advise every present and absent individual of my umma, including those who are in their fathers' spines and mothers' wombs up to the Day of Resurrection-I advise all these to regard their relatives, even if the way to them takes one hundred year walking. Regard of the relatives is part of the religion." 500
"He who is pleased if Allah adds to his age and increases his sustenance must regard his relatives. On the Day of Resurrection, the family relation will say with glib accent: O Lord, regard him who regarded his relatives and disregard him who disregarded his relatives." 501
"Warrant for me one and I warrant for you four: warrant for me that you regard your relatives and I warrant for you that Allah will love you, increase your sustenance, add to your age, and take you to the promised Paradise." 502
Imam al-Baqir (a) said: "Regard of the relatives purifies the deeds, increases the wealth, repels misfortunes, makes the Judgment easier, and postpones the deadline of life." 503
Imam as-Sadiq (a) said: "We do not know anything that adds to the age like regard of the relatives. It happens that a man whose age is decided to be three years may add to it thirty years if he regards his relatives. Hence, his age become thirty-three. A man whose age is decided to be thirty-three years may decrease to three years if he disregards his relatives." 504
"Regard your relatives even by serving them a drink of water. The best way of regarding the relatives is to save them from harm. Regard of relatives surely postpones the deadline of life and endears to the family members." 505
"Regard of the relatives and charity make the Judgment -on the Day of Resurrection- easier and protect against committing sins. Hence, you are advised of regarding your relatives and doing charity even by saying nice salaams and responding others' salutations." 506
Imam as-Sadiq (a) narrated that, once, a man said to the Prophet (s): "God's Messenger, my relatives have rallied against me, disregarded me, and reviled at me. Should I disavow them?" The Prophet (s) answered: "If you do, Allah will disavow all of you." He wondered: "How should I do, then?" The Prophet (s) instructed: "You should regard those who disregarded you, give those who deprived you (of their endowments), and pardon those who wronged you. If you do it, Allah will support you against them." 507
A family contains individuals of various standings. There is the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, and the celebrity and the ignoble. Except by means of solidarity and mutual sympathy, a family cannot achieve might and luxury and cannot face the life problems with steadfastness.
In his last hours, Aktham ibn Saifi; the famous wise man, summoned his sons, collected a group of sticks, and asked each of them to break it. None could break that group. He then gave a single stick to each of them to break. They could break easily. Commenting on this situation, he said to them: "Like these sticks, always be together so that you cannot be broken."
Disregard of the Relatives
Disregard of the relatives stands for any word or deed that oppresses the relatives, such as revilement, backbiting, alienation, and deprivation of feelings of sympathy. According to the Islamic Sharia, it is a grand sin threatened with punishment:
"If you ignore the commands of Allah would you then also spread evil in the land and sever the ties of kinship? (47:22)."
"Those who break their established covenant with Him and the relations He has commanded to be kept and spread evil in the land are the ones who lose a great deal. (2:27)"
The Prophet (s) said: "Four matters are the quickest in punishment: to recompense the favor with mistreatment, to trespass him who does not show hostility, to break the faith of the party who keeps up his faith, and to rupture the relations with the relatives who regard you properly." 508
Imam al-Baqir (a) said that the following statements are recorded in Ali's book: "The bearers of three ill manners will not die before they suffer the consequence of them: oppression, disregard of the relatives, and perjury against Allah. The reward of regard of the relatives is the most hastened. Even the sinful people will be enriched and wealthy when they regard each other (by means of good mutual relations). Perjury and disregard of the relatives change countries into deserted wastelands and cut off the progeny." 509
One of the companions narrated that he, once, told Imam as-Sadiq (a) that his brothers and cousins had dismissed him from his house and that they would beat him if he disputed with them.
Imam as-Sadiq (a) said to him: "Be patient. Allah will surely relieve you." The man was sufficed with these words; hence, he left.
In the year 131, people were affected by plague, and the man's brothers and cousins were within its victims. When the man visited Imam as-Sadiq (a), he asked him about their manners. He told of their death. The Imam (a) said: "That was certainly the punishment for what they had done to you when they disregarded their relative. Do you wish were they alive even if they would mistreat you?" The man answered: "Yes, I do." 510
· Shuaib al-Aqarqoufi narrated that Ya'qoub al-Maghzili, once, visited Imam al-Kadhim (a) who said to him: "Ya'qoub, you and your friend were engaged in disagreement in a place yesterday, and you reviled at each other. My fathers' and my religion does not accept such deeds. We, likewise, do not order any of such ethics. Hence, you should fear Allah alone. Death will separate you from your friend who will die during his journey before he arrives in his town. You will be sorry for your revilement at him. Because you have disregarded each other, Allah will cut off your ages."
The man asked: "What about my time of death?"
The Imam answered: "Because you regarded your aunt, twenty years were added to your age." (Shuaib commented) After some time, the man told me that his friend had died during his journey.
511
RIGHTS OF FRIENDS
Merits of Friends
Man has longed for making friendships so that he can obtain individuals supporting him, alleviating his troubles, and sharing in his sorrow and joy.
Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said: "Try to have as many as possible true friends, for they are the supplies in joy and the shelters in misfortunes." 512
Imam as-Sadiq (a) said: "A friend occupies a great position to the degree that even the inhabitants of Hell will seek his help before the relatives. In this regard, Allah, conveying the words of the inhabitants of Hell, says: 'so, we have no intercessors, nor a true friend. (26:100-1)'"
A wise man said: "The true friends are the most favorable gain in this world. They are adornment in luxury, support in misfortune, and aid for acquiring good living and good deeds."
As a wise man was asked whether he prefers his brother or friend, he answered: "I prefer my brother when he is a friend of mine."
Reality of Friendship
Some people may think that the true friend is the one who treats them courteously and bright-facedly, but if such one is tested, his falsity is proved. Old and modern writers have gone on complaining about friends' alienations in spite of the love that is born for them. This is because of:
(1) The ignorance of the reality of friendship and the incapability of making distinction between the true and false friends, or
(2) Most of the friends are characterized by common social weak points, such as changeableness and disloyalty.
Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said: "There are two classes of friends: friends of confidence and friends of grimace. The friends of confidence represent the hand, the wing, the family, and the wealth. Regarding your relation with the friends of confidence, you should offer your wealth and body to them, act with sincerity towards him who acts with sincerity towards them, antagonize him who antagonizes them, conceal their secrets and flaws, and publicize their nice qualities… You should know that friends of confidence are as rare as red sulfur. Friends of grimace are those from whom you can gain pleasure; therefore, you should not prevent them from gaining pleasure through you. Do not expect anything more from them. As long as they show you good humor and good wording, you must show them the same." 513
Imam as-Sadiq (a) said: "Friendship is nil unless its limits are kept. He who does not keep these limits should not be regarded as friend. The first limit is that the inner self and the appearance should be identical. The second limit is that the friend should regard your goodness as his goodness and your evil as his evil. The third limit of friendship is that a position or fortunes should not change the relation with the friends. The fourth limit is that the friend should not deprive his friend of anything that he is capable of doing. The fifth limit -which is the most comprehensive-, is that the friend should never leave his friend alone in calamities." 514
Friends' Selection
The characteristics of friends move between them very quickly. The bad, however, move in greater speed. It frequently happens that well-behaved individuals have gone astray because of the influence of their bad friends. So, it is important for every man of reason to choose friends that are characterized by good mannerism and behavior.
The Ideal Friend
The first characteristic of the ideal friend is intelligence. In fact, the companionship of the foolish is vicious and malicious because the foolish injures his friend when he intends to benefit him: Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said: "The foolish does not advise you of good and is not expected to save you from any problem even if he does his best. Moreover, he may harm you as he intends to benefit you. His death is better than his life, his silence is better than his words, and his remoteness is better than his closeness." 515
Friends must be characterized by faith, uprightness, and well mannerism. Friends who are empty of such traits are insignificant since they are anticipated to mislead their associates:
"It will be a hard day for the unbelievers. It will be a day when the unjust will bite their fingers, (regretfully) saying, "Would that we had followed the path of the Messengers. Woe to us! Would that we had not been friends with so and so. He led me away from the true guidance after it had come to us. Satan is a traitor to people." (25:27-9)"
The Prophet (s) said: "Man imitates his friends. Hence, you must consider them whom you want to befriend." 516
Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said: "To sit with the evils causes mistrust in the good. To sit with the good attaches the evils to the good. The sinful ones' sitting with the good ones attaches the sinful ones to the good ones. If you cannot discern the belief of somebody, you should investigate his associates. If they are following the right creed, he will inevitably be on the right creed. If they are not, he then has no share in the religion of Allah. The Prophet (s) used to say: He who believes in Allah and the Final Day should not fraternize with any disbeliever or associate with any sinful. He whoever fraternizes with a disbeliever or associates with a sinful one is certainly regarded as disbeliever and sinful." 517
Imam al-Baqir (a) said: My father Ali ibn al-Hussein, once, advised me: 'O son, do not associate, talk, or accompany five classes of people.' 'Who are they, father?' asked I, and he (a) answered: 'Beware of associating with the liar, for he is as same as mirage: he shows you the near as remote and shows you the remote as near. Beware of associating with the sinful, for he will disappoint you for a single bite or even something less valuable. Beware of associating with the stingy, for he will let you down when you are in urgent need of his property. Beware of associating the foolish, for he harms you when he intends to do you favor. Beware of associating with the disregardful of his relatives, for I found him cursed in the Book of Allah.' 518
Friends should exchange expressive desires of affection and fraternity so that their handle of friendship will be firmer. But if such tendencies fade away, the relation will be enfeebled, and the alienated party will expose himself to criticism and revulsion.
Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said: "To alienate the one who desires for making friendship with you is diminution of reason, and to desire for him who does not want you is humility." 519
Standards of Love
Aspects of love may be confused among people in general and friends in particular. Suspect may creep into the relations of friendship. Solving this problem, the Ahl ul-Bayt (a) identified definite mental standards that reveal the actual feelings and hiddens.
Imam as-Sadiq (a) answered the man who asked him how he would realize the real feelings of those who claim bearing love towards him: "You should test your heart. If you really love him, he will really love you." 520
Imam al-Baqir narrated that, while he was dying, Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) gathered al-Hasan, al-Hussein, Mohammed ibn al-Hanafiyya, and the other sons and commanded them: "… Sons, you should associate with people in such a way that they will long for you when you are absent and will weep for you when you depart this life. Sons, hearts are well-mobilized troops; they recognize each other by means of amiability as well as hatred. Hence, you should expect good from the one whom you love without seeing any good from him. Likewise, you should beware of the one whom you dislike although you have not seen any ill behavior from him." 521
Friendship between Ebb and Flow
"Which is better: to have many friends or to be friendless?"
Answering this question, people of reason have had various opinions. Anticipating the pleasures of sociability and benefits of solidarity, some people have preferred having many friends to being friendless. Others, however, have opted for the opposite, claiming the many problems of friendship that originate hatred an enmity.
In fact, the question has nothing to do with the number of friends. It is related to the traits of nobility and sincerity that friends must bear. However, the noble, sincere friends are, unfortunately, very few. A single sincere friend is of course better than thousand insincere ones. In this regard, Alexander said: "He who has many friends arbitrarily is as same as him who has many stones, and he who has few, but selective, friends is as same as him who has selective pearls."
Rights of Friends
1. Material Care
It is incumbent to help the friend who suffers an economical crisis. This is in fact one of the obligatory rights of friendship and one of the proofs of loyalty. God, in the holy Quran, praises some peoples who showed altruism:
"They give preference to them over themselves - even concerning the things that they themselves urgently need. (59:9)."
Imam al-Kadhim (a), once, asked one of his close companions: "How do you behave concerning your mutual association and relief?" The man answered: "We are in the best manner in this regard."
The Imam (a) asked: "Are you pleased when one of your needy associates come to your shop or house to take that which they need?" The man answered: "No, we are not."
The Imam (a) commented: "Now, you are not behaving as I want you to do in this regard." 522
· Abu Ismaeel narrated that he told Imam al-Baqir (a) that numbers of the Shia were great. The Imam (a) said: "Do the rich ones among them act with kindness toward the poor, the good-doers overlook the evildoers, and they help each other?" I answered: "No, they do not." The Imam (a) commented: "They are not Shia. The true Shia are only those who do these acts." 523
Al-Waqidi related the following story:
The Eid day was about to come while I had no single dirham in possession. My wife, noticing this manner, asked me to do something since our children would be very depressed if they saw the other children with new clothes. Hence, I had to send a letter to my Hashemite friend asking him for help. He therefore sent me a bag of one thousand dirhams. As soon as I received them, another friend of mine sent me a letter complaining about neediness. I had to send him that very bag. Because I was embarrassed to see my wife, I spent that night in the mosque. The next morning, I went home and told her of the story. She did not blame me for so. In fact, she praised me for such a doing.
After a while, my Hashemite friend came to me bearing the very bag of one thousand dirhams. He asked me to tell him the truth; therefore, I told the whole story. He said: "When I received your letter, I had nothing at all but that bag. Nevertheless, I sent it to you. I, then, wrote a letter to our friend asking for help, and he sent me the very bag. Hence, we may distribute that sum among us."
This story was told before al-Ma'mun -the Abbasid caliph- who summoned me and gave seven thousand dirhams. The share of each of us was two thousand, and my wife was given one thousand.
2. Moral Care
Mental crises and misfortunes may befall some people who, in such cases, become in urgent need for aid and relief. The loyal friends are the first people who must hurry in providing such help by means of words and authorities. This is in fact the true standard of love and the distinctive mark between genuine and false friends.
Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said: "The true friend is only he who regards his friend in three situations: ordeal, absence, and death." 524
3. Excusation
Like all people, friends, even if they enjoy the highest ranks of mannerism, are subjects to erring. Therefore, one must overlook and excuse so long as one trust their love and loyalty. Such overlooking will perpetuate the relation of friendship since excessive criticism leads to reluctance.
Amir ul-Mu'minin said: "Bear yourself towards your brother in such a way that if he disregards kinship, you keep to it; when he turns away, be kind to him and draw near to him; when he withholds spend for him; when he goes away approach him; when he is harsh be lenient; when he commits wrong think of (his) excuse for it, so much as though you are a slave of him and he is the benevolent master over you. But take care that this should not be done inappropriately, and that you should not behave so with an undeserving person. Do not take the enemy of your friend as a friend because you will thus antagonize your friend. Never use trickery. It is the manner of the evil ones. Give true advice to your brother, be it good or bitter. Help your brother in any case, and go with him wherever he goes, and never retaliate him even if he throws dust in your mouth. Prevail your enemy by doing favor to him. This is more successful. You will save yourself from people by good manners and swallowing the anger. I did not find a sweeter thing than swallowing one's anger in the end, and nothing more pleasant in consequence. Never suspect in your brother and never leave him without blaming. Be lenient to him who is harsh to you for it is likely that he will shortly become lenient to you. Rupture of relations is very ugly. What an ugly thing is the alienation after brotherhood, enmity after affection, betraying those who trust you, disappointing those who expect your good, and cheating those who confide in you!
If you intend to cut yourself off from a friend, leave some scope for him from your side by which he may resume friendship if it so occurs to him some day. If anyone has a good idea about you prove it to be true. Do not disregard the interests of your brother depending upon your terms with him, for he is not your brother if you disregard his interests. Your family should not become the most miserable people because of you. Do not lean towards him who turns away from you. Do not turn away from him who leans towards you when he deserves association. Your brother should not be firmer in his disregard of kinship than you in paying regard to it. You should exceed in doing good to him than is evil to you, giving to him than is withholding, and favoring him than is ceasing. Do not feel too much the oppression of a person who oppresses you, because he is only busy in harming himself and benefiting you. The reward of him who pleases you is not that you displease him. Livelihood is of two kinds -a livelihood that you seek and a livelihood that seeks you, which is such that if you do not reach it, it will come to you." 525
Imam al-Hasan (a) said to one of his sons: "O son, do not befriend anyone before you know his means and sources. When you try him and please to associate with him, you should then befriend him on bases of pardoning his faults and consoling him in misfortunes." 526
It is recommended to neglect the friend's offense so as to show trust in him. This will certainly cause the offensive friend to admire his friend and try to keep good relations with him. It is also required to accept the friend's apologies without strictness or obstinacy so as to achieve the high moral standard.
Gentle reproof is recommended in this regard, because negligence of reproof may make the friend feel his friend's negligence or hidden rage. Unless it is characterized by gentleness and sensation, reproof is useless and unappealing. Excessive reproof may lead to the friend's alienation and dissatisfaction.
"Only through the Divine Mercy have you (Muhammad) been able to deal with your followers so gently. If you had been stern and hardhearted, they would all have deserted you a long time ago. Forgive them and ask Allah to forgive (their sins) and consult with them in certain matters. But, when you reach a decision, trust Allah. Allah loves those who trust Him. (3:159)"
"And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! He between whom and you was enmity would be as if he were a warm friend. And none are made to receive it but those who are patient, and none are made to receive it but those who have a mighty good fortune. (41:34-5)"
The Prophet (s) said: "In the same way as He has ordered me of performing the religious duties, my Lord has ordered me to treat people courteously." 527
"The most intelligent are the most courteous with people." 528
It is worth mentioning that within the strong factors of prosperity of friendly relations is that each party should avoid giving credence to the backbiters and talebearers who, according to the description of the Prophet (s), are the evilest of people.
Moderation with Friends
It is wise to choose moderation in dealing with friends. Excessive love and confidence in friends are unacceptable since it happens that a friend may change into an enemy and use the secrets that he had shown as weapons.
Imam Ali (a) said: "When you cherish someone you should cherish him moderately for he may be your enemy someday, and when you hate someone you should hate him moderately for he may be your friend someday." 529
Imam as-Sadiq (a): "The secrets that you must show before your friends are only those through which your enemies cannot harm you, for a friend may change into an enemy."
RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD
Cooperation and Mutual sympathy
Islam has used all means for enjoining Muslims to cooperate and sympathize with each other so that they will be an ideal nation able of achieving its aims and defending its individuals against dangers. Islam has also worked diligently for planting such noble concepts in Muslims' mentalities so as to be powerful bearing the feelings of love and fraternity:
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are stern to the disbelievers yet kind among themselves. (48:29)."
"Cooperate with each other in righteousness and piety, not in sin and hostility. (5:2)"
Within the aspects of cooperation and mutual sympathy is good neighborhood on which Islam has stressed for sake of changing neighbors into a united group exchanging feelings of kindness and cooperating for gaining benefits and preventing dangers:
"Worship Allah and consider no one equal to Him. Be kind to your parents, relatives, orphans, the destitute, your near and distant neighbors, your companions, your mates, wayfarers, and your slaves. (4:36)"
The Prophet (s) said: "Forty houses from the front, the back, the right, and the left are neighbors." 530
"The Archangel Gabriel continued in instructing me to keep the neighbor so importunately that I thought the neighbor will be given a share of the heritage." 531
"Good neighborhood constructs the countries and postpones the deadline of ages." 532
"He that passes a single night with satiation while his neighbor is hungry has not believed in me. On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will not regard the inhabitants of a town one of whose individual passes a night with hunger." 533
Imam as-Sadiq (a) said: "He that violates neighborhood is not one of us." 534
Imam as-Sadiq (a) narrated: When he lost his second son, Benjamin, Prophet Jacob supplicated to the Lord: "O Lord, is it not time to have Your mercy upon me? You have taken my sight and taken my sons away from me." Hence, Allah revealed to him: "Even if I cause them dead, I will certainly give them new life so as to gather you all in one situation. But, you should remember that ewe, which you slaughtered, fried, and ate, while you did not give anything of it to your neighbor who was observing fasting."
After that, Prophet Jacob used to call his neighbors, including those who lived more than one mile away from him, to every meal he would make. 535
Rights of Neighbors
Neighbor must be treated with kindness and courtesy, such as greeting him, visiting him during ailment, congratulating him in joys, consoling him in sorrows, casting the eyes down against his harem, overlooking his flaws, abstaining from harming him, aiding him if he his needy, borrowing him the household tools, and advising him when he goes astray from the right path.
It is related that one of the neighbors of Abu Dalaf, in Baghdad, had to sell his house because of debts and crises that had befallen him. 'I sell it with one thousand dinars,' he said to the purchasers. 'But the real value of your house is only five hundred dinars,' they said. 'This is true,' he asserted, 'but the neighborhood of Abu Dalaf is the other five hundred dirhams.'
When Abu Dalaf heard this story, he defrayed the debts of his neighbor and aided him so as to save him from selling his house.
Imam reza network

