Grand Strategies in the Realm of Governance and Implementation

In initial discussions on Islamic political philosophy, I stated that, like any political system, the Islamic government has two basic axes: (1) law and legislation, and (2) management and implementation of law. Previous discussions were essentially about the first axis, dealing with the importance of law, characteristics of ideal law, legislation in Islam and its conditions, while addressing the skepticism regarding the above.
The present topic is management and implementation of law. In order to have a clear understanding of the topic, we will realize that the more transparent and clear the goal and objective of an institution or organization, the easier it will be to understand its structure, working conditions and qualities in the people elected as its members. Therefore, to discuss the executive branch of Islamic government, i.e. its managerial aspect, we must be familiar with the reason for establishing the government including the goal of its management.
Notwithstanding the trend which considers government unnecessary, the majority of political philosophers regard the existence of government in society as necessary. That is, they believe that in society there should be a body which must issue orders, oblige people, implement ordinances acceptable to society and apprehend and punish violators. This premise is accepted by almost all thinkers and its need realized by every society. In Islam this premise is also affirmed, and in the words of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) recorded in Nahj al-Balaghah: even if a society does not have an upright and meritorious government, a tyrannical government is still better than the absence of any government.[4] It is because in the absence of government or the executive, there will be chaos, the rights of individuals violated and the interests of society trampled upon. So, according to Islam, one of the most important social obligations of people is the establishment of an upright government so as to guarantee the interests of society.
Different approaches on objectives of executive power
We all know that executive power is for implementation of law, and thus, its objective is implementation of laws, but the nature and structure of the law which the state is trying to implement must be seen. The objectives of law are nothing but two: material and spiritual. In general, all those who are involved in debates on political philosophy acknowledge the fact that the state must secure material interests of people, but there is a difference of opinion about guaranteeing spiritual interests of people; whether they should be reflected in law, the government implement such a law and guarantee its implementation.
Since long, many schools of philosophy have believed that the government must also guarantee spiritual values and the law guaranteed by the government must take human virtues into account. Even in non-religious schools of philosophy some ancient Greek philosophers like Plato regarded paving the ground for the flourishing of human virtues as the duty of government. He asserted that the government must be run by men of wisdom and those who are the best in terms of moral virtues. The saying “The men of wisdom must rule” is attributed to him. So, non-Muslim and non-religious philosophers—those who are not followers of the religions with heavenly origin—have also laid stress on spiritual issues and moral virtues. Even the philosophers with no religious beliefs have emphasized the observance of moral virtues in society and the creation of an atmosphere for the moral growth of people.
After the spread of Christianity in Europe, the Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity and his propagation of it in Europe, and adoption of Christianity as the official religion of civilized countries in Europe, religion was attached to government and the goal of government was to secure religious objectives. That is, the statesmen also used to implement what they had accepted as Christianity. Since the Renaissance, the Westerners experienced an intellectual revolution and endeavored to separate moral issues from the realm of government concerns.
After the Renaissance many developments took place in Europe which became the origin of the new Western civilization, and their hallmark is the separation of religion from the realm of social concerns. It was during that time that philosophers discussed about politics, wrote books, founded schools of thought, and consigned moral virtues and spirituality to oblivion.
Among these philosophers was Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, who believed that the only function of government was to prevent anarchy. According to him, like wolves, human beings by nature would be at each other’s throats and destroy one another. Accordingly, a body was needed to curb the wolf’s instinct in them and prevent their aggression against one another. Following him, John Locke, who was the founder of Western liberal thought and whose ideas are still discussed and more or less accepted in all political and academic circles in the world, presented maintenance of security as the purpose of government.
According to him, what human beings need in life is a controlling agent called “government” in the absence of which social order will not come into being, anarchy will prevail, security will be lost, and the life and property of people will be endangered. He says, “We want government to fill this vacuum, other matters have nothing to do with government.”
Of course, the separation of religion from government and social affairs does not mean that none of these theoreticians gave importance to moral virtues and spiritual values. In fact, they said that individuals would have to pursue these matters themselves because they had nothing to do with government. Those who believe in God have to go themselves to the temple, church or anywhere they wish and engage in worshipping God. Similarly, moral virtues such as honesty, good conduct, respecting others, attending to the poor, and others are valuable, but considered personal matters. Individuals themselves have to strive to acquire these pleasant moral virtues, for government has nothing to do with them.
So, the objective of social law, i.e. what government must implement, is only maintenance of security in society so as to protect the life and property of people. Likewise, executive power has no function except maintenance of security and protection of people’s lives and properties. In the words of Locke, apart from protection of life and property, protection of personal freedom is also considered part of security. Regarding moral and spiritual interests, the maximum thing he said was that social law must be such that it does not conflict with morality nor hinder the worship of God.
With respect to preservation of moral values, however, social law and government would not assume the responsibility of preserving religious values and creating an atmosphere for spiritual and religious growth. Nowadays, this statement of Locke is the gospel and constitution of most schools of philosophy. Their principal motto is that the only duty of government is preservation of security and freedom, and it has no responsibility towards religious and moral affairs. This is the fundamental difference between Western thinkers in the world today and Islam.
Aim of prophets (‘a) in establishing government
The view of prophets (‘a), especially the Great Prophet of Islam (s) is that apart from securing the materials needs and interests, securing the spiritual interests is also part of the duty of a government. In fact, securing spiritual interests takes precedence and is more important than securing material interests. The government must implement the law whose ultimate objective is to secure the spiritual, religious, moral and human interests—the same things regarded by religion as its ultimate purpose, because the perfection of man depends on them. It considers the purpose of the creation of man, endowed with freewill, to know and pursue this lofty objective.
The axis of these matters is nearness to God which is, thanks to God, well entrenched in Islamic culture today. In fact, it has gained currency among Muslims and even those who do not correctly know its meaning are familiar with its expression. Common people who do not know how to read and write, daily use the expression “qurbatan ilallah” [for the sake of nearness to Allah].
Law that is implemented in society must be geared towards the realization of the ultimate goal and purpose behind the creation of man which is nearness to God. The social life of man should progress in this direction and other issues and animal dimensions are valuable provided they are a prelude to his progress, spiritual perfection and proximity to God.
The goal of state can also be identified once it is proved that the purpose behind the codification of social laws is to secure both spiritual and material interests, as a matter of course. The state must consider protecting the life and property of citizens, paving the ground for the spiritual growth of human beings and combating anything that is against the realization of this objective, as part of its duty. This is in reality a preliminary and not the main goal. That is to say, it is a means to achieve a loftier goal. Hence, laws to be recognized officially in Islamic society should be totally concordant with religious foundations and geared toward the spiritual and religious growth of human beings. For them not to be inimical to religion is not enough; they must be attuned to the goals of religion. The Islamic state must also combat religious disbelief and hostility to religion and materialize religious objectives.
In a religious society, it is possible that certain material needs may not be provided temporarily because of the expediency to attend to some spiritual affairs. If the ordinances of Islam are implemented, in the long run material interests of people will also be better secured than in any other system. However, if to provide for all material interests will undermine religion within a limited period, one should only provide for material interests that will not undermine religion, because spiritual interests take precedence. But in Western countries what we have said is not credible. They are only concerned with material objectives and the state is not responsible for spiritual interests.
Impact of social challenges on conduct of liberal system
Sometimes, people protest that in the West spiritual and religious interests are also attended to. Westerners also offer sacrifices and pay attention to social problems. Of course, this contention is correct and we acknowledge that not all Westerners are individualistic. Prevalence of liberal thought does not mean that all people in the West are influenced by it. What we mean is that liberalism dominates Western societies and because of social necessities they are sometimes compelled to act contrary to the dictates of their philosophy.
That is, because of some exigencies even those who are individualistic and liberal have social considerations, and in order to prevent an uprising and revolt by the majority of people, they have to consider the deprived. In practice, in many countries ruled by socialists and social democrats, a great portion of the taxes levied are spent on social services. Their materialist philosophy does not make such a demand but in order to maintain security, they are compelled to provide these facilities.
The point is that liberalism demands one thing and the action of its proponents exhibit something else. In fact, this criticism is leveled at them— liberalism and individualism does not expect them to take these things into account; so, why do they provide social securities and facilities which are in favor of the deprived? The reply to this question is that these facilities are meant to safeguard the capital of the capitalists and prevent communist uprisings and Marxist revolutions. Before Marxist thought was put into practice in Marxist countries, it was prevalent in Western countries. Karl Marx, a German scholar who lived in the U.K, initially promoted his ideas and books there. Studying his works, the English statesmen realized the perils Marx had brought them and parried them in anticipation.
The Labor Party and socialist tendencies that came into being in Britain and the programs in favor of the deprived implemented there were all meant to counter Marxist tendencies, because it was predicted that the advancement of capitalism would urge the majority of people to stage an uprising. In order to preempt that they attended to the poor and silenced them.
This attitude was beyond the dictates of their capitalist school but it aimed at protecting the interests of the capitalists. In any case, liberalism asserts that the state does not have any responsibility in relation to spiritual affairs.
Possibly, they would complain to us, saying: “In principle, in the Western countries the state levies taxes from people for the church. Why do you accuse them of being heedless to religion and spirituality?” This is the reply: This is also not dictated by liberal thought. In fact, their purpose is to win the hearts of the religious and make use of the power of the church.
