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