Human Rights From the Viewpoint of Islam

The following article taken from the famous book entitled Risalat al-Hoqouq or the Treatise of Human Rights as dictated to one of his disciples by Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH), the 4th Infallible Successor of Prophet Mohammad (blessings of God upon him and his progeny).
The term ‘Rights' is the plural of right, which when used in singular form has a different meaning. ‘Rights' is a way of behaviour that defines one's respect for fellow humans that others are also duty bound to observe. The most important characteristic of human rights is that it is a must and not the outcome of others' favors. Every one of us has rights, and even our own bodily parts have rights of their own, which we ought to observe. According to Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH) the rights that the All-Merciful God has granted us bestows covers our entire life, for whatever we possess is from the Wise and Omnipotent Creator. If we can move, talk, see, hear or associate with others, these are all divine favors and for each of these blessings we have a right that should be observed. Each right, however, insignificant in the eyes of the individual, has its own important status. The 4th Imam says the right of the Almighty upon, His humble creatures, is the most important one. Accordingly, whenever a right of a fellow human is violated, one has to ask the forgiveness of God, in addition to request from pardon from the person wronged. For instance, one who accuses another for no fault or speaks ill of him, has to apologize to that person since his right of respect has been violated. This does not mean that if the wronged person forgives, the matter is resolved. No, we should simultaneously beseech God for forgiveness as well, since we had disobeyed God by wronging a fellow human. Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH) defines in a beautiful and rational manner that the ignoring of the rights of a person is tantamount to violation of the rights of God, Who is the source of all good, and Who so wisely defined our respective rights.
The point worth noting is that without proper cognizance and consciousness of God, Who is nearer to us than our jugular vein, one cannot have a proper understanding of fellow humans and cannot claim to have found the path of perfection. In this regard, verse 16 of Surah Qaaf, reads: "We are nearer to him than his life-vein." And in part of verse 24 of Surah Anfaal, God assures man, saying: "And know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart." The All-Merciful God is fully aware of the needs of His creatures. In view of this fact, He has defined to us the paths leading to perfection as well as the pitfalls that plunge us into the abyss of doom and self-destruction.
It is rather unfortunate that in many cases, human beings ignore God and the wisdom of religious teachings by hopelessly resigning themselves to the fluctuations of life on the presumption of fate and fortune. However, this immersion in worldly fails to satisfy the spirit of man or his own efforts since this sort of attitude to life is actually against innate human nature. The state of affairs of the modern world, with all its scientific and technological progress and the comforts and amenities of life, is testimony to the fact that the soul of the man remains restless and without attaining his quest for tranquility. Decades of Godless capitalism, as well as socialism, communism, and secularism, have failed to salvage human societies. These facts are making the modern man realize that in order to stop his further straying from the truth, he has to turn to morals, religious teachings, and most important of all, the words of Divine Revelation, as preached by Prophets and saints, especially the Last and Greatest of all Divine Messengers, Prophet Mohammad (blessings of God upon him and his progeny).
In this regard, we find in the Risalat al-Hoqouq or the Treatise on Human rights, how beautifully the Prophet's 4th Infallible Successor turns the attention of man to the rights of God upon human beings, which also includes the rights of our own bodily parts upon ourselves. For instance, the head, the eyes, the ears, the limbs, and all other organs, have their own respective rights upon ourselves, which we are duty bound to observe. In other words, if we ignore or violate the rights of our own bodily parts, we cannot claim to have observed the rights of others, or the rights of God, since by misusing these organs, we are not just harming others, but destroying our own self. Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH) also lists the rights that a person is obliged to observe in regards to his parents, family members, neighbors, relatives, leaders, and the other people of the society, in order to attain tranquility of heart and salvation of the self.
In the Treatise on Human Rights, we come across this passage of the Imam, which reads:
"Therefore happy is he whom God aids in the rights which He has made incumbent upon him and whom He gives success therein and points in the proper direction."
As we said last week and the week before, in Islam, human rights and social issues are not unconnected from all other rights, and neither are they mere codes without practical purposes. As a matter of fact, unlike the charters and constitutions of international bodies that are either misused or remain impractical because of control by vested interests, the laws of Islam and the rights defined by God are rational, practical and easy to observe. This is because, in Islam a human being is dignified, and his greatness does not depend on the number of rights, but in his sense of duty in accepting responsibilities and fulfilling his commitments. For, whenever responsibility is in proportion to a person's capabilities and talents, it plays a great role in his growth and perfection.
Unfortunately, in the modern world, sociologists and legislators go to great lengths in discussing laws and what they call human rights, but their greatest flaw is negligence of spiritual aspects of human rights and the growth and development of the innate humanitarian spirit. Man has been created by God as a multisided being, whose powers of intellect and speech make him capable of not just mastering science, technology and other fields, but also of developing and perfecting his spiritual qualities and the innate humanitarian soul. In this regard, we read in Risalat al-Hoqouq or the Treatise on Human Rights of the Prophet's 4th Infallible Successor, Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH):
"The greatest right of God upon you is that you worship Him without associating anything with Him. When you do that with sincerity, He has made it binding upon Himself to give you sufficiency in the affair of this world and the next."
Thus the Imam considers some of the rights of God to be superior to other rights, and the greatest right of God upon man is to obey the laws of the All-Wise Creator. In other words, polytheism is mere conjecture and nothing but the wild imagination of a warped mind in view of the fact that God is One and Only without having any associates or partners. This means those who worship other than God are actually relying on unrealities and trying to build their faith on flimsy foundations. A beautiful definition is given in this regard by verse 31 of Surah Hajj of the Holy Qur'an, which says:
"Being upright for Allah, not associating aught with Him, and whoever associates (others) with Allah, it is as though he had fallen from on high, then the birds snatch him away or the wind carried him off to a far-distant place."
Thus the disbeliever is doomed, and it is only monotheism or turning to the One and Only God with a purified and sincere heart for observing His commandments that salvages both the human body and the human soul.
The true believer is sure that God the Omnipresent, is Unique, Incomparable, without any resemblance to anything, and without any form, shape or place. God is also needless of His creatures, while we human beings, as well as all other creatures, are in need of each other, and in need of him. God is aware of everything including thoughts that flash across our mind. Thus we have to turn to Him, the All-Merciful, the All-Loving, and the All-Wise, Who defined for us our rights and Who is the source of virtue and perfection. It now becomes clear to us why the Prophets focused on the Oneness of God as the fundamental article of faith, since it is only monotheism that instills in human beings and human societies humanitarian aspects and regard for human rights. On the other hands, polytheism, agnosticism, doubt, disbelief, and any other form of deviation, whatever the claim to charters, codes, and constitutions, leads to trampling and violation of human rights and self-destruction. Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH) reminds us in this regard that once a person gains the proper cognizance and consciousness of God and submits to Him with all his heart, the Almighty saves him from evil and all that is harmful to his soul and salvation.
It is worth recalling that Martyr Ayatollah Morteza Motahharri has written in one of his works that whenever a human being focuses solely on his material life and is engrossed in the adornment of his body, he has in fact completely forgotten himself.
According to the famous Persian poet, Jalaleddin Mohammad Mowlavi-Roumi, an unmindful person could be likened to the one who, without realizing, is building a house on a land that does not belong to him, and once he plans to move into this house, he suddenly he realizes that he had built this house on a plot not belonging to him while his own piece of land is lying barren and in a state of ruin.
Now we take up the topic of self-awareness or self-cognizance, which is essential for man to discover his/her own potential in order to distinguish right from wrong, and accordingly develop positive characteristics by overcoming negative tendencies.
Modern psychology has been able to confirm the Islamic viewpoint that man himself is not aware of the major part of his characteristics, and this results in self-contradictory or negative behaviour. For instance, when faced with a social problem, he sometimes resorts to an evil behavior, which he had not thought of before. The point is that if he was better cognizant of his own self, he would not have responded in such a negative way. Thus, self-awareness means the maximum cognizance of one's own self and innate characteristics by suppressing evil desires. In other words, a faithful person acts according to the famous hadith that says whoever knows himself, knows God. Hence, the human being, who is made up of body and spirit, ought to be fully aware of his innate characteristics. This is possible by keeping both the body and mind purified, which is essential is developing the intellect to distinguish the right from the wrong. To be more precise, real prosperity and access to the path of perfection depend on self-purification, because the bodily organs, in most cases, follow what the self desires. For example, our eyes follow the dictates of our mind and heart, and see things that we crave for. Thus, in view of these facts, we should try to abstain from sins and negative behaviour by keeping our thoughts and desires purified in order to save ourselves from psychological diseases. In this regard, the Prophet's first infallible successor, Imam Ali (PBUH), says psychological diseases are cured only through self-awareness. He means to say that it is essential for a believer to become better cognizant of his own self through knowledge of ethics and moralities, which strengthens the faith and saves the soul from impurities. Such a person ought to be mindful of both the benefits and the dangers, and make notes of these realities in order to take serious action in purifying his soul.
Generally whoever knows his weak points and deficiencies he or she will be successful in removing them and strengthening the faith. When a person realizes that being evil and corrupt are not in harmony with lofty human values, and that a free person is responsible for his own destiny, then such an aware and self-cognizant person will direct the soul towards moral perfection. Moreover, human dignity does not allow us to consider ourselves as worthless by trampling the rights of other fellow humans, in view of the fact that we have not been created in vain by Almighty God. Thus with self-recognition, human life becomes meaningful and ground is paved for cultivating moral virtues. In the Holy Qur'an, God emphasizes the point that the human being has been created good and purified from sins, and it is only its tendency towards evil that pollutes him. Yet, with the God-given powers of intellect and conscience, the human being is able to purify himself in order to attain salvation.
Self-recognition and purification have different ways. The most important of them is pondering. Sometimes, it is essential for us to evaluate our acts and their consequences. In this relation, psychiatrists recommend undisturbed solitude so that physical temptations do not cloud the mind. Thus, through proper evaluation of our daily actions, we can change for good our personality and life. By creating positive factors in oneself, one can adopt new values and new goals for life. Once, when Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH), the 4th Infallible Successor of Prophet Mohammad (blessings of God upon him and his progeny) was asked who was the most important of all, he replied: The one who does not view the entire world equal to himself. That is, he is aware of human dignity and acts properly.
In the previous article, we talked about the characteristics of the self and how human nature is capable of achieving faith and self-content by overcoming despondency and misery. Whoever protects himself from the pitfalls of carnal desires he has realized truth, and in such a case has overcome such negative tendencies as jealousy, hatred and the other moral and spiritual diseases. We also said that if one becomes indifferent towards his internal characteristics he would go astray because of spiritual disorders. In other words, the salvation of mankind is impossible without purity of character and balanced behaviour in our daily affairs. Thus, whenever, we feel the symptoms of such negative tendencies such as greed, anger, jealousy and other uncontrolled desires, we should take prompt steps to overcome these desires by purifying ourselves.
Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH), the 4th Infallible Successor of Prophet Mohammad (blessings of God upon him and his progeny) in his famous epistle dictated to one of his disciples and titled Risalat al-Hoqouq or The Treatise on Human Rights, considers purifying the self to be the prime duty of a Muslim. After mentioning the right of God upon man, he outlines our own rights upon ourselves as the second important set of rights, He says:
"The right of your self (nafs) against you is that you employ it in obeying God; then you deliver to your tongue its right, to your hearing its right and you seek help from God in all that."
In other words, temptations are an alien and unnatural feeling that drives mankind towards self-destruction. The more mankind surrenders to carnal desires, the more he or she becomes weak and loose, since self control has been ceded to an external power, a power that drives him or her towards destruction. On the other hand, control of the self prevents such foreign and unnatural tendencies from infiltrating our self and manifests our true human personality. When a person takes control of himself with his firm will he protects himself from dangers. Self-control is among the main objectives of religious teachings, particularly in Islam. Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH) cites self-building and self-reform as a right that makes human dignity flourish.
We need to know the reality of our own self and traverse the straight and unwavering path of righteousness in order to achieve high goal in life, that being with obedience to God and His commandments. This realization is the key to human prosperity. In verse 56 of Surah Zariyaat of the holy Qur'an, God Almighty says:
"And I have not created the jinn and mankind, except that they should serve Me."
In view of these facts, Imam Zain al-Abedin (PBUH) considers the greatest right of one's self as obedience to God, and this goal should not be forgotten. The modern man who is surrounded by dangerous intellectual, cultural and social storms, can only save himself and humanity by adhering to the laws of God. The Imam makes it clear that whoever realizes the goal of creation and obeys the commandments of the One and Only God, has observed his right upon himself. In other words, if someone gives priority to servitude of other than God, he has trampled humanitarian principles. Pride in posts and worldly ranks, greediness and dependence on big powers are symptoms of straying away from the path and commandments of God Almighty. If mankind turns to other than God, he has actually trampled his own right.
It is evident that mankind, in order to observe his rights is in need of tools to help him smoothly traverse the straight and unwavering path. Out own bodily organs are among these devices. God Almighty, by granting us hands, legs, tongue, eyes and ears, as well as the power of the intellect and speech, has raised the human being to the pedestal of self-esteem that ought to make us better cognizant of the purpose of creation and our own rights.
We know that in human nature the ground is paved for both happiness and misery. Whoever preserves himself from dangers and carnal desires; he has paved the way of sublimity for himself and realizes truth. Wherever truth exists, there will be no jealousy, enmity and the other moral and spiritual diseases. A man who is eager to reach the truth will never be calm unless he knows himself and move in the right path.
But if mankind becomes indifferent towards his internal characteristics, he will be led astray. For, most of all mankind is hurt by his spiritual disorders. So, the salvation of mankind is impossible without purity and balance in carnal desires. Wherever, human self is manifested in the form of greed, anger, jealousy and other uncontrolled desires, it should be purified. Imam Sajjad (PBUH) in The Treatise on Human Rights considers purifying human self to be his duty and after the right of God, expresses the right of mankind over himself as the second right and says:
"The right of your self (nafs) against you is that you employ it in obeying God; then you deliver to your tongue its right, to your hearing its right and you seek help from God in all that."
Attractions create a type of link between mankind and a foreign center and drives mankind towards it. The more mankind surrenders to his carnal desires, the more he becomes weak and loose, for, he has ceded his fate to an external power, a power which drags him this way and that way. But instead, domination over human self grows and flourishes the real personality of mankind. When a person takes the control of himself with his firm will, he can control and rid himself from dangers. Human domination over himself is among the main objectives of education in religions, particularly Islam. Imam Sajjad (PBUH) cites self-building as a right and duty so that in the daily life, the numerous gifts of the world do not absorb mankind and hurt his dignity. Therefore it is a must that a man gains his glory and thinks about it.
Music
A man requires knowing the reality of his own self and stepping in a right path to achieve the high goal for which he has been created. The goal is worship and obedience of God. In Verse 56 of Sourah Zariat of the holy Quran we read:
"And I have not created the jinn and the men except that they should serve Me."
Imam Sajjad considers the greatest right of oneself is obedience of God and this goal should not be forgotten, especially that the passage of the present turbulent life does not let mankind to think of the goal of creation. He has been surrounded by dangerous intellectual, cultural and social storms and we always witness new incidents which are created by the so-called civilized man. Imam Sajjad (PBUH) believes that whoever pursues the main goal of creation and worships the Great and One God, has observed his right upon himself. For, mankind gains greatness and becomes superior over the other creatures through understanding the glory of God. But if someone, regardless of this high objective, gives priority to servitude of other than God, he has trampled the truth of his humanity. Dependence on post and rank, greediness and reliance on big powers are among the proofs of worshipping other than God.
If mankind turns to other than God, he has actually ruined his own right.
It is evident that mankind, in order to observe his rights is in need of tools to help him in this path. The body members of human being are among these devices. God Almighty has wished by creating hand, leg, tongue and eyes to raise mankind to high esteem and rid himself from the world attachments.
Reference: al-shia.org