Our concern here is their philosophy and their frame of mind. If ever they engage in some religious activities, it is meant to protect their own interests. In a bid to win elections, they strive to win the hearts and votes of the religious. Sometimes, during the presidential elections in the U.S of America, presidential candidates are seen going to church and drawing the attention of people. It does not mean that they are proponents of religion in the affairs of government.
Reason behind individuals’ inclination towards liberalism
According to Islam, protection of spiritual interests which can be realized under the auspices of religion is among the essential and primary objectives of government. This is the key point of difference between Islam and other schools of philosophy dominant in the world today, and we cannot follow the West with respect to the mode of governance and duties of government because of this fundamental and basic difference with them. Once the objective is forgotten, the structure, conditions, duties, and prerogatives will change accordingly.
In reality, the reason behind the ambiguity and deviation in ideas and thoughts of individuals—even those who are not spiteful—and the ambiguities and deviations they express in their newspapers and books is that they have not paid attention to the objective of law and government from the Islamic viewpoint and the difference between Islam and other schools. They have accepted the essence of Islam. They also really believe in God, say their prayers and observe fasting. They do not deny and reject religion either. Practically, however, they totally follow the West in sociopolitical issues. They no longer enquire whether a certain method is consistent with Islamic thought or not. They say, “Today, the world is administered in this way and we cannot go against the dominant current in the world. Today, the world’s civilization is Western civilization and the dominant culture is the liberal culture. We cannot go against this trend!”
We, however, must first understand what Islam theoretically says; whether it accepts whatever is practiced in the West or not. Secondly, in practice we have to see whether we can implement the commandments of Islam or not. Assuming that we cannot implement them in practice, at least we have to know that Islam does not accept the liberal approach and attitude. So, we should not attempt to present a non-Islamic approach as Islamic. During the time of the taghut, we could not also put into practice the Islamic methods but we knew that that government was not Islamic and some of its policies were anti-Islamic. Thus, the absence of the ground for implementation of the commandments of Islam does not make us say that Islam has been changed.
Even today, in some cases, we may not be able to implement Islam yet we are not supposed to say that Islam is exactly what we are doing. We have to understand Islam as it really is, and if we cannot practice an aspect of it, we have to beseech the forgiveness of God for our failure to do so, and if ever we have any shortcomings, God forbid, then we have to ask apology from the Muslim nation for our shortcomings in implementing Islam. So, we should not make any change in Islam and we should bear in mind that Islam is the same religion which was propagated by the Prophet of Islam (s) 1,400 years ago.
A perspective on the structure of Islamic government and state
Therefore, the objective of the Islamic government is definitely the realization of Islamic and divine values in society and under its auspices the realization of material interests, and not the opposite. We also need to know the structure of the Islamic government and the qualities of those who should take charge of government.
No doubt, the principal duty of executive power in any political system is the implementation of law, and this point is acknowledged by everybody. The Islamic state guarantees the implementation of Islamic laws and the realization of the objectives of those laws. Now, the question is: In any political system—whether Eastern, Marxist, Western liberal, or any other existing system—what qualities and features should the institution that wants to implement laws have? In reply, it must be stated that law-enforcers in any political system should possess at least two qualities:
1. Knowledge of law: How can the person who wants to guarantee the implementation of a law implement it if he does not know and understand it? Knowledge of law is the first condition and quality that the state must possess if it wants to guarantee the implementation of laws for if it has no correct knowledge of the laws’ dimensions and angles, it will probably commit mistakes in implementation. As such, the ideal option is that the person who heads the government must be the most knowledgeable in law so as to commit the fewest possible mistakes in implementation.
2. Ability to implement law: The institution that wants to guarantee the implementation of law must possess sufficient power and capability to implement it. If it wants to rule over a nation of 60 million people, nay a nation of one billion people like China, and implement laws and ordinances for them, it must possess sufficient power and capability to implement them. This point is so important that nowadays in many schools of philosophy, “government” has been treated as synonymous with “power” and one of the key concepts in political philosophy is the concept of “power”. In any case, we should bear in mind that the government must have power.
Since time immemorial, along with developments in human society, there existed different concepts of power. In simple and primitive governments—like the tribal governments which existed thousands of years ago in approximately all parts of the world—power basically focused on physical power which existed in the tribal chief or ruler. In those societies, the person who was physically the strongest was recognized as ruler; for, if there were any violator, the ruler used his physical power to punish him. Thus, in those days, power was only physical.
When social conditions became complex and there was further social growth and advancement, the physical power of a person was transformed into the power of an institution. That is, even if the ruler was not physically strong, he could have people at his disposal that had considerable physical strength. He could have a strong army and military force composed of strong men. With the advancement of knowledge, power went beyond the physical realm and was transformed into scientific and technological power. That is, the ruler was supposed to possess instruments that could successfully perform physical tasks.
With progress and development in societies and advancement of various industries and technologies, including the daily qualitative and quantitative advancement of military equipment, the state had no option but to acquire and equip the military with sufficient physical, industrial and technological power, to be able to suppress any uprising, prevent violations and people from embezzling property and endangering lives, by means of the power at its disposal.
The government must be accepted by the people
The power or force we have so far mentioned is confined to bodily or physical power which was considered important in primitive and advanced forms of government and which is still utilized. We can also observe that states strengthen their military and defense structure and stockpile military arms and equipments to make use of them in times of need. It must be noted, however, that the power and capability of a government is not confined to this. In fact, in progressive societies the power and authority of a state largely emanates from social influence and popular acceptability.
Not all demands and programs can be imposed on society by means of violence or brute force. Essentially, the people voluntarily and willingly accept and implement laws. So, the person who is entrusted with implementing laws and is at the helm of affairs must be accepted by people, as in the long run, the mere use of physical force and power will not do anything.
Thus, the executive official must also possess social authority and acceptability. As such, in order to prevent any problem in the domain of management and pursue social interests, the distinctive qualities of executive officials must be determined so that they can guarantee the objectives of the government and law. That is, they really qualify to run the government and guarantee implementation of law. This is discussed in various forms in political philosophy and is usually known as social legitimacy and popular acceptability.
It means that the government must have a rational basis and adopt the correct way of implementing law, and people must consider it legally credible. In addition to the fact that the executive official must enjoy physical power to be able to prevent violations, the people must believe in his credibility and regard him deserving to rule. Thus, we have three types of authority. The first two types have been recognized in all societies. Of course, there are differences in forms of implementation in different schools and forms of government. Yet, what is most important for us is the third form of authority.
Notes:
[4] “The fact is that there is no escape for men from rulers­, good or bad. The faithful persons perform (good) acts in his rule while the unfaithful enjoy (worldly) benefits in it.” Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 40.
Government as perpetually needed by human society
In order to theoretically explain the need for government to our people and keep them away from committing certain fallacies, it must be noted that the said theory is based on the reality of human societies. A person who closes his eyes to reality and human nature, and engages in analysis and concludes that humans are angelic, have a pure disposition and are only in pursuit of goodness and virtue, is sadly mistaken.
According to him, if correct education and training is provided to people their moral motive will bind them to abide by the law and never violate it, and, if true laws, individual and social interests, and harms of violating laws are clearly explained to people and they are given the freedom to choose, no one will engage in corruption anymore and everybody will act according to law. It will be as simple as a person who knows that a given food is poisonous refrains from eating it. Similarly, people will accept what is good for them and avoid what is harmful. In this case, there will be no need to impose laws on people by means of brute force and pressure!
Such a notion is both illusive and idle. Those who know the reality of human life and society, are familiar with the history of mankind and can never imagine that in the near future, a time will come when as a result of the spread and promotion of moral values among people, all will spontaneously perform good deeds and not resort to evil—nobody will lie, commit treason, encroach upon the property and honor of people, violate others’ rights and no country invade its neighboring lands.
Need for government according to Islam and the Qur’an
Islam also regards it absurd and unrealistic to say that society is needless of government and brute force even when it possesses sound training, knowledge of law and what is beneficial and harmful. In the verses about the creation of Hadhrat Adam (‘a), the creation of man has been explained in such a manner that his weakness and possibility of going astray is clearly indicated:
وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً قَالُواْ أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاء وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ قَالَ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ
“When your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed I am going to set a viceroy on the earth,’ they said, ‘Will you set in it someone who will cause corruption in it, and shed blood, while we celebrate Your praise and proclaim Your sanctity?’ He said, ‘Indeed I know what you do not know’.”[5]
When the angels recount the social corruption and bloodshed of human beings, God does not deny it. Instead, He highlights the wisdom beyond the creation of man which is unknown to the angels.
Similarly, in some other verses God mentions some moral weaknesses of man, as in the following verses:
إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ خُلِقَ هَلُوعًا ٭ إِذَا مَسَّهُ الشَّرُّ جَزُوعًا ٭ وَإِذَا مَسَّهُ الْخَيْرُ مَنُوعًا
“Indeed man has been created covetous: anxious when an ill befalls him and grudging when good comes his way.”[6]
إِنَّ الإِنسَانَ لَظَلُومٌ كَفَّارٌ
“Indeed man is most unfair and ungrateful!”[7]
It is interesting to note that in the latter verse God describes man as “zalum” which is the superlative degree [Sighah al-Mubalighah] and means “most unfair”. This description indicates that inequity, insolence and ungratefulness in human beings is such that it cannot be neglected, and human societies will always be replete with injustice and ingratitude. The notion is unacceptable that through education, training, enlightenment, admonition and counsel, people can build a society whose members are all well-mannered and refined and no one violates laws and moral values, and where there would be no need anymore for government and the police force.