Human Rights in Islam

Delivered on the occasion of the 5th Islamic Thought Conference 29-31st January, 1997
The issue of human rights is one of the most fundamental human issues and also one of the most sensitive and controversial. During the recent decades, this problem was more political than either ethical or legal.
Although the influence of political motives, rivalries, and considerations have made difficult the correct formulation of this problem , but this should not prevent thinkers and genuine humanists from probing into this problem and ultimately obtaining a solution.
In the West, though the issue of human rights was raised by the thinkers of the post-Renaissance period, it is only since the last two hundred years or so that it became an issue of prominence among the political and social issues of the Western society and an issue of fundamental significance. Perhaps, when we examine the causes of many social changes and political upheavals, we will find the marks of its presence and its principal ideals.
During the last decades this emphasis reached its climax in the West. With the formation of the UNO after the Second World War and the subsequent drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a concrete model came into existence as a result of this emphasis that can serve as a criterion and basis of our judgement and analysis of the ideals voiced in this regard during the last two hundred years and especially in the last few decades.
We Muslims, of course, know it very well that if the Western world and the Western civilization have paid attention to this matter in the recent centuries, Islam has dealt with it from all the various aspects many centuries back. The idea of human rights as a fundamental principle can be seen to underlie throughout Islamic teachings. And this does not need any elaboration for a Muslim audience.
That the verses of the Quran and the traditions handed down from the Prophet (SA) and the Imams of his Household (AS) , each one of them emphasizes the fundamental rights of man something which has caught the attention of men in recent years- is known to Muslims, and there is no need for the scholars to be reminded about this fact.
However, I would say , that today it is big responsibility on the shoulders of the Islamic society to make this reality known to the world , and not to allow those essential teachings of Islam to be lost in the storm of political clamor and ballyhoo. There were some questions which can be raised in this regard, and to answer them is my principal aim today.
Of course, in the course of the conference you scholars would carry on useful and profound discussions on various aspects of human rights, which will itself serve as a source of information for the Muslim world and enlighten them about the viewpoints of Islam in this regard. The first question is Whether the efforts made during the decades since the Second World War, in the name of human rights have been successful in their purpose or not. The addresses, the assemblies and the sessions held in the United Nations, and the claims made regarding human rights have they succeeded in bringing men closer to their genuine rights, or to at least the major section of the deprived humanity?
The answer to this question is not so difficult; for an observation of the present world conditions is enough to prove that these attempts have not been successful till now. A glance at the conditions of the underdeveloped societies of the world, who form the major part of the human population, is sufficient to reveal the fact that not only the major part of humanity could not achieve their true rights during the last fifty years, but the methods of encroaching upon the rights of the deprived nations have become more sophisticated and complex and more difficult of remedy.
We cannot accept the claims made by those who claim to be champions of human rights, while the bitter realities of the African and Asian nations and the hungry millions of the human race are before our eyes, and watch the constant spectacle of violation of the rights of several nations. Those who have been outspoken in advocating human rights during these last forty years, have themselves grabbed the most fundamental of human rights from the people of the Third-World countries.
It is with their connivance that certain governments and regimes that deny men their most primary rights have managed to survive. The dictators of today's world and also the despots of the last fifty years in Asia, Africa and Latin America- none of them could have established and preserved their dictatorships on their own without reliance upon the big powers. These big powers are exactly those who have coined most of the slogans concerning human rights; it is they who have brought into being the UNO, and even today the UN is at their service.
The economic poverty, hunger and loss of life in several countries of the world are of course the result of intervention, repression, usurpation on the part of the big powers. Who has caused Africa, the land of plenteous resources to see this day? Who has kept the people of Bangladesh and India for years and years under exploitation, and, despite their natural resources and great potentialities, has brought them to the point that today we hear people die of hunger in those countries? Who has plundered the wealth and resources of the Third-World countries, and has brought about hunger, poverty and misfortune for these nations, procuring sophisticated technologies and immense wealth for themselves?
We see that the organizers of the United Nations Organization and the principal drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and those who even today shamelessly claim to be the supporters of this declaration are the real authors of those misfortunes. Otherwise there is no reason as to why Africa, the land of exuberance and bounties, Latin America with its natural wealth, and the great India, and many other Third- world countries should have lagged behind and remained backward in spite of sufficient man-power and natural resources.
Today, the system of political domination of capital and power prevails in the world, and there is no doubt in it that this system of dominance of capital and power is controlled and steered by the same people who the fathers of the Declaration of Human Rights. Under their wheel of capital, power and machine we see the nations of the world being crushed and struggling helplessly. The UN is the most outstanding product of the efforts made for human rights, yet what has it done in the past for the nations of the world, and what is it doing today?
What active role could the UN play in solving the basic problems of nations and in relieving them of the calamities that befell them? In what instance did the UN emerge as a deliverer of the oppressed from the oppressor? At what point could the UN persuade the big tyrannical powers to refrain from making unjust demands? The UN has even lagged behind most of the nations in this regard.
Today, despite all those claims, we are witnesses to the Apartheid regime in South Africa and to many instances of racism and racial discrimination in the advanced countries themselves. Therefore, it is clear that the UN despite its being the most outstanding example of the endeavor for human rights, has not done anything in this regard. It has intervened in international problems in the role of a preacher or priest. The Security Council is one of the principal organs of the UN, and functions as the main decision-making body; in it the big powers have the right of veto.
That is, every decision that is taken in the UN and in the Security Council against the real agents who handicap the nations, the same agents themselves, the big powers, are able to veto it. The United Nations and its organs, agencies and organizations, whether they are cultural, economic or technical, all of them are under the influence and domination of the big powers. The US pressures over its cultural agency like the UNESCO and others are known to everyone. Since a Muslim was the chief of the UNESCO who desired to maintain his own independence as well as that of the agency, you witnessed how the US subjected the UNESCO to pressures during these last two years.
Consequently, we feel that the UN as the most significant outcome of the endeavor for human rights has proved to be an ineffectual and impotent element, which has been created as a consolation for nation that has no practical benefit. On account of the interference on the part of big powers, in cases it functions as their feudatory. We do not of course reject the UN; we believe that this organization ought to exist, and it must be reformed. We ourselves are its member.
However, what I mean to say is that after all that effort, after all that clamor and the hopes that were attached to this organization, you can see how inadequate and ineffectual this organization has remained in securing human rights in the world today. Hence, the answer to the first question has become clear. We can say that the efforts made for procuring human rights and the claims made in the name of human rights through the last several centuries and especially during the last few decades did not bear any fruit; they have failed to secure human rights.
The second question is whether, basically, these efforts had any sincerity? This question is of course historical in nature and may not have much practical value. Hence, I do not intend to discuss it at length. It suffices to mention here that, in our view, these efforts were not sincere. It is true that there were philosophers, thinkers and social reformers among the exponents of human rights, but the arena was dominated by politicians.
Even the efforts of those thinkers and reformers were taken into the service of the politicians. If, in the annals of history thinkers, sages, apostles of God, mystics and men are seen to raise the cry for rights of man, today when we behold politicians and statesmen to raise this cry vociferously, we are justified in serious doubting their sincerity. Look around and see as to who are those who plead the case of human rights . The ex-president of the US projected himself as the defender of human rights during his election campaign, and won the election on account of it.
In the beginning, from some of the speeches he made and steps that he took, it appeared as if he was serious in his intention; but we have seen that ultimately he stood by the cruelest, the most barbaric and tyrannical of rulers, and the most adamant opponents of human rights in this region. He supported the Shah and the tyrants of occupied Palestine and other infamous dictatorships of our days. Even now those who plead the case of human rights , the statesmen and politicians who vociferously voice their support for human rights in conferences and international forums are not more sincere than their former counterparts.
We do not find any signs of sincerity in their efforts. Those who drafted the Declaration of Human Rights, and at their fore the USA, their aim was to extend their domination and hegemony over the world of that time. Their problem was not to safeguard the rights of men, the kind of rights that they had violated during the war, They are the same people who have wiped out tens of thousands of human beings by an atom bomb. They were the same persons who in order to fight a war which had nothing to do with the Asian and African nations had recruited the majority of soldiers from India, Algeria and other African and non-European countries.
We do not believe that Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin and their like had the smallest consideration for human rights in the true sense of the word and were sincere in forming the United Nations and drafting the Universal Declaration of human Rights. Accordingly, the answer to the second question is also clear: No! We do not believe that the efforts made by the politicians and the most vocal advocates of human rights were sincere at all. The third question, which is the most basic of them all, is, what was the reason for the failure of these attempts?
This is the point to which more attention should be paid, and I shall discuss it briefly here. I believe it is the most basic point, because whatever has presented in the name of human rights is done within the framework of a defective and crooked system, a system of dominance which is repressive and tyrannical. Those who have created the UN and have drafted the Universal Declaration of human rights, and those who most vehemently and vociferously plead for it today, regrettably the majority of them are statesmen and politicians who believe in the system of dominance and have accepted it. The system of dominance means that a group of men dominates and should dominate another group of men .
The system of dominance is backed by the culture of dominance. Today the world is divided into two groups: one is the group of those who dominate and the other is the group of the dominated. Both the groups have accepted the system of dominance, and the big powers believe that this system should be maintained. Even those who are dominated have accepted the system of dominance and have consented to its continuity.
This is the biggest flaw in the existing world situation. Those who do not accept the system of dominance are those individuals or groups who are not satisfied with the social order in their countries or with the social and political state of world affairs, and rise in revolt against this system. The revolutionary groups who revolt against the global status quo or revolutionary governments are very few in number and are constantly subjected to pressures and victimized.
The most illustrative example of it is the Islamic Republic of Iran , which has rejected domination in all its forms, and has not accepted anybody's domination. The East as well as the West are the same for it in this respect. It does not give any priority to the powerful of the world or to its rich, while making decisions. The whole world is witness to the kind of pressures it had to face during the period of the last eight years since the Islamic Republic of Iran was established.
It was subjected to political as well as military and economic pressures, and the pressures of world-wide propaganda launched against it . The cause of such pressures is clear. It was all done for the reason that the Islamic Republic has taken a clear and independent stand against the system of dominance. If some progressive governments have resisted Western and US domination, in majority of cases, there were observable signs of acceptance of and surrender to Eastern domination.
Of course, all of them are not the same in this regard. Some of them have completely surrendered themselves to the Eastern bloc and the USSR while some others show signs of independence in some cases. But if there is a government and a society that has never yielded to any pressures, it is the Islamic Republic, which has totally rejected the system of dominance.
Wherever in the world there is any pressure, high-handedness and unjust demands made upon a certain nation by a big power in the world, we have made clear our stand and have openly and bluntly expressed our definite views without any reservations. But the majority of the world's nations have accepted this system.
You can see that unfortunately the governments of the same countries which are subject to domination do not have the moral courage and guts to resist and oppose the domination of the big powers and fight them, while in our view it is quite possible. We believe that if the poor countries, the countries that have been under domination and in spite of their resources have been forced to fulfil the unjust demands made by the big powers- had they wished to stand against them, they could do so. No miracle is needed; it is sufficient that the governments should rely upon their own people.
Unfortunately, the weakness of will to resist, and more than weakness the treachery on the part of heads of some states in some cases, did not allow them to rise against the system of dominance. This system of dominance prevails over the world economy , culture, international relations and international rights. Naturally the issue of human rights has been posed within the framework of this system of dominance and developed in the background of this system and its outlook.
As a result the very persons who strive to secure freedoms, opportunities and means of welfare for their citizens in European countries in the name of human rights, they bomb and kill human beings in other countries by thousands. What does it mean? Does it mean anything other than this that in the view of the culture of domination which prevails over the world, human beings are divided into two categories: the human beings whose rights are to be defended, and the human beings who have to rights whatsoever and it is permissible to kill, destroy, enslave and subjugate them and to seize their belongings. This system is prevalent all over the world and the conception of human rights is also the product of such a culture.
This is the framework of the system of rights in the world of today. Within this cultural and legal framework the superpowers constantly widen the gap between the weaker nations and themselves, and exert more and more pressure on them. The greater the rate of advancement in technology and its speed accelerates, the more are the weaker countries and nations threatened and subjected to mounting pressures. No one asks the big powers today as to what right they have to put greater pressure on other countries and nations than ever before with their greater advancement in technology and industrialization. Today the satellites launched into the space by the big powers are moving in their orbits around the globe, and gathering minutest details and probing into the secrets of other countries. Why? What gives them right to do that?
Today, most of the communications between people on the global level, especially those between statesmen and heads of states, and political and scientific communications are accessible to those who possess sophisticated technology. Why? Does anyone ask them? Does anyone raise any objection? Since the US has launched those satellite and possesses the means of gathering and benefiting from intelligence, it is given the right by all to obtain that information.
Doesn't the eavesdropping on the communications between the world's people amount to a violation of their rights? Does anyone put this question to the US, USSR, UK, France and Germany? When this question is raised, will anyone affirm that such a question should be raised? No, everyone says to himself: they are strong so they can do it ; they are capable of doing it, so they must use the opportunity. Today, the problem of atom bomb and the use of nuclear weapons is an issue all over the world.
The superpowers themselves raise it because they are afraid of each other. They wrangle over it and each tries to dupe the other by limiting the nuclear arsenals of its rival while equipping itself with more and more. But, have the smaller countries ever thought of opposing the makers of nuclear bombs, by declaring that unless these bombs are destroyed and defused and unless peace of mind is restored to humanity, which is exposed to the nuclear danger every moment, they shall not have any relations with them, nor any trade nor any cooperation in any matter? Have the Third-World countries, the non-aligned nations and other countries of the world- have they ever thought of making use of some kind of leverage against the race for nuclear arms? No. If you suggest this idea to them, they will say that it is an advanced technology, they possess it; they can , and so must produce such weapons.
It means that they have accepted the logic of dominance. The absence of balance in the present world conditions has equally been accepted by the oppressor as well as the oppressed nations. The culture of dominance has been imposed on the minds. When we denounce the East and the West in international fora on account of their acts, we clearly perceive the astonishment of heads of the states and representatives of countries.
They consider it something odd and rash, whereas it is a natural stand by an independent nation. All the nations and states should behave in a like manner, but they don't. The conclusion that we draw is that today the prevalence of the culture of dominance has become the biggest evil. It is something which has been greatly detrimental for the weaker nations, and encouraged the big powers to violate human rights.
Whether it is the US's aggression against Grenada, or the massacre of defenseless Lebanese civilians by the US supported Israel, or the ruthless suppression of the black population- who are the real masters of the land- by the government of South Africa, which is backed by the US and some European governments- all these violations of human rights are easily tolerated.
But when a frustrated individual infuriated by this state of affairs in some corner of the world does something, if an explosion takes place or something happens, it is deplored as an act of terrorism. But the US's aggression against Libya, the bombardment of the residence of the president of a country and the violation upon its territory, is not condemned by the world.
Whenever there is a mention of terrorism, mostly that which comes to the minds of people is some desperate act of a youth, a victim of oppression fed up with life, from Palestine, or Lebanon, or some African or Latin American country, rather than the acts of such big powers as the US, the UK, and others. This is nothing but the result of the culture of dominance, the culture that unfortunately dominates human mentality all over the world.
I n the culture of dominance, words also acquire peculiar connotations that suit the suit the system of dominance. For instance, 'terrorism' is defined in a way so that the US's aggression against Libya, or its intimidation of Nicaragua or the invasion of Grenada, etc. does not come under the definition of 'terrorism'. This is a big flaw in the present state of affairs.
Therefore, the failure of the attempts made in the name of human right- even on behalf of those who are sincere and earnest- is on account of the nature of the framework within which they want to lay down and declare the rights of the human beings- something which is not possible. This framework is to be broken and the system of dominance to be condemned. States, nations and countries should resolutely reject the unfair and unjust domination of the big powers so that human rights may be understood, pursued and restored.
Lastly, the fourth question: what is the remedy? In our view, the answer is return to Islam, and recourse to Divine revelation. This is a prescription equally valid for Muslims as well as for non-Muslims. For this, the Islamic societies do not have to wait for anything. Return to Islam, revival of the Quran and of Islamic mode of thinking in society, recourse to Islamic sources (the Quran and the Sunnah) in legal matters -these are the things and that will enable us to understand the meaning of human rights and help us to identify the those rights and guide us in our struggle to secure them.
For the purpose of securing human rights, it is necessary once and for all to give up giving advice and lecturing, since they are of no use. The Quran says: "Take by force that which we have given you." (2:63). God Almighty has granted these rights to mankind, and they should secure these rights by force. The Islamic nations should resist the unjust demands and dominance of the big powers by relying upon the Islamic ideology.
These are not the words of an idealist who speaks about Islamic issues and Islamic ideals from the corner of a theological seminary. These are the utterances of a revolution which has gone through experiences and has felt the actualities.
Our revolution is an experience that is available for study to all the nations. I do not say that we have solved all our problems. We haven't. There is no doubt that a great many problems have been created for us on account of the Revolution and on account of its Islamic character. But we have solved the problem of dominance. Today the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic can claim that they have rid themselves of all domination and powers and that they can decide for themselves.
Of course, when a nation tries to do away with all the forms of dependence, it has a long path to tread. And dependence if not accompanied with domination, pushing around, and unjust demands is something natural and tolerable. It is quite obvious that our revolution and the Islamic Republic inherited the legacy of a decadent society, a shattered economy, and a degenerate culture.
What was handed down to the Revolution by the rulers of the past centuries, especially of the last fifty or sixty years, was an Iran beleaguered from all sides. It is not to be expected that the Revolution will be able to lead this dissipated heritage in a short time to the heights of cultural, ethical and economic achievement and scientific and industrial advancement.
We do not make such claims, but, of course, we do anticipate a good future. We believe that it is possible for a nation to reach a high level of material advancement only through independence, self-reliance and by using its manpower and material resources. But what we positively claim today is that the Islamic Republic is not under any political pressure or domination of any power whatsoever.
Political pressures do not influence it to change its course or alter its decisions; it does not change its path or its momentum on account of any consideration for some superpower. It means that we have freed ourselves and our people from the domination of the big powers.
This is an experience, which, we believe, underlines the significance of the most basic and precious of human rights in Islam: the right to live, the right to be free, the right to benefit from justice, the right to welfare, and so on.
These and other such fundamental rights can be secured in an Islamic society. They can be derived from the Islamic sources and Islam has incorporated them in its commands to Muslims and drawn man's attention towards them, much before Western thinkers gave thought to these rights and values. It is essential to return to Islam.
Muslim thinkers are charged with the responsibility of thoroughly examining and studying the subject of human rights or rather the general structure of the Islamic legal system. This is also the mission of the present conference, which, I hope, will be a new step taken in this direction, and , God willing , this work would continue.
The nations of the world can benefit from the sublime outlook of Islam in this regard in coming closer to securing these rights. The Islamic governments may of course help their peoples in securing their rights, but on condition that they should have no reservations in regard to the big powers. Unfortunately, today we do not see such a state of affairs. Most of the regimes governing Islamic countries are under the influence of the big powers. The majority of them are dominated by the West and under US influence. Therefore, their actions and decisions comply neither with the Islamic principles, nor with the needs of Muslim nations.
A ready example in this regard is the conference held recently in Kuwait. You have seen that in this conference, instead of considering the basic problems of Muslims, what kinds of problems were discussed and what kind of resolution was passed. It was by no means compatible with an Islamic approach to the problem.
Instead of rejecting over Iraq's aggression against a Muslim country and its waging of a war against an Islamic revolution, they should have denounced it and expelled it from the Conference. Instead of revealing the part played by the imperialist powers in igniting the flames of this imposed war, they came out with a hollow and insipid demand for peace, and even expressed their satisfaction for Iraq's positive response to the call for peace. They did it without going into the core of the problem, without appreciating the fact that a nation's resolve to defend its own rights is something commendable, and without recognizing that the willingness of a government and a regime to be influenced by the pressure of imperialist powers in creating obstacles in the path of a revolution is something condemnable.
Of course, these resolutions, decisions and opinions are much invalid and weightless as they are remote from Islamic principles and values.
Accordingly, there is no nation or country in the world which looks forward to knowing what step the Islamic Conference takes in Kuwait so as to welcome it or be disappointed with it. It means that these decisions and resolution are so much so removed from reality, alien to the basic Islamic criteria, and the aspirations of nations that they remain completely indifferent to these.
You will not find a single country in the world whose people should be waiting eagerly to know as to what the Islamic Conference has to say, so that its resolution promises a sense of obligation or the pleasure of receiving some good news. What is the reason? Why should a gathering of forty-six Islamic states organized on the highest level of heads of states and leaders be so ineffectual and so much devoid of consequence and content?
It is on account of the unfortunate fact that most of these regimes are under the influence of the big powers. As long as this domination of the big powers and their awe and fear remain in their hearts, the affairs of the Muslim nations will be in disarray. If we wish to deliver the Muslim word form its present-day disarray and confusion, the first thing that is to be done is to drive this fear and awe from the hears, as God Almighty has said: "...So fear not mankind, but fear Me..." They should not be afraid of anyone except God. If this happens, the condition of the Islamic nations will move towards betterment.
I conclude my speech with the hope that, God willing, this Islamic Thought Conference, during the few days that it will hold its sessions, will be able to make a significant contribution towards the understanding of the Islamic verities regarding human rights.
Besides, the exchange of opinions between the Iranian and non-Iranian brothers will help the communication of the experience of the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic and their better understanding by the non-Iranian brothers. It will provide them the opportunity to study that experience, so that other nations may view the revolution brought about by their brethren in Iran as a model and as a new path that can be possibly trodden.
Wassalam 'alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Imam reza network

Islamic Jihad and Human Rights

There exists the question, however, of whether the things we are allowed to defend are only these, i.e. individual, group and national rights, or whether it is legitimate for us to defend other things as well. Do there exist things, the defense of which is necessary and obligatory, that do not pertain merely to the rights of the individual, tribe or nation but pertain literally to the rights of humanity as a whole? If somewhere a right of humanity is somehow encroached upon, is it legitimate to fight it? Is war fought for the sake of humanity lawful or not?
Perhaps someone will ask: "What does fighting for the sake of humanity mean?" "I do not have to fight for any rights except my own personal rights, or, at the most, the rights of my nation." "What have I to do with the rights of humanity?" This mode of thinking, however, is in no way valid.
There exists certain things that are superior to the rights of the individual or nation. Certain things more holy, more sacred, the defense of which in accordance to the human conscience is higher than the defense of individual rights. And these are the sacred values of humanity. In other words, the sacredness of fighting in defense lies not in defending one's self, but in defending "the right." When the cause and criteria is "the right," what difference does it make whether it is an individual right or a general right of humanity? In fact, defense of the rights of humanity is holier, and although no one says so, it is freely admitted in actions.
For example, freedom is reckoned as one of the sacred values of humanity. Freedom is not limited to an individual or a nation.
Now, if it is not our freedom and not the freedom of our country, but freedom in another corner of the world that pertains to the right of humanity which is being infringed upon, is the defense of that right of humanity, simply for the sake of defending a human right, lawful for us or not? If it is lawful, then defense is not limited to the actual individual whose freedom is in danger, but it is lawful, even obligatory for other individuals and other nations to rush to the aid of freedom, and fight against the negator and repressor of freedom. Now, what is your answer? I do not think anyone has any doubt that the holiest form of jihad and the holiest form of war is that which is fought in defense of humanity and humanity's rights.
When the Algerians were at war with the French colonialists, a group of Europeans helped them in the war - either in the form of actually fighting alongside the Algerians, or in other ways. Do you think that only the fighting of the Algerians was lawful because their rights were transgressed, and that the people who came from the farthest corners of Europe to take part in thebattle to help the Algerian nation were no more than oppressor aggressors, who should have been told: "Stop your interference, what business is it of yours? No one has transgressed your rights, why are you fighting here?" Or is it that the jihad of such people was holier than the jihad of the Algerians, because the Algerians were defending the cause of their own rights, while the cause of the others was more ethical and more sacred than that of the Algerians. Obviously what holds valid is the second assumption.
Freedom lovers - both those who are in reality freedom lovers, and those who only pretend to be - have earned general respect; a respect from the different nations, due to their having presented themselves as defenders of human rights, not the defenders of their own individual rights or the rights of their own nation or even their own continent. If they were ever to go beyond the use of the tongue, the pen, letters and lectures, and actually go to the battlefield and fight, for the Palestinians for example, or the Viet Cong, then the world would consider them to be even more holy. It would not attack them saying: "Why are you interfering? It is none of your business. No one is interfering in your affairs."
The world considers war, whenever it is for the sake of defense to be holy. If it is in self-defense, it is holy. If it is for the defense of one's nation, it is more holy, for the cause has grown from a personal one to a national one, and the individual is not simply defending himself but is also defending the other individuals that make up his society. And if the defense shifts from a national to a humanitarian cause, it again becomes a degree more holy.