The Qur’an also opposes this notion and indicates that in human societies with different motives there will always be violation. Of course, social scientists are discovering and identifying the factors behind individuals’ violation and commission of crime, and have identified some as ignorance, illiteracy, genetic and environmental factors. This is not our concern at present as we only intend to state that violation of law and commission of crime and sin always existed, and will be the same in future.
Of course, we believe that by the grace and blessing of God, a time will come when through Hadhrat Wali al-‘Asr (may Allah expedite his glorious advent) the ideal Islamic and divine society will be established. It must be noted, however, that even that society will not be totally free from violation of law, in addition to the fact that it will also not persist forever. It is even mentioned in some traditions that some will revolt against the Imam of the Time (may Allah expedite his glorious advent) and cause his martyrdom.
It cannot even be expected therefore that during the rule of Hadhrat Mahdi (‘a) society will become totally ideal and desirable and completely devoid of sin and transgression. Of course, the structure of that government and his exercise of authority will be such that no oppression and corruption will continue unanswered, the implementation of justice will be all-encompassing, and violations in social and public life will diminish, but they will not be uprooted in total. This is because man will not acquire an angelic nature. As in the past, there will always be room for insolence, sin, violation, and transgression in him.
Thus, paying attention to reality prompts us to acknowledge the exigency of state and government. One must mingle with people and observe their conduct and behavior—see how even good and meritorious individuals commit sins and offences sometimes. Naturally, in order to deal with and prevent violations, sound and necessary laws must be implemented (and I dealt with the necessity of codifying and enacting them), for if laws for implementation and execution in society are codified, they must have implementers and executive guarantors. The fundamental reason for having a government is to guarantee the implementation of laws at all levels of society. This is the point we are presently concerned with. God willing, we shall deal with the duties and prerogatives of government, its organizational structure and other related issues in future discussions.
The exigency and source of power
A government possessing brute force and sufficient power must be established so as to manage affairs, implement laws, defend beliefs and values, maintain internal and external security, prevent violations, thwart conspiracy, and hamper external aggression to Islamic society. For this reason, in political philosophy the concept of power is pivotal. In fact, some have even described “politics” as “the science of power”. Admitting the necessity of a government or executive power possessing power and authority, the question arises: What is power and on what basis do certain people acquire power and authority to implement laws and deal with violations?
Some members of human society always tend to commit crimes due to various reasons such as weakness of intellect, lunacy, bad upbringing, and the like. They set a place on fire, open fire on innocent people, or commit crimes which, thank God, are rarely committed in our Islamic society. But statistics show that that same usually happens in the most advanced Western or European countries. As stated in reliable sources, in the capital of one of those countries, a certain number of murders are committed every minute.
These statistical records are reflected in the official papers of those countries. But if a murder or another crime is committed in a certain part of our country of 60 million people,[8] we will be surprised why such a crime is committed in the Islamic republic! In a bid to confront and deal with these crimes, there must be an institution possessing physical and material force to guarantee the implementation of laws.
Thus, the first condition in guaranteeing implementation of laws and dealing with violators is the possession of material, physical, and even bodily force and power. With the advancement in science and technology, sophisticated arms, instruments, tools and electronic devices are at the disposal of law-enforcers to penalize criminals. Keeping in view this necessity, each government—big and small, advanced or not—has a disciplinary force for dealing with crimes and maintenance of internal security.
The quantity and quality as well as the arms and equipment at the disposal of the disciplinary force are concordant with the type and structure of the government employing it. That is, the smaller and not-so-advanced governments tend to have meager forces and simpler military equipment while the more advanced, extensive and complex governments tend to have larger forces and more sophisticated and powerful arms, equipment and arsenal.
Without possession of brute force, implementation of laws cannot materialize. There must be brute force to call criminals to account, punish them and act as a deterrent.
Similarly, in order to protect and defend the frontiers against external enemies, the exigency of a potent deterrent force with sufficient equipment and facilities can be well understood. In the structure of states, the burden of this responsibility is shouldered by the army and disciplinary forces so as to defend the country’s frontiers.
Administrators must be God-wary and morally sound
However, mere possession of bodily power and physical ability is not enough for assuming an executive post and guaranteeing law. Anyone who wants to achieve this objective must also be God-wary and morally sound; for, if he is impious, he does not deserve the power at his disposal nor will he benefit society but will cause problems and exploit that power and position.
During the period of struggle of the Iranian nation against the regime of the taghut prior to the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the Imam (q) said that arms must be placed at the disposal of righteous and meritorious individuals so that aside from struggling against the regime of the taghut they can pursue the rights of people and the sovereignty of Islam, and not only think of acquiring power. Once arms are at the disposal of undeserving individuals, power is actually at the disposal of powerful devils who bring nothing to society except corruption and destruction.
Of course, the implementer of law must have enough knowledge of law and its different dimensions and aspects. As law enforcer, each of the executive officials, in whatever political echelon, must have enough knowledge of law; otherwise, even if the person does not want to act according to his own desire and is determined to act upon the law, he will commit errors in practice and not apply the law correctly. Although such a person has no bad intentions and is morally sound, his lack of knowledge of law and incorrect interpretation will lead to misguidance and deviation, and in practice, trample upon the interests of society.
Therefore, the one who is in charge of implementing law must have knowledge of it, enjoy executive power and be pious and morally sound. In the religious texts, these three qualifications are described as: expertise in jurisprudence [fiqahah], God-wariness [taqwa] and executive and administrative acumen. Of course, each of these three general qualifications has its own secondary parts and aspects which are not part of our present concern. Presently, we will focus more on the general rather than the particular.
An examination of the legitimacy of government in political philosophy
This is one of the profound topics in political philosophy which has been examined in various forms based on different schools of thought and is expressed diversely. One of these expressions is “social power” which government officials must possess. The question now is: From where does a government acquire “social power” legitimacy, the right to take charge of government and implement law? On what basis does a person acquire the right to occupy the highest post in government? In a country of 60-million population with many experts, highly educated and meritorious figures, why is it that only one person occupies that highest post? Who grants him this power? Basically, what is the criterion of legitimacy of government and government officials?
The different political and legal schools have given diverse answers to the abovementioned questions, but the answer which is shared by the world today is that power is granted by people to the ruling body and chief executive. This power is granted to a person only through the general will and approval of people, and other ways of transferring power are illegitimate. It is not possible for a person to inherit such power from his father. In monarchical systems the notion is that power or sovereignty is hereditary. When a monarch dies, power is transferred to his son as an inheritance. This hereditary power is transferred from father to son, and people have no role in it.
This form of government still exists in some countries but the dominant culture in the world today and world public opinion does not accept this system and theory. Assuming that a person deserves to rule the people, it does not follow that after him his son is definitely the most competent person to take charge of government. People do not consider it as the most appropriate option. Besides, they clearly witness that there are others far more competent than the person who inherits political power.
It is on account of the unpopularity of the monarchical system that monarchy has become ceremonial in nature and its power delegated to a person elected by the people, for example, the prime minister. In reality, in those countries only the royal title remains for the monarch and actual power lies with the elected representative.
In the dominant democratic system of today, the person who is competent to take charge of government and executive power is the one who is elected by the people, and it is only through their will that the government acquires legitimacy. Of course, there are different forms of elections and the people’s will is manifested in different countries in different ways. In some countries, the chief executive is elected through the direct vote of the majority of people while in other countries the chief executive is chosen by parties and deputies elected by the people. In reality, the parties and members of parliament serve as the medium between the people and the chief executive. In any case, once a person is directly or indirectly elected by the majority of people, the power to rule is granted to him and thereby, as the chief executive he assumes the function of leading and guiding society.
According to this contract, during a temporary period of two years, four years, eight years or even a lifetime, the people are subject to the command and order of the elected ruler in accordance with the law accepted in various systems and countries.
Under this assumption, the power of the law enforcer or his government is derived from the people. He will not succeed, if the people do not approve of him. This idea or theory has various dimensions; philosophical, anthropological, conventional and empirical. Having experienced and observed the various forms of government, a given form of government has been identified as the best and most efficient form.
Once the legitimate government is formed, the people are bound to accept its laws and agree on following and obeying it. The Islamic system tackled and accepted this matter prior to its discussion in other schools and societies. The participation of people, their election of government officials and public consensus on it has long been theoretically discussed in Islamic society. Besides, it has also been put into practice. Imposing authority on others on the basis of inheritance or by the use of force is not only doomed to failure but also condemned by Islam. Thus, though Islam acknowledges the necessity of public consensus the question is: Is public consensus and people’s acceptance enough for the legitimacy of government according to Islam, or legally speaking, does the Islamic government only do what is approved by the people?
In some newspapers, articles and books, it is written that in the world today acceptability [maqbuliyyah] and legitimacy [mashru‘iyyah] go hand in hand. The basis and proof of a government’s legitimacy and right to rule is that the majority of people vote for it. In other words, legitimacy emanates from acceptability. Once the people accept a person and vote for him, his rule shall be legitimate and legal. This is the democratic viewpoint generally accepted by the world today. Our question is: Does Islam accept this view?