The Minor Dispute
Here then is the nature of the dispute about jihad; not a major dispute but a minor one. The dispute is not about whether jihad is only lawful in defense or is also lawful for defense. The dispute is over the definition of defense. This minor dispute is about whether the meaning of defense is limited to self- defense, at most the defense of one's nation, or whether the defense of humanity also comes into this category?
Some say, and they are right, that the defense of humanity is also a legitimate defense, so that the cause of those who rise to "command that which is recognized and forbid what is rejected" is a holy one. It is possible that someone's actual being is not transgressed, he may even be highly respected and all the facilities of life may be available to him and the same may apply to the material rights of his nation. But, from the point of view of human ideals, a basic human right is being transgressed. Meaning that within his society, although neither the material rights of that society nor his own individual rights have been transgressed, yet there exists a task awaiting to be performed in the best interest of humanity. Namely, when good and evil exist in society, the former must be enjoined, and become the order while the latter must be uprooted. Now, under these conditions, if such a person sees that the good, the recognized, the accepted, has been relegated to the place of the bad, the rejected, and that the rejected has taken the place of the recognized, and he stands up for the sake of commanding what is recognized and prohibiting what is rejected, then what is he defending? His own personal rights? No. Is it the rights, i.e. the material rights of his society? Again no. His defense is not related to material rights. What he is defending is a spiritual right that belongs to no single person or nation; a spiritual right related to all the world's human beings. Are we to condemn the jihad of that man, or are we to consider it sacred? Obviously we are to consider it sacred, for it is in the defense of a right of humanity.
On the question of freedom, you see today that the very people who are combating freedom, in order to give themselves an air of respectability, claim to be the defenders of freedom, for they know that defense of freedom is tacitly understood as being sacred. If they were really fighting for the defense of freedom, this would be valid, but they are giving the name of defense of freedom to their own transgression. Yet in this is their acknowledgment of the fact that the rights of humanity are worthy of defense, and that war for the sake of those rights is legitimate and beneficial.

Tawhid: A Personal Right or A General Right?
Now an important matter must be looked at which is about tawhid, "La ilaha illallah." "There is no god but (except) God (Allah)." Does tawhid pertain to the rights of humanity, or to the rights of the individual? Here it is possible for a Muslim to say that tawhid does not pertain to the rights of humanity but pertains only to the affairs of the individual, or at most, to the internal affairs of a nation; that he himself can be "muwahid,"(4) he has the choice of being "muwahid" if he wants to be, or a mushrak (polytheist), if he wants to be, and now that he has become muwahid, no one has the right to trouble him for it, it is his personal right, and, if someone else becomes a mushrik, then that is the right of that person. Any single nation in its laws can choose one of the following three positions: One is that it chooses tawhid and adopts it as the official religion and officially rejects any other religion. Another is that a form of shirk, of polytheism is established as the official religion, and the other is that the nation allows freedom of worship. One can choose whatever religion or creed one desires. If tawhid is embodied in the law of a nation then it is one of the rights of that nation and if not; no. This is one way of looking at things. There is another view, however, which regards tawhid as being like freedom and pertaining to the rights of humanity. When discussing freedom we said that the meaning of the right to freedom is not simply that the freedom of an individual be not threatened from any quarter, for it is possible that it be threatened by the very individual. So if a people fight for tawhid to combat shirk (polytheism), their fight is motivated by defense, not by subjugation, tyranny and transgression. This, then, is the nature of the minor difference in question.
Even amongst the learned of Islam there are two views. According to some of them, tawhid pertains to the general rights of humanity, so that fighting for the sake of tawhid is lawful, for it is the defense of a human right and is like fighting for another nation's freedom. Another group however, argues that tawhid pertains to individual rights and perhaps to national rights, but has nothing to do with the rights of humanity, and accordingly, no one has the right to trouble anyone else for the sake of tawhid.
Which of the two views is correct?
I intend to state my own view on this subject. But before doing so, I would like to speak about another issue, and perhaps on reaching a conclusion, the two issues will be seen as a single one. The point is that some affairs may be accepted under duress, i.e. accepted under compulsion, whereas some others as per their nature, must be freely selected.
Imagine one, for example, becoming dangerously infected with a disease and having to accept taking an injection. In such a case, the one in concern can be forced to take the injection; if that person refuses it, others can come and his hands and feet can be forcefully tied; and if he continues to resist, the injection can be administered while he is unconscious. This is something which can be accepted under duress. The acceptance of other things, however, cannot be forced through compulsion, for other than by free choice, there is no way they can be accepted. Among such things we find the purification of the self, for example, and the refinement of one's behavior. If we want to refine people so that they come to recognize and accept virtues as virtues and evils as evils and refrain from faulty human behavior so that they eventually reject falsehood and embrace the truth, we cannot do so by the whip; we cannot do so by force.
With a whip, it is possible to prevent someone from stealing, but it is not effective in making an honest individual out of someone. For if such things were possible, then, for example, if the self of a person was in need of purification and his personal behavior sadly lacking in good morals and ethics, a hundred lashes meted to him would make of that person somebody with good morals and ethics. Instead of a good education, the teachers would simply use the whip and say: "So that this person throughout his life, always tells the truth and finds lies repulsive, he is to be given a hundred lashes, and thereafter he will never tell a lie." The same thing applies to love. Can one force a person to love another by the whip? Love and affection cannot be forced upon someone. No forces in the world, even if taken together cannot force love upon somebody nor take away his love for somebody.
Having made clear this point, I wish to say that faith, regardless of whether it is a basic right of humanity or not, is, by its very nature, not something that can be imposed by force. If we want to create faith, we should know that it is not possible to create it by force. Faith means belief and inclination. Faith means being attracted to and accepting a set of beliefs, and attraction to a belief calls for two conditions. One condition is that the matter must accord with the intellect, this is the scientific aspect of faith.
The other is the emotional aspect i.e. the human heart should be attracted to faith, and none of them comes within the realm of force. Not the first condition, because thinking is subject to logic - if it is desired that a child be taught the solution of a mathematical problem, he must be taught in a logical way so that he finds credence in it. He cannot be taught by the whip. His intellect will not accept a matter through force, and beating. The same applies to the second condition, the emotional quality, that stimulates inclination, attraction and sentiment.
According to this, there is a huge difference between tawhid as a right of humanity and things other than tawhid, such as freedom. Freedom is something that can be imposed on a people by force, because transgression and oppression can be prevented by force. But living freely and the freedom-loving spirit cannot be imposed by force. It is not possible to force a person to accept a belief or to forcibly create faith in a certain thing within his heart. This is the meaning of "La ikraha fid-din.
Qat-tabayanar-rushdo min al-ghayy," meaning there is no compulsion in religion. When the Quran says that there is no compulsion in religion, it does not mean that, though it is possible for religion to be imposed by force, we must not impose it and must leave people to adopt any religion they want. No. What the Quran is saying is that religion cannot possibly be imposed.
That which can be imposed under compulsion is not religion. To the Bedouin Arabs, who had recently accepted Islam without having perceived the nature of its essence and without Islam having influenced their hearts, who were claiming to have "faith," the Quran gave this reply:
«The Arabs say "we have faith," tell them: "you do not yet have faith, say "we have accepted Islam" for faith has not yet entered your hearts.» (49:14)
In Quranic terms "the Arabs" means the desert nomads. The nomads came to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (May God bless him and his Household) claiming to have faith. The Holy Prophet was instructed to tell them that they did not have true belief, faith and that only that when they had said they had become Muslims, i.e. had made the verbal declaration, had done that which entitled them to be superficially rated as Muslims, had recited "La ilaha illallah, Muhammadan rasulullah," could they avail themselves of the same rights that belong to a Muslim. The Prophet was to tell them, however, that that which is called faith had not yet entered their hearts.
«... for faith has not yet entered your hearts.» (49:14)
This tells us that faith is related to the heart.
Another factor that supports our claim is that Islam does not permit taqleed (imitation) in the fundamental beliefs of religion and counts independent research as essential. The fundamental beliefs of religion are of course related to belief and faith. So it becomes clear that, in Islam, faith is a product of free thought. The faith and belief which Islam calls for cannot be acquired through non-free thoughts subject to "taqleed," force and compulsion.
So now we realize the two views of the Islamic researchers to be quite close. One group argues that tawhid pertains to the universal rights of humanity and as it is undeniably legitimate to defend the rights of humanity, so it is legitimate to defend tawhid and fight against others for its sake. The other group claims that there is absolutely no legitimate way that tawhid can be defended, and, if a nation is polytheistic, we are not permitted to fight it on that account. Now, the proximity of both views lies in the fact that, even if we consider tawhid to be a human right, still we cannot fight another nation to impose the belief in tawhid upon them, for as we have seen, by the very nature of its essence, tawhid is not something that can be imposed. There is another point also, namely, that if we reckon tawhid as a right of humanity, and if we see that it is in the best interests of humanity and if tawhid demands, then it is possible for us to fight a nation of polytheists, but not to impose tawhid and faith upon it for we know that tawhid and faith cannot be imposed.
We can however fight the polytheists in order to uproot evil from that society. Ridding a society of evil, polytheistic beliefs is one thing, while imposing the belief of tawhid is another.
According to the view of those who consider tawhid to be pertaining to the rights of the individual or at most to the rights of a nation, this is not permissible. The predominant line of thought in the West, which has also penetrated the ranks of us Muslims, is exactly this.
Such issues as tawhid are regarded by the Europeans as personal issues and not at all important to life; more or less as custom from which each nation has the right to choose. On this basis, it is held that even for the sake of uprooting evil, no one has the right to combat polytheism, because polytheism is not iniquity, and tawhid is a purely personal issue.
If, on the other hand, we consider tawhid to be a universal issue, one pertaining to the rights of humanity and one of the conditions for humanity's general welfare and prosperity, then we see it as permissible to commence war with the mushrikin for the sake of the demands and defense of tawhid and in order to uproot corruption, even though war for the sake of imposing the tawhidic(5) belief is not permissible.
Here we are entering upon a different issue, namely whether fighting for the freedom of the "call" is permissible or not. What does it mean - fighting for the freedom of the call? It means that we must have the freedom to propagate a certain faith and belief to any nation. Not the generally current propagation which aims solely at propaganda, but propagation in the sense that we just explained. Nothing more. And now, whether we consider freedom to be a universal human right, or tawhid to be so, or both of them to be universal human rights, to do this is definitely lawful. Now, if a barrier arises against our calls, like some power, say, presenting itself as an obstacle, denying us permission, saying that we will impair the mind of its nation - and we know that most governments consider as impairing all thinking which may encourage the people to revolt against them - if such a regime sets itself up as a barrier to the call of truth, is it permissible to fight against it until it falls and the barrier against the call broken down, or is this not permissible?
Yes, this is also permissible. This would be for the cause of defense. This would be one of those jihads, the actual nature of which is defense.

The Measure of Rights - Individual and Universal
So far we have seen that the essence of jihad is defense. There is now just one issue that remains, which is whether, in our view, tawhid pertains to the universal rights of humanity, or to the personal rights of an individual, or at the most, to the rights of a nation. What we have to do is look at the criteria for personal rights, universal rights of humanity and see what they are. In some things human beings are all the same, while in some other, they are different. Human beings differ in so many ways that even two persons cannot be found who, in every detail, are exactly the same. The same as two individuals having the same physical characteristics do not exist, it is also true that no two persons do have the same spiritual characteristics. It is the interest which relates to the common demands and needs of all human beings that are the universal rights. Freedom means the absence of obstacles to the flowering of the natural potentials of the individual, and it relates to all of humanity. Freedom for me has exactly the same value as it has for you. It has the same value for you as it has for others. Between you and I, however, there exist many differences, and these pertain to the "personality," because they are personal differences. The same as color and the physique differ in human beings, their personalities also differ. I may like clothes of a certain color, while you like those of a different color. I may like to live in one town, while you prefer another one. I may arrange and decorate my home in one way, while you choose a different way. I may select one subject for study, while you select another. These are all personal issues, for which, no one can be bothered. Thus no one has the right to compel someone to marry a particular person, for marriage is a personal issue and in choosing a marriage partner, everyone has his own taste to suit. Islam says that no one must be compelled in choosing his or her partner because this choice is one's personal right. The Europeans who say that no one must be bothered for the sake of tawhid or faith, say so because they think that these two concepts are amongst the personal concerns of the individual, are issues of the personality, individual matters of taste. To them, religion is something which brings entertainment to all human beings.
In their view, it is like art; one person likes Hafiz, another likes Sa'adi, another likes Maulavi, another likes Khayam, another Ferdowsi(6) and no one must bother the one who likes Sa'adi saying: "Why do you like Sa'adi? I like Hafiz. You also have to like Hafiz." To them religion is just this. One person chooses Islam, while another chooses Christianity, another chooses Zoroastrianism, while yet another, is least bothered about all of them. No one must be troubled. Religion in the view of these Europeans is not related to the core of life, to the path of human life. This is their basic supposition, and between their line of thought and ours, there exists a world of difference. Religions like their own religions must be as they say, but to us, religion means the "siratul-mustaqim," the "straight path" of humanity and being indifferent to religion means being indifferent to the straight path, to the real path of progress, of humanity. We say that tawhid is the pillar of well-being, prosperity and happiness of mankind, and is not merely the personal concern of the individual or the sole concern of this or that group. Accordingly, the truth lies with those who believe tawhid to be pertaining to the rights of humanity. If, at the same time, we say that war for the imposition of tawhid is not permissible, it is not because tawhid pertains to those affairs which must not be defended and not to humanity's general rights, but because the very nature of tawhid does not allow it to be imposed, as the Quran confirms: "la ikraha fid-din."

Martyr Murteza Mutahhari  

erfan.ir

Universality of human rights: Between truth and fantasy

For those sincerely seeking to improve the human condition and upholding the basic rights of their fellow humans, it requires a solemn sense of personal duty away from the prejudiced involvement of politicians and statesmen says Ali Jawad from AIM.
As one of the most talked about ideals in modern political discourse, the subject of human rights is at once very straightforward and painfully nebulous. Human rights is the buzzword that ticks across media screens when highlighting issues of oppression, injustice or unfair treatment. Its slogans are raised by politicians, intellectuals, trade unions and activists of all shades and colours. Indeed our political and social culture seems woefully deficient without reference to human rights.
Each one of us assents to the notion of human rights, and factors it in one way or another in an outlook towards the general human condition and wider global reality. The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaimed on 10th December 1948 points to some of the underlying reasons for this universal association to human rights.
The UDHR begins by affirming the inherent dignity, equality and freedom of human beings. It then proceeds to condemn oppression, tyranny and ‘barbarous acts’ that have “outraged the conscience of mankind” in indirect reference to the horrors of the Second World War. It would be difficult to find an individual who does not agree with both facets of this preamble, let alone openly oppose them.
Despite our initial assent however, question marks begin to stack up when tasked with defining these terms. For example, how do we define freedom, dignity, equality, oppression and so on? What source/s do we rely on to come up with these definitions? These questions open up a Pandora’s Box of sorts when we put them alongside notions of universality.
At the same time, we are faced with certain absurdities in the application of human rights. For instance, we witness wars advocated ostensibly in defence of human rights which end up exacting untold loss of human life, pain and suffering. Or the forceful proselytisation of free-market policies in the name of creating open, democratic and human rights upholding societies, whereas these very policies have noticeably widened the economic divide between the so-called ‘haves and have-nots’ and doomed millions, if not billions, to half-lives of virtual slavery and unfulfilled potential.
When confronted by such dilemmas, we are impelled to develop a more precise view of human rights, firstly as a concept, and then proceed to examine its application in real-world contexts. To do such, we inevitably gravitate towards the UDHR and its role in defining the contours of this discourse in our present day.
Human rights and their universality
Discussions concerning human nature have taken place for millennia. Different outlooks have posited their own unique views about the character and composition of human beings both in their individual ‘selves’, and how this in turn influences their collective social existence. Similarly, the concept of ‘rights’ and its variants rooted in legal jurisprudence throw up a rich diversity of opinions. This diversity is simply carried forward when coming up with a working definition, even if we were to define human rights as ‘the rights you have simply because you are human’.
As with all political documents and charters, the UDHR is also rooted in a particular historical context and experience. To its critics, the claim of universality is simply code-word for the imitation of a uniquely western understanding. It would be wrong however to assume that the critics of the UDHR are exclusively individuals with cultural or faith-based sensitivities. For post-modernists, the very notion of history as a single, unified process that produces a coherent and universal human rights discourse is void, particularly in an age in which instrumental reason has become the reigning yardstick. For those who look upon the subject of universality from an anthropological angle, there is a seemingly unresolvable paradox: ‘how can we speak of the universality of human rights in the absence of a universal human culture?’
Obviously, there exist lines of defence against such arguments. For instance, to those who solely rely on the culture-argument, the immediate rebuttal tends to take the following shape: should we treat cultures and cultural values as sacred or sacrosanct regardless of what they promote?
Putting aside the associated polemics, it is evidently clear that there exists a rich diversity of views concerning human rights, as well as in our conceptual understandings of the fundamental ideals – such as dignity, freedom etc. – that form their bedrock. The UDHR emanates from a very particular context and claims of universality overlook this diverse tapestry. Nevertheless, one still notices a broad consensus on what we consider to be basic human rights; an outcome, no doubt, of our common human nature and experience. Differences largely arise out of interpretation concerning the ‘form’ of these rights, rather than their very being.
The building blocks of the various charters of human rights that we have today – be it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (CDHR) – originate from the same spring of human experience. In fact, one notices a great deal of similarity between the two documents and the rights that they stipulate. To overlook the commonality that exists would be akin to not seeing the wood for the trees. Indeed scholars like the late Ayatollah Mohamed Taqi Jafari viewed human rights discourse as an important step towards creating a common human culture:
“Beyond their appearance, all human cultures have a lot in common and are inseparably associated. We need to understand the logic of diversity versus unity by realising the poetry of unity in the constitution of self and society.”
Human rights and their politicisation
“It is an undeniable fact that human life has never been as universally treated as a vile and perishable commodity as during our own era.” – Gabriel Marcel
More than sixty years after the UDHR was proclaimed, we observe a precarious human condition. Unspeakable crimes such as ethnic cleansing, or attempts of it, are still taking place with frightening frequency. In the last few decades, we have also witnessed an unmistakable trend towards the militarisation of politics; a situation in which military might is frequently resorted to in the resolution of political conflicts. Additionally, the dividing gulf between the haves and the have-nots is widening by the day. And despite the Millennium Development Goals, certain rights stipulated in the UDHR seem as far-fetched today and as fantastical as tooth-fairies and unicorns for a large portion of humanity. All these realities either point directly to worsening human rights conditions or serve as alarm-bells for the same.
In our current context, the politicisation of human rights presents a formidable challenge. Certain states seemingly motivated by a sense of national exceptionalism have come to regard themselves as sole owners of enlightened human values. Coupled with this, the notion of humanitarian intervention often resorted to by the same political powers, has arguably drained the term of all proper meaning. In truth, human rights has been employed as a flag of convenience and moralising rally-call to justify imperial agendas and hegemonic plots.
Under the garb of human rights, political powers have committed some of the most egregious violations and contributed to a wider climate that is inimical to the protection of the basic rights of individuals and entire communities; such as has been witnessed in the aftermath of the so-called War on Terror. Experiences of the recent past give further credence to the belief that human rights should be removed from the embrace of politicians in the absence of proper mechanisms and institutional frameworks.
Moreover, it appears increasingly clear that there is an urgent need for real dialogue, at a global level, about our human rights aspirations on the one hand, and the extent to which political powers can influence and exploit these on the other. Moments of crisis such as the recent NSA and GCHQ spying fiascos provide fertile ground toward such efforts.
For those sincerely seeking to uphold the basic rights of their fellow brethren and aspiring to better the general human condition, the reality of the world that we live in today requires a solemn sense of personal duty and commitment. Human rights is not simply an abstract social aspiration, rather it affects the lives of each and every one of us. It is a notion that shapes our daily lives, colours our dreams and fulfils some of our deepest hopes. As members of the human family, we have an individual duty to better our surrounding reality, and to exhibit genuine empathy towards those that live in far-off lands; or those who are of a different race; or those that belong to a foreign culture or religion compared to ours.
Regardless of whether the UDHR is truly universal on a conceptual level or not, differences on account of culture or religion or any other ‘ism’ for that matter, should not be used an excuse to shy away from the brutal reality suffered by billions around the world today – let alone be used to justify oppression and tyranny. The profound spirit embedded in the words of the famous leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’, can serve as a guiding light during these adverse times. Lastly, we should speak out clearly and unequivocally against the politicisation of human rights, if indeed human rights is to be the basis for the ideal human societies of the future.
Aimislam.com

Human Rights in the West and Islam

I would like to provide you with a linguistic and philosophical analysis from the perspectives of, Islam and Christianity and offer a legal and political analysis.
The term "human rights" as it is used today, does not have a long history in the literature and law tradition of the West. Reviewing the work of the greatest philosopher of the era of the enlightenment, namely Kant, who more than any other philosopher, took man and his grandeur as the origin and criterion of practical philosophy, we will be surprised to find no trace of the term "human rights" in his works.
Actually, this term was created in the context of a socio- political movement in France, thereby preserving its original meaning and political content up to now, without which it does not make sense. In practice, human rights is manipulated in the domain of certain states, and is used as a means to impose their opinions and authority. On this basis, the legal concepts compiled under the umbrella term, human rights, include these rights: right of living, right of freedom, right of equity, right of pleading for justice, right of security against abusing authority, right of security against torture, right of dignity and reputation, right of asylum, right of minorities, right of social life, right of thinking, faith and speech, right of religion, right of participating in public gatherings, economic rights, right of ownership, right of working, right of sharing the material and spiritual affairs, right of having a family, right of women, right of education, individual's right of living, right of abode.
Obviously, the main principle of enjoying these rights requires that they should not contradict with other human rights. These rights may be logically classified into the following:
Individual's rights
These include the right to security and defense against other human beings and the state, the right of living and having physical health, the right of having faith, morals as well as the right of ownership.
Political rights
They comprise participation in political and social affairs including freedom of press, freedom of sciences, freedom of education and research, freedom of gathering and forming societies.
Primary social rights
These comprise the right to work, social security, cultural and social development, etc.
This is a brief list of the terms that are popular as human rights. With respect to the Islamic World, in "the international Conference of Islamic Scholars" held in September 1991, it was concluded that from the outset, Islam has mentioned clearly twenty human rights, some of which are the right of living, right of security against invasion and persecution, right of asylum, right of minorities, right of faith, right of social security, right of working, right of education and right of spiritual enrichment. Yet, practically these values are inferred as rights but in Islamic jurisprudential terms, they are regarded as jurisprudential and moral obligations.
In other words, a Muslim is obliged to do these duties, some of which are obligatory (wajib) or preferable (mustahab). That is to say that, in Islam, instead of the question of 'right', the question of obligation is set forth. It is from these obligations that we derive these rights.
Here, we going to express the principal difference between human rights as the product of the historical, political and intellectual tradition of the West from the beginning (the age of Greek philosophers) up to the present day, and the views of Islam in this respect.
Some points about the term "human rights"
The term "human rights" poses the question, why and in what sense human is the focal point of this term. It is not possible to mention the historical and social reasons to answer the question just raised. But it should be noted that in the eighteenth century the Western World, or rather the Western nations came to the conclusion that peaceful life is possible only when man is devoid of features such as: religion, policy, relation, race, skin color, sex, position, wealth and without any identity except his/her humanity or as we term it, humanity for humanity's sake, not as a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a secular, a black, a white, a rich, a poor, a sage, an ignorant, the ruler and subordinates. As soon as man was defined in this way in the phenomenon of human rights, his rights were defined differently. Here, the 'right' is his most natural and primary claim, present spontaneously in the existence and nature of each individual, which has been given to him by no one and which cannot be taken from him by anyone. This right does not refer to any person but things like life, freedom, equity, etc. There are, in contrast, rights of children, parents, wife, husband and vice versa.
The question that is raised now is that of the legitimacy of religious duties and the rights derived from them, and whether all were provided from the origin of revelation or a particular source of law-making. Where is the legitimacy of human rights, Islamic laws, Christian laws or...? These have a spiritual origin, Therefore, where is its legitimacy? The legitimacy that would have civil sanction and the rewards and punishment resulted from it. This legitimacy should conform with these limitations. Where is the source and reference of this legitimacy? To prove this case, the founders of human rights neither wanted nor were able to refer to any religions or sources. Otherwise, the question of man would not have become humanity for humanity's sake. They had to find the legitimacy and civil sanction of these rights in man and his substantial necessities, as it was created in tlie philosophy of the Enlightenment.
They took the dignity of man as the most important and clearest phenomenon of a typical human being, which could function as a major principle and be accepted unanimously by all humans anywhere and at any time. As all religions confirm, dignity is a characteristic that can be found in all human beings. This means that human dignity is a primary principle, not a right, which is a part of man's nature.
The next step that would give general credit to this individual aspect was necessity. The phenomenon of equity fulfilled this duty. The equity accepted by all humans was a dignity that was able to persuade all people of the necessity of preserving their substantial needs, and prove the right of questioning those who deprive the people from their rights.
It is not only the question of accepting this general principle but its civil sanction, which secures the active aspect of dignity and equity. That is to say, dignity and equity is something within humans. The physical aspect is the implementing aspect that should be directed from the top and another aspect. Only the phenomenon of justice has been shared by all humans. It addresses in general the owners of authority as well as all humans who somehow, even at a small scale, have the status of superiority over others.
This was a brief account of the philosophy of human rights evolution, its content and its civil sanction. Now, let's see why there exists a difference between what the West understands about man and eventually his rights and what religions, particularly Islam, pose as human rights. The root of such difference appears to be in the perception or rather in the method of applying the two distinctive pictures of man in the Western World on the one hand and Semitic religions on the other.
In the Semitic religions, as the Noble Qur'an states, God is at the center of the world view. Man, in the true sense, is the one who bases and realizes his existence, intellect and acts on sincerity and devotion to the unique God. On this basis, the source of man's dignity is his sincere attention to God and the pure virtue of this human being before God.
As it is stated, the most dignified man for God is the one with the greatest virtue. The Western world view of man is in contrast with this one. The thought and intellect of the West gives centrality to man; the notion that man is the criterion for the measurement of everything is a philosophical principle dating back to the era before Socrates. The Greek mythology and then all their philosophical schools had this principle as the origin of their movement. The Greek gods, universe and incidents, either positive or negative, revolve around the pivot of man and his demands. Gradually, this notion stemmed from those who were not Jew and followed other religions and the tradition of European Christianity. Nevertheless, the Theo-centralism was replaced by human-centralism, and thus in this sense, God was the source of addressing man and his demands.
The notion of sin as a substantial aspect of man, and the belief in the necessity of avoiding sin culminates in a theological mechanism that necessitates the sacrifice of man's God within Jesus Christ. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ to save man from sin is actually something at the service of man or human-centralism, without any advantages for God or Jesus Christ. As a consequence, the Theo-centralism of Semitic religions is replaced by human - centralism of the West.
However, man is depicted differently in Islam. That is, man has been created with a nature moving towards uniqueness, (religion-nature), and Theo-centralism is the principal element of his existence. In other words, in contrast to the human-centralism in the West, Theo-centralism is dominant in Islam. Obviously, throughout history, the church has repeatedly strive to limit human centralism by imposing the Church's principles and commands. Ultimately, however, the power of human-centralism succeeded in freeing Western man from these obligations and limitations.
The impact of the theo-centralism in the Semitic religions, particularly Islam, and human-centralism in Western culture with respect to human rights are as follows:
The human rights derived from the religions consider these rights in the framework of the divine will and command, and thus cannot ignore all credits and aspects. When one talks about human rights in Islam, man is not absolute. It is man who is related to God. The same applies to Christianity whereas human rights fail to give way to any limitations whatsoever.
This distinction has brought about debates between the advocates of human rights in its Western sense, and the followers of the schools such as the Catholic Church and Islam.
The boundary line existing between absolute human rights and human rights limited by religious obligations has been discussed formally between Muslims and Christians in different times and places.
The philosophical and linguistic aspects of human rights have just been briefly stated. Now, let us have a look at the historical trend of codes and laws related to human rights in the West, and then touch on the current status of human rights in the West.
Philosophical and mystical principles of human rights in Islam
The origin of the principal difference between the Islam's and the West's views of human rights in this connection is in their sources. In Islam, human rights are founded on philosophical and mystical principles, which are necessarily in accordance and coordinated with religious laws. The following is a brief account of these principles:
1. The principle of man's dignity: In the Noble Qur'an man is regarded as a creature to whom God has disposed dignity (I have given dignity to Adam's children, (17:70). Such dignity is a theoretical value that can have practical implications. Man's dignity from the perspective of the Qur'an is not a credential but a real affairs, indicting that in existential dimension, man is prominent and credited. That is to say that man is the supreme creature of the universe. That is the reason why God, after the creation of man, demands of Satan, "Why did you not prostrate yourself to what I created with my own two hands?"
This theoretical dignity can carry along with it valuable and practical generosities. For the sake of this dignity, all the ethical and legal education should be in full conformity with it. As soon as one accepts that man is a dignified and precious gem, one automatically believes that no only freedom and security are his rights, but also they should be so arranged and interpreted as to conform with one's dignity.
2. The principle of man's demand for God: In principle, man demands for God. Man feels God at the bottom of his heart though he does not see His face. Man's need for God is not unconscious, nor is it compulsory. One should not think of God as an unknown thing whom one cannot find. Man looks for God who is familiar and by Whom he is fascinated. According to a law of theosophy, man's existence is not separate and independent, but it is thoroughly dependent and linked. Yet this linked existence is not connected to another being with a linked existence; it is linked to an independent creature. Man is nothing more than this very dependency and linkage. It should not be deemed that man is a creature capable of praising God, but that man's relation with God is rooted in man's intrinsic flaws and his mere need of God:
"O men, you are the ones that have need of God,"(35:15)
In this verse, both truths are included: firstly, man's existence is not independent; and secondly, man's connection is only to God, not to any other creature.
As a result, any legal order or arrangement for man should conform to his spirit of God-demanding. Those legal teachings presupposing independent existence for man, or relating him to someone other than God, do not stem from the source are often prone to error in adaptation otherwise they know that man is a dependent creature. Pagans too are fond of something or someone and trust in it or in him. Here, the difference is that they have chosen something other than God as an independent creature, and have slipped into wrong ways at the adaptation stage.
3. The principle of man's immortality: One of the other advantages of Islamic human rights is that man never vanishes. This claim may be realized through reasoning or citation. The Noble Qur'an regard man as a creature possessing a soul, who is believed to enter another world after leaving this world, and who will enjoy eternal life there. Theosophy too considers man as having abstract soul, and states that this soul is immortal. From the theosophical perspective, only man's body dies, and death is simply the separation of body from soul. And when following the God's will, this separation ends, the soul will be united with the body appropriate for the next world.
This principle has been adopted by all humans, and the existing differences are the outcome of mal adaptation. All human beings demand longer life, and make every effort to live a little bit longer. This reveals that man looks for immortality by nature. However, in the course of adaptation, some believe that eternity belongs to this world, whereas both man and the present world are sojourners. Of course, man reaches his mid-abode after death and then moves on to the great resurrection. In contrast, the world goes straight ahead to the great resurrection. The Qur'an regards the whole universal system as moving like man, towards God. The universe also goes towards doomsday to testify in favor of or against the deeds of its passengers, or to complain about their deeds, or to intercede for them. It is cited in our traditions that the present world and its elements witness our deeds or complain or intercede for us.(1) Therefore, all humans seek immortality, but some think of the present world as being eternal, and do not know that eternity belongs to the soul, not matter, and that whatever remains eternal from them, do not include the material things of tins world or wealth.
This foolish idea has been urging the material and layman to become rich so that he can have access to eternal life by his fortune, and to destroy or control death. The Noble Qur'an considers this idea false and unripe, and reveals the pure eternity:
"Whatever is at your disposal is doomed to die, and whatever is at God's disposal lasts for ever. "(16:96)
4. The principle of eventual peace for man: It might be assumed that eternity means reaching the peaceful abode, however, these two are different. One may think of an eternal creature which never reaches its abode, and is always astonished and wandering. The Noble Qur'an uses a delicate metaphor to indicate that there is an aim in the universal system:
"They will question thee concerning the Hour, when it [universe] shall berth. "(7:187)
According to this interpretation, the whole universe resembles a ship moving in the ocean of nature. This ship is not likely to move for ever; sooner or later it should drop anchor. In other words, it may be inferred that the universe will stop moving one day, and will reach its destiny, which is the doomsday of th( universe and man, when man meets God. Accordingly, one of th( terms used instead of paradise is Eden, which means the peaceful abode.
5. The principle of the world of being and man's genesis relation: Man, the unique eternal gem, has an everlasting connection with all elements of existence. That explains the impact of his deeds on his life and soul. Man's speech, writing and behavior affects his temperament: these are either enlightening or darkening. For the same reason, one can find no legal rule that is not somehow related to man's temper and destiny. With the acceptance of this principle, one can no longer claim that man is free to do anything he wishes on his own.
The effect of different foods are different. The true words differ from the false ones. Each of these have different outcomes Sin, for instance, takes the brightness of the heart's mirror and replaces it with darkness:
"No indeed; but what they were earning has rusted upon their hearts. "(83:14)
When the heart's pores are covered with specks of dust representing sins, and the dust is not removed, the heart gets dark gradually, and one loses his senses of sight and hearing. Even good and bad memories affect man's soul. An indecent and sinful look at someone covers the heart with dust. At the time, man's eyes, ears nd tongue are apparently active, but in reality, they are not. The Qur'an refers to the eyes but clearly that it is only an instance, not he only one; the same is true with ears, the tongue as well as other organs:
"It is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts within the breasts. " (22:46)
On the same basis, God sends his message and true words to people, yet there are some groups who do not hear and comprehend them. This verse from Surah al-Hajj represents many other verses which call sinners blind, deaf and dumb. Thus, in the divine view, man's actions have a profound impact on his soul, so much so that in some cases these actions do not conform to or resemble his appearance.
The history of human rights in Islam
To identify the history of human rights in Islam, one should divide it into the following parts, and study them independently.
1) The history of the creation of human rights in Islam, and
2) the history of compilation of human rights in Islam.
In relation to the first part, it should be noted that the collection of Islamic laws comprises the verses of the Noble Qur'an the Prophet's statements, his deeds and advice. Consequently, the citation of typical verses and traditions would suffice in this part.
1. In one of the fractions, it is stated that, "believers' friendsnip, kindness resembles a unique body in which the pain and injury of one organ causes pain and fever in other organs signifying their sympathy and empathy".(1)
This tradition makes the point that the members of the religious look like a body whose organs have kindness, sympathy and sentiment. The balance of values of the individual and society is emphasized. In Islam's view, values and roles and social creativity are rooted in individuals, and therefore, individual development is a major aim of life. Yet the value and nobility of the society is never ignored. To sacrifice society for the individual is illogical and in the direction of destroying values. The sacrifice of the individual for society is equally destructive and damages values and stops the development of man.
2. There is another tradition saying that: "Community satisfaction reflects the firm foundation of unity and integrity"(2) it is the basis of democracy in Islamic political thought. Without the community's satisfaction, the political system loses its legitimacy.
"Surely this community of yours is one community, and I am your Lord; so serve Me. "(21:92)
It is implied in one of the verses that in the Islamic theory of community, the individual, in terms of perception, will, freedom and belief in high values, accepts the totality of society, nation and community, and the individual devotes or sometimes sacrifices himself to save them. This is the highest stage of man's freedom.
4. In Islam's world view, the right to freedom and will is man's undeniable right under every condition, and man cannot be deprived of it. The Qur'an's verses clearly point to these views: "Surely we guided him upon the way whether be thankful or unthankful. " (76:3)
"So let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve" (18:29)
5. In Islam's political thinking, it is not only the matter of automatic reaction of individual or society to turmoil or the phenomenon of tyranny that necessitates respect of human rights. It is so analyzed because man believes in his need for development.
Man's high destiny and dignity is termed as having God's soul in the Noble Qur' an:
"And I breathed My Spirit into him. " (15:29)
6. In the Islamic perspective, ignorance of man's position and status and of his high value is the source of all injustice, tyrannies and lack of proper cognition of the self, without which man will remain ignorant about his responsibilities:
"The worst ignorance for man is his inability to recognize the value of the self."(3)
7. In Islamic texts, despite the worldly charms and conventional classifications, a great emphasis has been put on man's value and dignity: Imam 'Ali ('a) addressed his governor in Egypt, be respectful and kind to everybody:
"Since they are of two kinds, either your brother in religion or are like you in creation.'"(4)
8. Human's creation and nature are identical:
"Who created you of single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them scattered a broad many men and women "(4:1)
9. The verse denies difference and unjust discrimination
"Mankind was but one nation, but differed (later) "(10:19)
10. In the perspective, of the Noble Qur'an differences are not based on values but merely related to the complexities of the system of creation and are agents of knowledge and man's intellectual development:
"O mankind, We have created you male and female, and appointed you races and tribes, that you may know one another. "(12:49)
11. To condemn every type of unjust discrimination among humans, the honorable Prophet stated that,
"Surely, you have only one God and one father. You are all the ancestors of Adam and he was created of earth."(5)
12. The value and place of any person in society is ultimately related to his deeds.
Every soul is held in pledge for what it earns (74:38)
13. Islam denies ambition based on wealth and force and condemns it. The Noble Qur'an refers this indecent feature to snobs and states:
And they say'.We have more wealth and children, and we shall not be punished. (34:35)
14. In proper Islamic judgment, equity should even cover looking at people. Imam 'Ali once told the judges:
To regard justice even when they look at the prosecutor and
the defendant."(6)
15. In Islam, the criterion of equity is justice and truth. Imam 'Ali has said: "All the people should be equal in right before you."(7)
16. The Noble Qur'an regards security as the outcome of man's growth and development:
"And will give them in exchange, after their fear, security. "
"God has struck a similitude:a city that was secure at rest. " %0
Sayyid Mustafa Muhaqqiq Damad
Imam reza network