Difference between Islamic and liberal perspectives on legitimacy
In reply, it must be stated that what is discussed in the wilayah al-faqih theory and preferred above all forms of democratic governments is that the basis of a government’s legitimacy and legality in Islam is not the people’s vote. However, the people’s vote is like the body while the soul of legitimacy is the permission of God. A Muslim regards the universe as God’s dominion and believes that all people are His servants, and for this reason, there is no difference among individuals as they are all equal in servitude to God. As the Holy Prophet (s) says,
أَلْمُؤْمِنُونَ كَأَسْنَانِ الْمَشْطِ يَتَسَاوُونَ فِي الْحُقُوقِ بَيْنَهُمْ
“The believers are like the teeth of a comb; they are all equal in rights.”[9]
So, as servants of God, all are equal and as such there is no difference and distinction between them. All humans are equal in humanity and none is superior to others. Man and woman, white and black are all equally and essentially human. How, it can be asked, and on what basis does a person acquire power through which he exercises sovereignty over others? We accept that the law enforcer must possess brute force which he can employ in times of need. We stated that executive power without brute force cannot perform its duties and the raison d’être of executive power is nothing but brute force through which it compels people to obey the law.
Now, if brute force is not at work and the government can call on the people to obey the law by means of mere counsel and admonition, the presence of the ‘ulama’ and moral teachers would suffice. The philosophy behind the existence of brute force is that it can be employed in times of need to deter any violation of law, so that anyone who infringes upon the property and honor of another can be apprehended, imprisoned or punished.
The execution of punishments prevalent in the world today and also determined by Islam for violators—one of which and the most known is imprisonment—deprives man of some liberties. A person forcibly confined to an enclosed space has been deprived of his most fundamental freedom. The question is this: On the basis of which right can a person deprive a violator of his freedom? Law enforcers’ power to deprive a violator of law of his liberty and rights must be legitimate and rightful.
It is true that the offender must be punished, but why is this punishment exercised by a certain person and not just anyone? Selection of a given person for implementation of law and bestowing of legitimacy to his action must have some basis, because his action is an exercise of authority over human beings. He who imprisons the criminal actually exercises authority over his being—depriving him of freedom and rights, confining him to a limited space and not allowing him to go wherever he likes. He is like a king who is punishing his own slave.
Since dealing with criminals and violators means deprivation of their freedom and rights and is an exercise of authority over human beings, in the Islamic perspective, the basis of legitimacy of executive power is something more than majority vote. The basis of legitimacy is the permission of God because human beings are all servants of God and He has to grant permission to others to exercise authority over His criminal servants. All people—including criminals—have freedom and this freedom is a divine grace bestowed on all human beings and no one has the right to deprive others of this freedom. The one who has the right to deprive others of freedom is the Master of them all and that Master is none but God.
As such, in the Islamic perspective and approach, in addition to that which is regarded in all humane and rational systems as necessary for the formation of executive power and in essence government, another basis or criterion is also necessary which is rooted in Islamic beliefs and tenets. According to our beliefs, God is the Lord and Master of the universe and mankind. Such belief demands that exercise of authority over His creatures must definitely be done by His leave. On the other hand, laws that define crooked actions and consequently restrain liberties cannot be implemented by the citizens themselves as it requires an institution to pursue their implementation. Consequently, a government or executive power possessing brute force must be formed.
Undoubtedly, a government or executive power cannot function without exercising authority over God’s creatures and restricting the liberties of individuals. We have stated that exercise of authority over creatures, though only in the form of restriction of freedom of the criminals and offenders, is justifiable for the One who has such a prerogative, and this prerogative or merit is delegated to others by God only because He is the Master and Lord of mankind and He may authorize the government to exercise authority over His creatures.
The advantage of the theory of wilayah al-faqih over other theories about government introduced in political philosophy is that it is rooted in Islamic doctrines and monotheism [tawhid]. Under this theory, the government and the exercise of authority over people must be sanctioned by God. On the contrary, to believe that to exercise legal authority on the action and liberties of others does not require the permission of God is a sort of polytheism [shirk] in the Divine Lordship [rububiyyah].
That is, if the law enforcer believes that he has the right to exercise authority over the servants of God without His permission, he actually claims that just as God has the right to exercise authority over His servants, he also has the same right over them, and this is a form of shirk. Of course, it is a form of shirk which does not render a person as apostate [murtadd]; rather, it is a lower form of shirk which is equivalent to transgression and disobedience, which is a not a minor sin. How can a person consider himself equal to God and claim that just as God exercises authority over His servants, he also has the right to exercise authority over them by relying on their vote? Do the people have any authority that they can delegate to others? The people are all servants of God and the authority over them is in the hands of God.
If we correctly analyze the Islamic perspective and approach on governance, we will arrive at the conclusion that in addition to that which is acceptable to all rational people in the political systems in the world, there is another thing that must be taken into account, and that is the government’s need for the permission of God to exercise authority over His servants. According to this theory, the legitimacy of government is derived from God while the acceptance and vote of the people is the condition for the formation of government.
Notes:
[5] Surah al-Baqarah 2:30.
[6] Surah al-Ma‘arij 70:19-21.
[7] Surah Ibrahim 14:34.
[8] Based on the 6th Population and Housing Census conducted in October-November 2006, Iran has a population of approximately 70 million. [Trans.]
[9] Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 9, p. 49.

Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: al-islam.org

Functional difference between Wilayah al-Faqih and other systems

Those who always talk about popular and democratic governments and feel ashamed that their government is based upon wilayah al-faqih are heedless of the services rendered by him in this country. They are heedless that based on the theory of wilayah al-faqih laws and decrees of the Islamic state and statutory laws of the Islamic Consultative Assembly after confirmation by the Council of Guardians are religiously incumbent upon Muslims because they are authorized by the wali al-faqih, and his authority, in turn, is based on the authority of God.
This is a great merit that this system has. But if we do not accept the wilayah al-faqih system, then obedience to laws and decrees is based on the commitment of people to laws in accordance with their demand. They can withdraw from their commitment, review their demand, and change an article of law as they like. So, in the democratic system there is no religious underpinning of the people’s obedience to laws.
In an Islamic government, laws become binding with the authorization and approval of the wali al-faqih. Apart from enjoying people’s commitment and customary requirement backed by their vote, there is also the religious underpinning going against which is a sin that invites divine wrath. This is the difference between abiding by the laws of the Islamic government and obedience to laws whose legitimacy and credibility are only supported by the majority will. Since majority of the Majlis deputies are elected by the people, they deem it incumbent upon themselves to obey these laws.
Now, rationally speaking, to what extent are deputies who have not voted in favor of the laws, or the minority who have not voted for the deputies who approved those laws, obliged to abide by those laws? When a law is approved by the deputies of the majority of people, should the minority who opposed the law psychologically and emotionally be obliged to obey it? How can they be bound by majority will?
Obedience to Islamic laws which are ratified by the Majlis deputies and approved by the wali al-faqih has been made obligatory by God, and even those who have not voted in favor of those laws are religiously bound to abide by them. Of course, the Muslims are aware of this fact and are sincerely committed to obey the laws of the Islamic state that have divine legitimacy. They do not oppose these laws because they are familiar with the structure and rules of the divine Islamic government. This level of obedience and acceptance of laws and rules is among the merits and salient features of the divine system which has materialized in our country under the label of wilayah al-faqih system.
Through a survey of the Islamic movement and Revolution, we realized that widespread obedience of people to the Leader- Jurist-Guardian, and sincere submission to His Eminence’s commands and instructions was the key factor in our advancement and victory during the Revolution and after its victory. Also, the same factor was the reason why our nation emerged victorious with honor in the unequal war (imposed by Iraq).
Is there anyone in the world who does not know that one of the important factors of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran was the people’s religious belief in the exigency and indispensability of obeying their religious leader? Then, as an injustice of the highest order, in a country where the Islamic system is established by the sacrifices and selflessness of martyrs who struggled and waged jihad by the order of their leader and religious reference authority, some elements write and claim, thus: “The Imam sailed smoothly over the wave of the people’s movement and portrayed it as the Islamic movement and Revolution!”
Is this claim true? If the Muslims of Iran had not been present on the scene of the Revolution and discharged their spiritual and religious obligations and opened their breasts vis-à-vis the bullets, could the Revolution succeed? Had it not been for the order of the Imam, would they have done these things? It is unfair for us to forget and deny these realities. The truth is that religion and the Imam’s leadership played the leading and crucial role in the occurrence of the Revolution, its continuity, and then victory in the war after enduring all adversities, difficulties and problems. God willing, through the leadership of the competent successor of the eminent Imam (q) and his astute policies, these standings will continue as before under the auspices of the unity and solidarity of the self-sacrificing people of Iran, and under the shadow of the wali al-faqih’s leadership (may Allah, the Exalted, protect him), the people will reach further stages and degrees of perfection and advancement.