No right is ever established for a person unless a duty is realized reciprocally for others

That it can be said absolutely that today’s man is only in pursuit of right, and not duty, is a misleading and idle talk, for the philosophers of law also say: No right is ever established for a person unless a duty is realized reciprocally for others.
For example, if the right to have clean and unpolluted air for the citizens is established, the other citizens are duty-bound not to pollute the air. So, if all have the right to pollute the air, the right to have clean air will become meaningless.
By the same token, if a person has the right to expropriate his properties, the others must be obliged not to expropriate his properties; otherwise, the right to make use of properties will not be actually realized.
In the same manner, every right proved for a person necessitates a duty that he has with respect to others. If a person has the right to benefit from public utilities, he is reciprocally duty-bound to render public services, accept (public) responsibilities and duties, and not be a burden for others.
Therefore, right and duty require each other, and the statement that human beings are only in search of right and do not accept duty is rejected.
Considering the fact that all divine and non-divine scholars and philosophers of law in general do not negate responsibility and duty and in fact they acknowledge the existence of duty and commitment, we will find out that the “duty” referred to in the statements of the skeptics is the “divine duty”.
The spirit of their statements refers back to this point: God is not supposed to set a duty for us, or else, according to them also, it is escape from the social duties vis-à-vis rights that the individuals have, for these duties are accepted by all the wise men. What I have said is substantiated by the fact that they have unambiguously said that the mastership [mawlawiyyah] and servanthood [‘ubudiyyah] relationship, the issuance of order on part of the master, and the need of obeying him are all appropriate for the culture of slavery.
The Background of Those Who Rebelled against God
It is not only the modern man who does not bow his head in submission to God, religion and divine duties. In fact, many human beings throughout history, on account of the satanic insinuations, did not submit to the divine duties and threaded the path of rebellion and lawbreaking.
This statement that mankind is in pursuit of rights and not duties is not a new one. In fact, in the beginning Qabil (Cain), the rebellious son of Adam (Adam) (‘a) obviously did not submit to the divine duty and rules, and under the aegis of lawbreaking and egotism, he murdered his brother Habil (Abel): “But recite unto them with truth the tale of the two sons of Adam, how they offered each a sacrifice, and it was accepted from the one of them and it was not accepted from the other. (The one) said: I will surely kill thee. (The other) answered: Allah accepteth only from those who ward off (evil).” Surah al-Ma’idah 5:27.
The historical accounts of the divine prophets narrated in the Qur’an are indicative of the fact that most people considered their own prophet as a liar. Apart from not responding submissively to his prophetic call, they used to calumniate their own prophet, mock and deride him, and even murder him and drive him out of their own town. If a prophet would express a thoroughly important message for them and for example, as the Qur’an describes, discourage them from practicing shortchanging: “And wrong not mankind in their goods.” Surah al-A‘raf 7:85.
They would say to him: “They said: O Shu‘ayb (Jethro)! Doth thy way of prayer command thee that we should forsake that which our fathers (used to) worship, or that we (should leave off) doing what we will with our own property. Lo! thou are the mild, the guide to right behavior.” Surah Hud 11:87.
Here, it can possibly be said that what have happened throughout the history of the opposition and confrontation with the prophets and saints of God have been the result of idol-worship, polytheism and fellowship to the Satan, while our point is that mankind should remove from their neck the chain of slavery to any object of worship and reverence and also not follow idols and the Satan.
Yet, this argument from the true viewpoint and perspective of divine revelation is erroneous and idle, for from the viewpoint of divine revelation man is at the threshold of two paths of servitude: (1) servitude to God and (2) servitude to the taghut,[ The term taghut applies to any idol, object, or individual that prevents men from doing what is good, and leads them astray. The term has been used eight times in the Qur’an. Prior to Islam, taghut had been the name of the one of the idols of the Quraysh tribe. This name is used also to mean the Satan. Moreover, the term is used to indicate one who rebels against lofty values, or who surpasses all bounds in his despotism and tyranny and claims the prerogatives of divinity for himself whether explicitly or implicitly. [Trans.] and it is impossible for him to be neither of the two types of servitude.
If even one would chant a slogan that he is not the servant of anybody or anything, in reality he is the servant of the taghut and his carnal desire. On this basis, the Qur’an thus states: “Allah is the Protecting Friend of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.” Surah al-Baqarah 2:257.
Elsewhere in the Qur’an, God says: “Did I not charge you, O ye sons of Adam, that ye worship not the devil Lo! He is your open foe! But that ye worship Me? That was the right path.” Surah Ya-Sin 36:60-61.
The purport of the verse is that after setting aside the worship of Satan, there is no need to obey and worship anyone else. Instead, the worship of God should be taken up just as in the declaration of monotheism, the phrase “There is no god…” [La ilaha…] is followed by “…but Allah” […illallah].
Therefore, those who wakened up from the slumber of negligence through the manifestation of revelation have discerned that they should worship the Deity Who is their Creator and Real Master and on Whom depends the life and death, youth and old age, health and sickness. For them, servitude to Him is the ultimate honor. Those that He made obligatory have stemmed from the spring of the everlasting wisdom and mercy, and the performance of which will be the source of human felicity and perfection.
We found out that the habit of refusing to accept God and aloofness from the performance of duties and responsibilities are the result of crooked training of man, brutish and bestial temperament, and fellowship to Satan, which have always existed in history and are not the monopoly of the modern man. In reality, it is this modern man who has desisted from utilizing the facilities of civility, sunk in ignorance and savagery, and is the reactionary.
In contrary, those who received training in the school [maktab] of the prophets (‘a) have desisted from bestial temperament and savagery, and have embraced civility through the rule of law, acceptance of duties and responsibilities in their true sense, because civilization and civility are the opposite of savagery, and the basic requisite and condition of which is the acceptance of law.
So, how could some people afford to say that the modern civilization demands that man should not accept any responsibility?! Is this savagery or civilization? Basically, civilization is centered on the acceptance of limitations, law and the assumption of responsibility; otherwise, it will have no difference with savagery.
As such, anyone who refrains from accepting law, duty and assumption of responsibility, are prone to return to savagery and barbarity. Certainly, anyone who has this idea and disposition could never be noble and vicegerent of God [khalifatullah] to pose as the model for us. (It is necessary to note that the slogan of civility and law-orientation that has gained currency today in our society means the attainment of the apogee of civility and pinnacle of law-orientation.
It is not that a new event has happened, our society has been in savagery for the past 19 years[That is at the time of delivering this series of lectures. [Trans.] after the Revolution, and now it has adopted civility. It is not so. Basically, our Revolution took shape on the basis of the ancient Islamic civility and civilization. Among its principal mottos and aims is the observance of the divine law in all aspects.)
Adherence to God and Freedom
Again, in relation to the fact that the essence of the prophets’ mission to the obedience to and worship of God and non-adherence to the taghut, God says: “And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods.” Surah an-Nahl 16:36.
Given this explanation, it cannot be accepted that the edifice of Islam is founded on disobedience to others including God. Essentially, any religion that does not call on us to obey God is a false one and the spirit of the mission of the prophets is absolute obedience to God, from Whom the entire world of being emanates, and Who is the Alpha and the Omega as well as the Real Master and Owner: “Lo! We are Allah's and Lo! Unto Him we are returning.” Surah al-Baqarah 2:156.
Now, once we recognized God as the Real Master and Owner of the entire world of being, how can it be accepted that He has no right to issue order and decree to us? Is ownership nothing but the fact that the owner can expropriate what he owned in whatever manner he likes?
It is unacceptable that we claim to have accepted Islam but made ourselves free from the requisite of servitude to God, for this absolute freedom is not only condemnable from the religious viewpoint but the intellect cannot accept it as well.
Islam and religion are the harbingers of freedom, but it is the freedom and deliverance from the worship of and obedience to other than God and taghuts, and not deliverance from obedience to God. Albeit man has been created free and autonomous, he is religiously and legally duty-bound to obey God. That is to say that out of his freewill he has to obey God.
Essentially, in the realm of creation the seal of servitude and servanthood has been put on every phenomenon. Intrinsically, no being has existed without the sign of servitude to God, and the existence of every being exactly means servitude to Him: “The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth his praise; but ye understand not their praise.” Surah al-Isra’ 17:44.
In relation to the servitude and worship of the creatures, God also says: “Hast thou not seen that Allah, He it is Whom all who are in the heavens and the earth praise; and the birds in their flight? Of each He knoweth verily the worship and the praise.” Surah an-Nur 24:41.
Yet, on account of his possession of wisdom and intellect, man has been created free and autonomous. Although God, the Exalted, has showed him the path of guidance and the way of deviation, he is free to choose which path to tread. As what God Almighty has said: “Lo! We have shown him the way, whether he be grateful or disbelieving.” Surah al-Insan (or, ad-Dahr) 76:3.
Nevertheless, he has to take into account the purpose and goal behind his creation. He has to know that he ought to engage in serving and obeying God and that the religious law of God does not permit him to tread the path of obedience to the Satan and servitude to other than God. Instead, he has to shoulder the servitude and divine responsibility, for God has created him for such a purpose: “I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship Me.” Surah adh-Dhariyat 51:56.
Now, in view of the fact that worshipping God is harmonious with the system of creation and universe, shouldering the divine responsibility and performance of one’s responsibility and duty to Him is actually a gesture of gratitude and thankfulness to the Merciful Creator Who endowed us with life and through His grace and favor He granted us with health and innumerable blessings. As God has said through the tongue of Hadrat Ibrahim (Prophet Abraham) (‘a): “(He is the Lord of the worlds) Who created me, and He doth guide me, and Who feedeth me and watereth me. And when I sicken, then He healeth me, and Who causeth me to die, the giveth me life (again).” Surah ash-Shu‘ara’ 26:78-81.
How could we refuse to adhere to Him? Is it not far from justice and fairness that we say that the modern man is not subservient to duty and obedience and is in pursuit of his rights? Does Islam accept this logic? Without doubt, such a thinking is devoid of rationality and far from humanity, let alone having Islamic basis.

Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Imam reza network

Rights of Ulama in Islam

Merits of Knowledge and Scholars
Knowledge is the dearest thing for man, since it is the base of civilization and the honor of this world as well as the life to come. Scholars are the prophets' heirs and supporters of the religion as they guide people to the recognition and obedience to God and lead them to honesty:
"Say, "Are those who know equal to those who do not know? Only the people of reason take heed" (39:9)."
Allah will raise the position of the believers and of those who have received knowledge. Allah is Well-Aware of what you do (58:11)."
"Only Allah's knowledgeable servants fear Him. Allah is Majestic and All-pardoning. (35:28)"
"These are parables, which We tell to human being, but only the learned ones understand them. (29:43)"
The Prophet (s) said: "As for him who takes a way for seeking knowledge, Allah will lead him to the way that takes to Paradise. As a sign of their pleasure with the seekers of knowledge, the angels lower down their wings for them. Every creature that is in the heavens or on the earth, including the whales, seeks Allah's forgiveness to the seekers of knowledge. The scholar is preferred to the worshipper in the same way as the full moon is preferred to the other stars. The scholars are the heirs of the prophets, who definitely did not bequeath dinars or dirhams. They only bequeathed knowledge. Thus, he who takes from that knowledge has surely taken a great thing." (Quoted from al-wafi; part 3 page 40 (as quoted from al-kafi).
"On the Day of Resurrection, some individuals will have rewards as huge as clouds or as great as unshakable mountains. When they will wonder how they have obtained such rewards that they did not do things deserving them, they will be answered: "As you instructed people to do good deeds, we recorded for you the reward of every deed that those people carried out."( Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; vol. 1 page 75 (as quoted from Bassaair ud-Darajat).
Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said: "Kumayl, those who amass wealth are dead even though they may be living while those endowed with knowledge will remain as long as the world lives. Their bodies are not available but their figures exist in the hearts."
Imam al-Baqir (a) said: "A scholar whose knowledge is useful for others is preferred to seventy thousand worshippers." (Quoted from al-wafi; part 3 page 40 (as quoted from al-kafi).
Imam as-Sadiq (a): "On the Day of Resurrection, all people will be gathered on one highland and the scales will be maintained. The blood of the shahids will be put in a scale and the ink of the scholars in the other. The ink of the scholars will outweigh the blood of the shahids." (Quoted from al-wafi; part 3 page 40 (as quoted from al-faqih).
"On the Day of Resurrection, the worshippers and the scholars will be interrogated together. The worshippers will be permitted to be in Paradise, and the scholars will be asked to intercede for others whom they taught the high moral standards." (Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; vol. 1 page 74 (as quoted from Ilal ush-Sharayi and Mohammed ibn al-Hasan as-Saffar's Bassaair ud-Darajat).
The faithful scholars owe Muslims great rights that should be fulfilled. They are as follows:
1. Regard of Scholars
To show regard toward scholars is their leading right because of their being characterized by knowledge and virtue.
The Prophet (s) said: "To look at the face of a scholar, out of love for him, is a sort of worship." (Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; 1/64 (as quoted from ar-Rawandi's an-Nawadir).
"You should be either scholar or seeker of knowledge or loving the scholar, and do not be of any other class. To hate the scholars leads to perdition."
Husham ibn al-Hakam, the teenage, visited Imam as-Sadiq (a), who was encompassed by the celebrities of the Shia-such as Hamran ibn A'yun, Qays al-Massir, Younus ibn Ya'qoub, Abu Ja'far al-Ahwal, and others, in Mina. As soon as his eyes fell on Husham, Imam as-Sadiq (a) preceded him to all the others who were all older than him -i.e. Husham-. When he felt that the attendants were displeased by this act, Imam as-Sadiq (a) said: "This man has been supporting us with his heart, tongue, and hand." (Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; 1/59 (as quoted from Sheikh as-Saduq's al-khissal).
Ahmed al-Bezanti, the scholar, narrated:
I responded to the invitation of ar-Ridha (a) and spent that night with him. After I had been served dinner, the Imam (a) ordered the servants to prepare my bed. The most excellent kinds of pillow, bedspread, and blanket were brought. When I finished my dinner, he (a) asked me whether I wanted to sleep. "Yes, I want,' answered I. The Imam covered me with that blanket and supplicated God for me, 'God may make you pass this night with good health." When the Imam left me, I said to myself, 'Verily, I have awarded with such unprecedented great honor by this man.'(Quoted from safinat ul-Bihar; vol. 1 page 81).
2. Charity to Scholars
The main concern of scholars is to serve the religion, publicize the Islamic enlightenment, and guide Muslims towards high moral standards. Such endeavors require time and giant efforts that divert from seeking earnings. It is then necessary for the believers who observe the religious affairs to save the means of good livelihood for the scholars, through supplying them with the Shariite rights of which God orders as well as the other charities. Scholars in fact are the worthiest of enjoying such rights that enable them to go on achieving their aims and carrying out their religious tasks without being distracted by any other factor.
Muslims, in the past, used to volunteer openhandedly to dedicate some money as waqfs for saving the livelihoods of the scholars.
3. Compliance with Scholars
Rational individuals refer to the specialists in the various fields of life so as to benefit by their experts. In the same manner, Muslims should refer to scholars in fields of religious teachings and rulings. It is required to imitate and yield the fruits of the scholars' studies who devoted themselves to servicing the Islamic Sharia, propagandizing its rulings, and guiding people to uprightness. Following so, people will have full awareness of their doctrine and will be able to resist the rumors of enemies. But if they neglect reference to scholars, people will ignore the reality of their religion, principles, and rulings and, subsequently, will be the subject of deviation.
The Prophet (s) said: "To sit with the religious people is the honor of this life as well as the life to come." (Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; 1/62 (as quoted from Thawab ul-A'mal and al-Amali).
"To sit with scholars is a sort of worship." (Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; vol. 1 page 62 (as quoted from keshf ul-Ghumma).
"Knowledge is stored in safes whose key is question. Hence, you-Allah may have mercy upon you-must put questions, for your questions will bring rewards for four persons: the asker, the instructor, the listener (to the question and answer), and the one who loves those three." (Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; vol. 1 page 62 (as quoted from Sahifat ur-Ridha and uyounu Akhbar ir-Ridha).
Imam as-Sadiq (a) said: "People perish so long as they do not put questions." (Quoted from al-wafi; part 1 page 46 (as quoted from al-kafi).
Luqman the wise instructed his son: "Son, sit with the scholars and stick your knees to them, for Allah enlivens the hearts -i.e. intellects- with the illumination of wisdom in the same way as He enlivens the barren lands with heavy rain." (Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; vol. 1 page 62 (as quoted from Rawdhat ul-Waizhin).
RIGHTS OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS
Faithful teachers who enjoy good traits occupy a high position in the society because of the appreciative efforts they exert for educating and supplying individuals with knowledge and moralities. Besides, they are the pioneers of culture and guides of the coming generation. On account of that, they must enjoy definite rights against their students. First of all, students must respect their teachers in the same way as they respect their fathers so as to express their appreciation to them.
Alexander, once, was asked why he used to respect his teacher in a way better than his respecting his father. He answered: "My father is the founder of my transient life while my teacher is the founder of my changeless life."
Imam al-Baqir (a) said: "He who teaches an item of knowledge that leads to the right guidance will be having the same rewards of them who apply that item to themselves, without any decrease in their rewards. And he who teaches an item of deviation will be having to burden the same punishment that is decided for those who practice such an item without any decrease in their punishment." (Quoted from al-wafi; part 1 page 42 (as quoted from al-kafi).
Students must appreciate their teachers' efforts and reward them by means of showing gratitude and respect and following their recommendations. They also must pardon and neglect any situation of strictness or discipline that are intended for their good educationally and morally. The best comprehensive word that gathered the rights of teachers is the following saying of Imam as-Sejjad (a):
"The right of the one who trains you through knowledge is magnifying him, respecting his sessions, listening well to him, attending to him with devotion, avoiding raising your voice against him, avoiding answering any question before he answers, avoiding talking to anyone during his instructions, avoiding backbiting anyone before him, doing your best to defend him when he is backbitten and cover his flaws and publicize his good traits. Do not sit with his enemy and do not antagonize his friend. If you do so, the angels will testify for you that you have attended to him and received his knowledge for the sake of Allah, not people." (Quoted from The Treatise of Rights; Imam as-Sejjad (a).
Rights of Students
Seekers of studies enjoy particular standings of virtue and honor because they exert diligent efforts for seeking, retaining, and conveying knowledge to the coming generations.
The Prophet (s) said: "The like of students among the ignorant is the alive among the dead." (Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; 1/58 (as quoted from at-Tusi's al-Amali).
"Seeking knowledge is a duty that is imposed upon every male and female Muslim. It is most surely that Allah loves seekers of knowledge." (Quoted from al-wafi; part 1 page 36 (as quoted from al-kafi).
"The scholar and the seeker of knowledge are partners in the same rewarding: two for the scholar and one for the seeker of knowledge. Any other class is worthless."( Quoted from Bihar ul-Anwar; 1/56 (as quoted from Bassaair ud-Darajat).
Such merits traits are dedicated to the sincere students who aim at achieving self-discipline and moral conduct. The students who are empty of such intentions are deprived of such memorable traits and will have nothing more than transitory goals. Let us now refer briefly to some of the students' rights:
First of all, fathers should choose well qualified, faithful, and well-mannered teachers for their sons, so that they will be good imitable examples.
Students are generally characterized by fondness of following the examples of their instructors whose qualities affect the students' personalities very soon.
Second, students must be treated with kindness and compassion. Teachers are required to treat their students as if they are their sons and avoid humiliating and persecuting them, because such behaviors may make them disregard studying. To instruct and encourage students on studying, it is wise to reward the good-doers by words of praise and reproach the negligent by means of reprimand taking in consideration the condition that such matters must not injure their emotions or abuse their dignities.
Addressing to seekers of knowledge, Imam as-Sejjad (a) said in his Treatise of Rights:
"The right of your subjects through knowledge is that you should know that Allah made you a caretaker over them only through the knowledge He has given you and His storehouses, which He has opened up to you. If you do well the missions that Allah has chosen you for, treat them as same as the treatment of the merciful caretaker who respects his master in the affairs of the slaves and the clement steadfast one who always offers money for the needy ones, then Allah will increase His graces to you and you will be on the right way faithfully, otherwise you will be regarded as betrayal, unjust to the creatures, and expose yourself to encounter Allah's seizing His graces and power from you."
Third, it is necessary for teachers to take in consideration the intellectual levels of the students and their readiness to receive knowledge. This consideration will help teachers choose the appropriate levels of study that befit each student and avoid providing information that are too high for them to understand. Furthermore, it is important for teachers to realize each student's main concern so as to guide him to the fields that best suit his interest, since it is improper to coerce a student on definite fields of study, which he does not like.
Fourth, to secure an ideal rise for students, it is important to keep on guiding them incessantly in the scientific and moral fields. This is the only way to guarantees their being examples of decency.
Student must understand that the main purpose beyond studying is to achieve self-control and good sense so as to attain the honor of the obedience to God and, subsequently, the eternal pleasures will be won.
Neglecting such noble goals, a student fails to exploit science, loses all aspects of spirituality, and becomes the subject of the barren worldly whims.
The best example of such shortcomings is the current civilized nations whose individuals, though preceded others in fields of science and inventions, live humble lives suffocated by disintegrated morals, loose spiritual values, and prevalent evils-all because they pursue wholly material trends and free themselves completely from the religious and moral values. Owing to so, they have competed with each other using the most fatal weapons for terminating each other and, hence, they have turned this world into a volcano threatening ruination and perdition to humankind.

Imam Reza Network