Summing up, categorization of citizenship is something accepted by all political systems of the world and the difference in classes of citizenship is not something we have originated. This difference in classes of citizenship has nothing to do with their essential humanity. From the perspective of their being human, all people are in the same class. However, either they naturally possess certain qualities that may be a source of difference in duties and rights, or they have acquired qualifications, qualities, capabilities, and talents which are the reason why they have to discharge certain duties, and likewise, to enjoy certain rights. So, the source of difference in rights and duties is either natural differences or differences arising from individual choice and freewill. For example, professing a certain religion, or acquiring necessary qualities and capability for the assumption of a post or position, including the acceptance of certain principles and foundations, can be contributory in the status of their citizenship or nationality.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

The Nature and Essentials of Islamic Government

Those who have accepted the above classification by the West and believe that governments are classified only into two—either dictatorial, or democratic and popular, ask: Is the Islamic government dictatorial? Does he who attains power, e.g. in our time the wali al-faqih, impose his authority on the people by force and rule according to his whims and caprice? Or, is it the democratic government of the West which is the opposite of dictatorship? Or, is it a third form of government?
According to the twofold classifications that have been accepted, the Islamic government is one of the two above mentioned types which is either dictatorial or popular. In case it is a popular government, it has to follow the same methods and ways existing and acted upon in Western countries and democratic governments. Or, it is not an Islamic, popular government and it is dictatorial and is based on the desire and will of an individual, and there is no third option. It is expedient for us to answer this important question and declare whether the Islamic government is dictatorial, akin to Western democracy, or follows a third option.
Among the questions being raised are the following: What are the preliminaries and main pillars of the Islamic government? Which elements must be preserved and observed in ruling and managing society so as to actually realize the Islamic government? Those who are familiar with our culture and jurisprudence know, for example, that there are some essentials of prayer which if abandoned intentionally or unintentionally, invalidate the prayer, for, without them, the essence and identity of prayer cannot be realized.
The Islamic government is also founded on certain pillars. In the presence of those pillars and columns, we call a government “Islamic”. If there is some defect or deficiency in those pillars and columns, the Islamic government will not be realized. Now, in view of the vital role of these pillars and columns, it is necessary for us to be aware of them, because unless we recognize the criterion and basis of the Islamic nature of government will be not be able to distinguish the form and nature of an Islamic government from non-Islamic governments. It is therefore necessary to answer to this serious question.
The form of Islamic government and the scope of prerogatives and duties
Another question raised is: Has Islam determined a specific form of government? As you are aware, there are many forms of government extant today, e.g. absolute and constitutional monarchy, presidential and parliamentary republic, and theocracy.
Has Islam accepted one of these forms, determined a specific form of government which is different from the abovementioned forms, not determined a specific form, or only determined a set of values and criteria of government which must be observed anytime and in every form of government? Islam has ordained that a government must observe justice, but the form observed depends upon the circumstances of time and space. Islam is not concerned with a specific form, as the proper form of government, according to Islam, depends on the observance of the criteria.
Assuming that Islam has determined a specific form of government, is this form of government according to Islam fixed and unchangeable, or a form which is more or less changeable? These kinds of questions are raised in relation to the form of Islamic government which must not remain unanswered.
Another question which is posed in connection with the philosophy of government is: What are the prerogatives and responsibilities of the ruling body or the ruler, in the Islamic government? Governments differ from one another in terms of prerogatives and responsibilities. In some governments, the prerogatives and duties of the government are limited. The government is only obliged to perform certain functions. The overall function of preserving the system is delegated to the government while other functions are given to the people.
In some forms of government, however, the government has vast prerogatives and equally heavy responsibilities. It assumes important responsibilities which it has to discharge. It can neither delegate them to the people nor shirk its duties because it is the people’s right to demand the performance of those responsibilities and duties from the government. It must be clarified that in the political philosophy of Islam, what prerogatives and duties dose Islam have set for the government. Undoubtedly, the performance and duties must be proportionate and balanced. It is not correct to delegate a duty to a person without providing him the necessary grounds to discharge the duty. So, the next question is: What duties and prerogatives does the Islamic government have?
The role of people in Islamic government and some other questions
Among the very serious questions which are raised today in society and periodicals is this: What is the role of the people in the Islamic government and what are their duties and prerogatives? Finally: What was the form and structure of the government during the early period of Islam, such as the time of the Holy Prophet (s),[9][8] the time of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) and the initial part of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba’s (‘a) time? Similarly, to what extent were the governments of the Umayyads and the ‘Abbasids that ruled over Muslim territories Islamic; and, which of the abovementioned governments we can present as the Islamic government? How has the formative course of Islamic governments throughout history led to this form of Islamic government, which finally materialized in Iran by the blessings of the Islamic Revolution?
Of course, alongside the aforesaid questions, secondary questions are also raised, some of which are as follows: Is our government one hundred percent Islamic, and does it fulfill all Islamic standards and essentials of an Islamic government? In case this government possesses all the essentials of an Islamic government, has it discharged all its duties, fulfilled its mission and faithfully observed all values? Finally, what are the defects and deficiencies of this government?
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: al-islam.org

Difference between Islamic and Liberal Approach

One of the issues discussed nowadays is that only minimum effort must be made in the enactment of law. This is the liberal approach which believes that the legislature is not supposed to interfere in the life and affairs of people because the less the interference, the more society will progress.
The above approach has a sociological underpinning based on one of the two viewpoints discussed in sociology. The first viewpoint maintains that laws must be comprehensive and encompass all spheres of human life and that freedom must be at minimum level. The second viewpoint propounds that the individual should enjoy maximum freedom and social laws must be at minimum level in order to limit their infringement on man’s freedom. That which is prevalent in Western society today is exactly this individual-oriented approach from which liberalism has emanated which holds that laws should be at the minimum level while people enjoy maximum freedom and do whatever they like.
Before stating the Islamic viewpoint, it is worth mentioning that the issue of maximum or minimum scope of law has something to do with some fields of social sciences such as philosophical sociology (individual-oriented or society-oriented), moral philosophy (the criterion of moral values, morality and its values above law or determined by law), legal philosophy, and political philosophy.
According to Islam, all aspects of human life are connected to their ultimate destiny. That is, any effort exerted in this life will affect our eternal bliss or perdition. The Islamic perspective is that “This world is the sowing field for the hereafter.” In other words, whatever man sows in this world will be reaped in the hereafter and will either lead to his success, or wretchedness and damnation.
If we take this perspective as authentic, is there anything in the life of man which is not in need of law? Here, law has to show the way, method and approach that will enable man to reach his goal. That is, if society yearns for security, no one should have the right to encroach upon the property and dignity of people; otherwise, his property and dignity will also be assaulted. It should not be that:
ببرى مال مسلمان و چون مالت ببرند
%%%داد و فرياد برآرى كه مسلمانى نيست)
You take away Muslim property, but when they take yours,
Raise a hue and cry, “This is not a Muslim practice!”
Man is selfishly profit-oriented by nature. He leaves no stone unturned by hook or by crook to gain profit, but once his interests are threatened, he seeks refuge in law. So, in order to remove contradictions and conflicts and foster cooperation and security in society there should be law that deters us from oppressing and encroaching upon others, defines the rights of everyone, specifies the bounds of justice and oppression on the basis of which people know which acts are considered just and iniquitous. Otherwise, all rights will be violated by all, and as a result, neither security nor tranquility, peace of mind nor otherworldly felicity will remain, and no one will achieve his innate goals.
In the Islamic perspective, therefore, all our movements and pauses, whether in individual and family life or social life and even international relations, follow an order and rules. Islam has a legal code for all aspects of human life, legal and social laws included. Islam even has a law regarding man’s imagination and thought, saying that a person has no right to keep in his heart whatever he or she likes, entertain any fancy in his or her mind, and think ill of others—“Indeed some suspicions are sins.”[18][103]
Just as non-observance of health tips leads to sickness, endangering the wellbeing of individuals and society, society will also be destroyed for not observing Islamic rules.
What has been said is that no aspect of human life is beyond the scope of Islamic laws and that man should control even his heart and mind but it does not mean obstruction of man’s freedom. It rather means showing him the correct use of freedom and lighting a torch along his path so that he can rightfully enjoy his freedom. Of course, as long as they are not related to man’s social life, these laws do not stipulate penalty in this world but only chastisement in the hereafter. However, if there is a violation of social rules and laws, and social interests are trampled upon, penalty in this world shall be taken into account.
In reality, penalty in this world is a requisite of all legal laws and it is not confined to the legal laws of Islam only. Every legal system that wants to enact laws for the maintenance of order and social security has no option but to consider a set of penalties for violators and offenders. This is because social life can not be established without laws that restrict individual freedom and liberty. As social relations increase and expand, the need for social laws and their guaranteed implementation will also increase.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Distinctive Feature of Islam in the Realm of Politics and Government

Once we say that government is meant to implement law in society, or in other words, the two main pillars of government are legislation and implementation, law must have some criteria and authority on the basis of which rules and regulations are enacted. As such, this fundamental question is raised in political philosophy—what is the aim of forming a government? It was briefly touched upon in previous discussions. In this session, we shall examine it elaborately. Initially, we shall mention the three views on the purpose of forming a government so as to identify the logical connection between government and law. Then, we shall delve into the subject.
1. Individuals such as Thomas Hobbes, from among political philosophers after the Renaissance, are of the opinion that the objective and function of government is only to establish peace and order in society. In a broader sense, the objective is to establish domestic and external security. That is, the main duty of the government is to implement rules and regulations that prevent chaos and disorder in society and have a defense force against external threats so as to ensure the country’s survival and territorial integrity.
2. Some have said that apart from maintaining and guaranteeing security, law and government need to implement justice in society. A profound debate on the relationship between law, justice and freedom, especially among the political sociologists, has started and many books have been written in this regard.
Once we accept that in addition to the maintenance of security, the duty of the state is to implement justice, the question arises: What does justice mean by itself? Many interpretations on the nature of justice and its manifestations have been offered by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Among them, the comprehensive and generally agreed upon concept of justice is that everyone must be given his or her rights. However, they differ on definition and scope of “rights”. Since the term “rights” is included in the definition of justice, we have no option but to embark on another discussion, and that is the relationship between freedom, law, rights, and justice.
For example, what is the relationship between rights and justice? Finally, the discussion concludes that the right of every person is that his or her natural interests and welfare should be ensured, and the just law is that which ensures the rights of individuals, i.e. what their natural needs demand, under the aegis of social life.
Now, this question is raised on the issue of rights: Who are those who have rights in social life? Do all the human beings have similar rights in social life? Or, who are those who have the right to share social benefits? In other words, some handicapped people cannot render any service to society. They are confined to hospitals and sanatoriums and cannot play any role in social life nor contribute anything to society. Do they have any rights? If rights emanate from services rendered by members of society, then such individuals have no right at all.
Of course, possibly some handicapped people can contribute to society intellectually, but do the handicapped, who since birth, have been deprived of all physical and mental capabilities have any rights? Another case is that of a person who, while strong, offered valuable services to society and later became physically disabled and could not render any form of service to society anymore. Does he have any right in society anymore?
According to some sociological tendencies, such individuals do not have any right in society and the state does not have any duty toward them. In the Marxist regime ruling the ex-Soviet Union, such individuals who made no contribution to society were eliminated under a certain pretext. Such tendencies also exist in other societies. Are rights linked with services individuals render to society? Does the handicapped have any rights for being a human being, born and living among other human beings? Unfortunately, those who say that right is commensurate with the service rendered to society do not consider any rights for such individuals, saying that if out of compassion and humanitarian feeling, some people want to serve this stratum of society and build sanatoriums for them, they may do so. Yet, no one shall be responsible for their death!
3. The third viewpoint on the purpose of forming a government and state is the Islamic viewpoint which emphasizes—apart from maintaining security, implementing justice and providing material welfare—the satisfying of spiritual and religious needs.
Difference between the special function of the Islamic government and that of other governments
In Islam, maintenance of security, defense against foreign enemies, establishment of justice, and ensuring the rights of those rendering services to society are considered a part of government obligations. In addition, benevolence [ihsan], i.e. service to the indigent and those who lack any potential to offer any service to society, is also a duty of the government. As God says in the Qur’an,
إِنَّ اللّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالإِحْسَانِ...
“Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness...”[1][169]
The duty of Muslims is not only to observe justice. Beyond that, they should also be benevolent. On account of their being human, the indigent, the disabled, and the handicapped, especially those born handicapped, have their legitimate rights in human society, and the Islamic state has to provide for their primary needs.
The other difference between Islam and other schools of thought is that Islam does not confine itself to material and physical needs but considers psychological, spiritual and otherworldly needs also. The burden of responsibility on the Islamic state is far heavier than that of liberal states. Logically, apart from providing the needs of individuals offering services to society, liberal states have no other responsibility. However, the Islamic state, in addition to satisfying the needs of those rendering service in the society, should help the handicapped.
As such, laws must be enacted and implemented in the Islamic state to ensure the provision of individual and social, material and spiritual, worldly and otherworldly needs of human beings, and not only provide the material needs for the active members of society.
The next question raised is: What is the proof of correctness of the Islamic theory and how can we know that the other theories are not correct? In a bid to reply to this question, there is a need to go a step backward and pose this question: What essentially is the reason behind the formation of human society?
Islam’s view on the essence of human society
Before examining the reason behind the formation of human society, let me ask: Is man, like the termite or the bee, inherently a social being? Is social living something that man has selected and chosen by himself? There are many views but I shall touch upon two basic views in this regard. One is that social life has an optional humane objective. The second view is that social life has no purpose. For instance, it cannot be said why the bee has a social life and what its purpose in social life is.
Obviously, the bee has a natural and instinctive purpose and that is to produce honey and live. There is no other purpose of the bee’s social life. Of course, God, the Exalted, has a purpose in creating these creatures, one of which is to serve mankind. However, setting aside the creational and divine aspect, the bee is not pursuing a volitional objective in its social life. Is the social life of man also a natural process which has spontaneously arisen without having any purpose? Or, does it have a purpose which necessitates relations which, in turn, require orders?
From the religious point of view, the purpose of social life is human progress under the blessings of social living and getting closer to their objective. Then, you may ask: What is the purpose behind the creation of man? According to the divine perspective, the ultimate goal of man is nearness to God and this is the zenith of human perfection.
If we accept that the purpose behind creation is perfection attained under the auspices of nearness to God, then social life is a means for man to achieve this goal in the best way possible. In the absence of social life, human beings cannot acquire necessary knowledge and perform necessary acts of worship, nor attain ultimate perfection.
Therefore, it is under the blessings of collective life that teaching and learning are done; human beings identify better ways to live; conditions to continue on the way are provided; and as a result, human perfection becomes attainable. Once we accept these preliminary proofs, we can conclude that the objective of social living is to pave the way for human advancement and perfection not only in the material dimension but in all dimensions of man’s existence.
Man is a multi-dimensional being who has diverse facets and dimensions. Therefore, the perfection of all dimensions constitutes true perfection; not only material perfection, industrial advancement, social progress, and economic growth. So, the best law is that which paves the way for the growth of man in all these dimensions and gives priority to the ultimate goal which is nearness to God.
Necessary qualities of the legislator
The Islamic government has to implement laws that encompass all dimensions of man’s existence and ensure his interests in all dimensions, because such laws need perfect awareness of all aspects of man’s existence. Depending on his expertise, each of the human beings that we know is aware of only some aspects of his existence. Earlier the philosophers made such claims, but nowadays, the ignorance of man has become manifest to him. In some cases, economic progress may conflict with spiritual or religious advancement.
Of course, we believe that the great divine system guarantees all human interests. But it is possible that in a certain society at a given time or place, a sort of conflict among the interests of people might emerge. As such, these interests must be categorized so that in case of conflict, the concerned authorities know what needs priority. Thus, it is the duty of the legislator also to identify the priorities, and it is here that the impotence of man to discern such a law manifests itself.
Apart from having a complete knowledge of all dimensions of man’s existence, the more important quality of the legislator is that he should empty himself of all personal and group desires, and give priority to the interests of society over individual, group or factional interests. Nobody can do this. In case of conflict between his and others’ interests, and between his group’s interests and that of others’, any great man would overlook his personal and group’s interests and voluntarily give priority to the interests of society over his personal interests. To find such persons from among members of society is problematic, and perhaps impossible. So, the legislator should also have the capability of giving preference to the interests of society over his own.
It is here that the superiority of divine law over all man-made laws becomes clear because, firstly, God, the Exalted, is the One fully aware of all the interests of human beings. Secondly, God does not acquire any benefit or loss from the actions of human beings for His interest to conflict with that of others. In Islam, however, we say that assuming that all the interests of human beings are ensured in their mundane life and social relations, still that society is not desirable and ideal because the ultimate and loftier perfection is under the auspices of nearness to God. This nearness to God can materialize only through worship, devotion, servitude, and obedience to God.
Physical wellbeing, peace and order of society, defense against enemies, justice, and social rights of individuals are a prelude to man’s communication with God. The essence of humanity lies in this communication with God, and unless it is established, true humanity cannot materialize. Proximity to God is not a mere slogan. Rather, it is the true and spiritual communion of people with God. Human beings pass through different stages of life, traverse and ascend until they attain this station. Common people cannot discern that such a station exists for man, or that they can attain such a spiritual and celestial station.
Now, as God is not in need of our worship, why did He create man for worship and say, “I did not create the jinn and humans except that they may worship Me”?[2][170] The answer is that the ultimate perfection of man cannot be achieved except through the worship of God. So, one should recognize God and obey Him so that man can tread the path toward true perfection. It is through attention to these preliminaries that we say that the law desirable is that which, apart from ensuring the material needs of the active members of society, also guarantees the needs of those who make no contribution to society, such as the impotent, disabled and handicapped for, they also have rights. The Islamic state has to provide their needs for they are also servants of God and born in society. It is for this reason that in addition to justice, the Qur’an mentions kindness:
إِنَّ اللّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالإِحْسَانِ
“Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness.”[3][171]
This injunction of God is not only a moral admonition. Rather, it is an obligatory command which must be obeyed. Thus, just as the observance of justice in society is obligatory, so is the observance of kindness because rights are not only established by rendering service. Rather, there is a series of rights that God has considered for every person. Even the one who is in the worst condition, deprived of eyes, ears and mobility has rights for the mere fact that he is alive. And the Islamic state must guarantee these rights.
So, we should not think that the sole responsibility of the state is the thing mentioned by Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other Western thinkers for, either they have not paid attention to the sublime stations of man, or they have imagined man to be wolf-like or an insect like the bee and termite. According to Islam, however, man is far ahead of such animals though they also live collectively.
Thus, law has to consider all the needs of man along his pursuit of ultimate perfection. Now, if law were to consider all interests, could it give man every kind of freedom? Can man move along any path and achieve this objective? Can those who have not recognized God, denied Him, stood up against Him and His worshippers, attain human perfection? Is not the worship of the One God the way to attain human perfection? If the duty of the Islamic state is to pave the ground for human perfection in all dimensions, the spiritual and religious dimension in particular, then the desires should, in a sense, be regulated, restrained and controlled, and a framework for them determined which does not conflict with sublime human interests.
Difference between Islamic laws and liberal laws
The difference between Islamic laws and man-made laws —especially laws of the liberal societies that consider right for the people in lieu of the services they render in the society— can be examined through the following perspectives:
1. Liberal societies, do not consider any rights of individuals who, due to physical disabilities or social deprivations, cannot contribute to society. Islam, however, gives rights to them as well. In order to guarantee these rights, the desires of others need to be restrained and a portion of public wealth allocated for these individuals, which is not liked by other people. So, their dislike should be restrained.
2. In social life, rights are given to society, which prevail in case of conflict with rights of individuals. The question on which rights should prevail in case of conflict is based on individual-oriented and society-oriented tendencies existing in Western societies today. Of course, the dominant and ruling tendency in the Western world is individualism; however, socialistic tendencies, more or less, exist. In Western societies today, socialist and social democratic governments are gaining momentum compared to other forms of government.
In contrast to the individualistic tendency in liberal societies, Islam gives preference to the rights of society. Liberal governments are willing to burn or throw millions of tons of foodstuff into the sea in order to prevent the market price from breaking down and the capitalists from incurring loss. They are willing to let millions of people die of hunger only to protect their material interests. Yet, Islam can never permit such a thing. The desire of such elements should be restricted according to Islam. Economic freedom must not be ensured in any manner or any way, it should be limited. Just as the interests of the deprived stratum of society and the handicapped restrict the interests of society, similarly individual desires must be limited for the sake of ensuring the general interests of society.
3. In Islamic society, there are concerns which are basically related to the individual, but since it leaves an imprint on society, it is reckoned as part of social concerns. For example, if a person commits a sin in isolation at home while no one else is informed or a witness, obviously his sin is personal in nature, and the laws that restrict this kind of action are “moral laws” (without considering whether the use of the term “moral” in this context is correct or not).
That is, the jurisdiction of the state is related to society and not to the individual. But if the individual action is done in such a manner that it more or less affects others, at least encourages others to commit such a sin, it acquires a social dimension. If a person commits a sin in the street or in front of other members of the family, its hideousness will diminish and people will be encouraged and inclined to commit it, his action will no more be personal in nature. Do we have no right to interfere because it will only harm him? According to Islam showing of perversion is a social act. If a person commits a sin in front of others, it becomes a legal crime (in contrast to moral turpitude), and the state may interfere. The law that prevents such a sin is an administrative law backed by the state’s police force.
4. Damaging material interests of society is a crime. Morally damaging acts are also crimes. In every society, an attack on the integrity and honor of others, even if it is not a physical attack (libel, insult and mockery) is considered a crime and the state has the right to pursue the offender and penalize him. In such cases, the executive guarantee is law. In Islamic society, insult to religious sanctity is the most serious violation of the rights of Muslims. In Islamic society there is nothing more valuable than religious sanctity. Muslims are willing to sacrifice everything they have for its sake.
It is on this basis that the decree against apostasy [irtidad] and insult to religious sanctity can be justified and understood. This is why anyone who insults the Holy Prophet (s) and other religious sanctities is condemned to death by Islam. That is because he has committed the greatest of crimes. There is nothing more sacred than these sanctities for Muslim people and insult to these sanctities is the worst of crimes. This is also a fundamental difference between Islamic and liberal perspectives.
Offence against Islamic sanctities is not an offence against an individual for it to require a private complainant. Anyone who insults the Islamic sanctities in newspapers and speeches is condemned according to Islamic law. It is not a personal and individual issue but rather criminal and penal. No one can pardon this crime because it is a right that belongs to all Muslims, nay it is a right related to God.
These are issues which Muslim scholars, especially the students, should pay attention to and not imagine that the political and legal issues of Islam follow the limited and monolithic Western framework that only pays attention to the material, mundane and individual concerns in this world. According to Islam, the rights of society take precedence over individual rights.
In view of what has been discussed, we can assess the distinctive features of Islamic law and the reason behind its superiority over other laws.
We can understand why individual desires are more limited in Islamic society than in secular and liberal societies. It is because in those societies the only thing that limits individual desires are individual and material interests. But in Islamic society spiritual and otherworldly interests require particular limitations. This is something which the nature of the Islamic government anchored in religious belief demands, and we shall defend these beliefs with utmost clarity and courage.
Notes:
[4][169] Surah an-Nahl 16:90.

Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Wilayah al-Faqih in the Islamic Republic

During the first year of the victory of the Revolution, i.e. in 1979 when a referendum for the Islamic Republic was to be held, different options were suggested as to the forms of government from which the people could choose. Some of the selections were “republic,” “democratic republic,” “Islamic democratic republic,” and “Islamic republic”. But the Imam said: “‘Islamic republic’, no more, no less.” Ninety-eight percent of the people of Iran also voted for the Islamic republic.
That is, the Islamic description of the government cannot be removed and be replaced by the word “democratic”. Now, if democracy is something above Islam, why did the Imam not allow this word to be inserted in the name of the Islamic government? And if republicanism is the same as democracy, there is no more need for the label “democratic”. Why did they insist on the label “democratic republic” and why did the Imam and the people in obedience to him oppose it? It is obvious that democracy could have different meanings, and certain things beyond its meanings could be applied to republicanism which would be negated and reliance on public opinion would outdo Islam.
Our system is an Islamic republic whose pillar is supported by the people. It was these people who staged the Revolution and who will keep it going with its Islamic substance and framework. The late martyred professor Mutahhari (may Allah the Exalted, be pleased with him) has an explanation which serves as a guidance for us in this context. He used to say: “Republicanism speaks of the form of government while ‘being Islamic’ speaks of the substance of government.”
The substance of government is the implementation of the commandments of Islam, but its form is republicanism in contrast to monarchy. So, our regime will not be a monarchy. Rather, its form is republic while its substance is Islamic. Authenticity is with the Islamic concepts, laws and values, and we do not have anything below or beyond Islam.
The Imam used to say time and again that the legitimacy of every system and every government position in the Islamic Republic depends on the authority of the wali al-faqih, upon which the theory of wilayah al-faqih is based. We have learned from the fuqaha, especially from the Imam, who also confirms its rational and textual proofs. Since the wali al-faqih is the authorised successor of the infallible Imam (‘a) who, in turn, is authorized by God, the legitimacy of the system comes with the wilayah al-faqih. Of course, this theory is not compatible with those who have been accustomed to Western culture.
We insist on this theory because this theory is consistent with the intellectual basis derived from monotheism and rooted in the Islamic viewpoint and not from the inclination of the clerical establishment. As I have explained before, the legislative Lordship of God demands that divine authority must be observed both in legislation and execution of laws; otherwise, a kind of polytheism is committed. This does not mean, however, that the people in this society do not have any role. The people have a total role in this system within the framework determined by Islam, and in this domain nothing else can replace the role and impact of the people. But one should make a difference between the legitimacy [mashru‘iyyah] and acceptability [maqbuliyyah] of a system.
The explanation for this is that since the Renaissance, there is no place in Western legal, philosophical and social discussions for God and religion. When, for example, they stipulate human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the relationship between man and God is not mentioned there. If freedom of religion is also mentioned there, it is because as a choice, human beings have the right to choose any religion. There is no mention of truth and falsehood, or whether God exists or not.
Whenever social rights, including fundamental rights, civil rights and criminal rights, are stipulated for individuals, there is no association of those rights with God. It is never discussed whether God has rights over man or not; whether man has duties toward God or not. They do not like to consider God in issues pertaining to their rights, but if in accordance with our own beliefs, we want to base the legal system of our country upon the teachings of Islam and divine rights, they do not have any authority to deprive us of this right. As believers in God, monotheistic people and followers of Islam, we believe that in all legal issues—social, civil, criminal, and political—God must be taken into account. Above all rights is the right of Allah. With respect to Him, we have duties and responsibilities that we must discharge.
On the other hand, the rights of men are not the only discussed issue. In fact, rights and duties must be discussed together, the most important being the duty of man toward God. The right of legislative Lordship of God over human beings is for them to accept His laws in sociopolitical affairs. If a person does not believe in God, we will not compel him to accept Islam, but as Muslims we have the right to apply our beliefs in politics and the means of administering our country. In the constitution of our country, this has been accepted and as such it is significant to the highest degree for us. Our respect to the Constitution is the same as giving value to Islam.

Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Islam and Different Forms of Government

During the last session we dealt with a question related to the form of government—Has Islam specified a form of government or delegated it to the people? If it has specified the form, is it confined to a specific period or can be applied at all times to all places? Or, does it constantly change with the change in social circumstances? Some say: “It is true that during the time of the Holy Prophet (s) there was a specific form of Islamic government, but it was related to that period only.
The sacred religion specified that form of government only for the time of the Prophet, and thereafter new forms had to be chosen. It is even possible that at a given period, social conditions will demand the establishment of an Islamic government within the framework of a liberal democratic government, since these two forms do not contradict each other. Just as we have applied some Western modes of implementation—for example, the parliamentary system, constitutionalism[35] and now republicanism and believe both are not against Islam—it is possible that a time will come when we will accept the liberal democratic model and come to believe that it is not repugnant to Islam!?”
In reply to the above, it is necessary to point out the ambiguity and erroneous thinking surrounding it. As we all know, the Islamic Republic was established in our country by the great architect of the Islamic Revolution, His Eminence Imam Khomeini (q) and at its very inception, the Constitution was drafted and ratified by the people and approved by the Imam. Similarly, with his approval the foundation of the government was laid down and in the course of time some changes were also made in some of its parts. It is clear that neither the structure of our system is rooted in the time of the Holy Prophet (s) nor a system with the Islamic characteristics established during the period of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a).
The separation of powers existed neither during the time of the Prophet (s) nor that of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) but the principle of the separation of powers has been accepted in our constitution, and the governments has three branches—executive, legislative and judiciary. Under this system the person who occupies the highest government post and formulates the general policies is the Supreme Leader. Next to him is the President. The chief justice heads the judiciary and the Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly heads the legislature.
They are recognized as the highest officials after the Supreme Leader and the President. Twenty years after the Revolution, the Constitution has undergone some amendments related to the structure of some branches of government. In the beginning, the prime minister used to be the chief executive and form the cabinet subject for approval by the President and Islamic Consultative Assembly. After an amendment of the Constitution, premiership was omitted and the President became the chief executive. This structure has no precedence in Islam and Islam has no specific decree or program in this regard. So, one cannot claim that Islam explicitly ordered people to vote and elect their president and also play their role in choosing the heads of other powers.
Some people think that the reason behind what we have said is that Islam has not specified any form of government. So, we should acknowledge that Islam has delegated this affair to the people who have the right to choose the form of their government as well as their legal code. Similarly, other affairs of the government are relegated to the people. Therefore, the contention that the government must be determined by God is in conflict with people’s political self-determination, and there is contradiction between what is being practiced and the claim that the government must be determined by God.
Even the notion of “Islamic republic” is self-contradictory, because “republicanism” means that people take control of government and determine its form. On the other hand, once we add the modifier “Islamic” to the “republic” and say that the wali al-faqih must head the government especially if we believe that wilayah al-faqih acquires legitimacy from God and the Imam of the Time (may Allah expedite his glorious advent), we regard the system as divine and not popular.
That is, the legitimacy of this system is acquired from above. Initially, God gives legitimacy to the government and then the Prophet (s) and the infallible Imams (‘a) are designated and granted legitimacy by God and then the wali al-faqih by the living infallible Imam (‘a) and the political organs under his authority are granted legitimacy. If the government is a republic, these issues should no longer be raised, and whatever the people have chosen should be granted official status.
Refuting the abovementioned skepticism and stating the Islamic viewpoint on the form of government
Unfortunately, this skepticism is reflected in our own newspapers and magazines and presents the Islamic government in Iran as self-contradictory and religious despotism. As such, we need to tackle these issues lucidly and examine their bases from the Islamic viewpoint.
Once we say that our system is an “Islamic republic”, does ‘Islamic’ mean that the form and structure of government have been determined by God and introduced in the Qur’an, traditions, and at least, in the conduct of the Holy Prophet (s) and the pure Imams (‘a)? If the Islamic nature of the system does not imply that its structure has been introduced by God—just as pieces of evidence show—then what is the criterion for the Islamic nature of the system?
No one claims that Islam has mentioned the specified form and structure of government. It is not claimed in the Qur’an and traditions, the conduct of the Infallibles, the words of the late Imam (q), the Supreme Leader and other leaders of the system that the Islamic government is a government whose structure and hierarchy of power have been determined by God and the leaders of religion, and that Islam, for example, has ordered that the wali al-faqih must be the highest authority and then the president, and that the three powers must be separated from one another. So, if its organizational structure and the separation of powers are not Islamic, the Islamic nature must be sought somewhere else.
The impossibility of presenting a fixed government structure
At this point the skeptics say: Is the non-specification of the structure and form of government not an indication of Islam’s shortcoming? Is Islam not a complete religion and has it not indicated all the individual and social needs of man? Then, why has it not specified the form of government?
In reply, we have to say that Islam, which administered a small society within a short period during the time of the Prophet of Islam (s) also wants to administer the most complex and extensive human societies and even a global government, so, it cannot present a specific and fixed structure of government. The government founded by the Prophet (s) controlled a population of about ten thousand people whose way of life and culture were simple and most of whom were nomads and villagers along the suburbs of Medina.
Naturally, the government had a simple and restricted structure consistent with the social fabric and demographic density of that time. Gradually, the domain of Muslim countries and territories expanded and during the periods of the caliphs including the time of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) only half a century after the advent of Islam, the Islamic government encompassed countries like Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Hijaz, and Yemen. In view of the expansion of the territories under the control of Islam, it was not feasible to adopt the same form of government of the Holy Prophet (s) in Medina.
If the structure and form of government suitable for vast Islamic territories and large populations had been introduced by the Messenger of Allah (s), it would have been treated by the people during his time as unnecessary and overambitious. Besides, since there was no practical ground for its realization, it would have been considered an exercise in futility.
If the Prophet (s) tried to determine in advance a specific form of government for every period, it would have required the writing of an encyclopedia of hypothetical forms of government in various periods and an explanation of their organizational structure. However, at that time since literate people were very few, let alone scholars who could discern these points and distinguish one from another, there was neither opportunity to deal with the subject nor the capability to preserve, publish and propagate it.
Government structures constantly change and evolve according to the circumstance of time and place as well as socio-cultural developments. One cannot determine a single form of government applicable for all times, places and conditions. The structure of government is part of the alterable and secondary laws of Islam that change according to the circumstances of time and place.[36] To identify and present them has been part of the duties of the Master of Affairs of Muslims [wali al-amr al-muslimin]. During the presence of an infallible Imam, he is the wali al-amr al-muslimin. During this period of occultation [ghaybah], his deputies shall be regarded as the wali al-amr al-muslimin.
Therefore, it was unfeasible for Islam to have specified beforehand the form of government suitable for every period and place. It is not an indication of Islam’s shortcoming. Yes, if Islam had not introduced a general framework for determining the forms of government under different conditions, we might have admitted that Islam is defective in this respect. Fortunately, Islam has set a way to determine the structure of government, in particular, and the alterable laws, in general.
As stated in the “legislation” part of the discussions, to determine and present alterable laws suitable to changing circumstances of time and place is part of the duties of the wali al-amr al-muslimin who presents those laws including the structure of government by basing them on the general principles and values of Islam, considering changing interests in every period and consulting experts and authorities. Thereafter, people are bound to act upon them. Given this solution offered by Islam, the people are saved from destruction and confusion, and differences and discord removed.
Skepticism on alleged temporal and worldly nature of government and obsoleteness of Islamic laws
Nowadays, those who are under the influence of Western culture, liberalism in particular, believe that administrative issues are temporal and worldly and have nothing to do with Islam, staunchly supporting and advocating it in their articles, speeches and discussions. They argue that Islam talks neither about a republican government, nor about a monarchical government, nor about other forms of government. So, it is clear that administrative issues are not among the issues that we expect religion to have dealt with and that God and the Prophet (s) might have talked about. Rather, these issues are related to the world and people themselves have to decide about them.
They also say: “People must determine not only the form and structure of government but even enact laws, except those laws that are against Islamic standards!” We ask them: "If administrative issues are part of the temporal and worldly affairs and relegated to people, why have many laws and decrees about administrative issues like those related to judiciary, taxation and penal laws been mentioned in the Qur’an and mutawatir[37] traditions?" This poses an impasse for them.
In a bid to bypass and evade this impasse, they assert that the administrative ordinances, judicial and penal laws mentioned in the traditions and Qur’anic verses have been related to the early period of Islam to meet the needs of the time. Islam had to get involved in administrative issues and introduce relevant laws only during the early period of Islam and the time of the Holy Prophet (s) because the people at that time did not have sufficient knowledge and capability to codify the laws they needed, and Islam had to address their needs.
Hence, laws and ordinances about the government, politics and judgment applicable only to that period have been mentioned in the Qur’an and traditions. Today, mankind has sufficient knowledge and capability to administer society and codify the laws they need, so those laws and ordinances are of no use anymore and must be discarded!
This is a contention of many of those feigning Islam. Sometimes, they categorically say: “The laws of Islam—including its social laws—have been confined to the early period of Islam. They are not applicable to our period and have not been revealed for this period at all.” At times, they make the abovementioned claim implicitly. Since they cannot dare to explicitly question all the social laws of Islam, they raise objection to some penal laws of Islam such as the amputation of the hand of a thief.
They say: “The law of amputation of the hand of a thief is meant to prevent theft which is a violation of the property of others and to maintain the financial security of society. If we have a better law and method of maintaining security in society, we have to apply them and not amputate the hand of a thief in every period or age. The purpose or goal of every law promulgated in Islam is the maintenance of order in society, and during that time there was no way of maintaining order in society but to amputate the hand of a thief. But nowadays we have better ways and methods of achieving this goal that are devoid of violence and do not trample upon human dignity.
Apart from being violent and harsh, amputating the hand of a thief is repugnant to human dignity and must be discarded. We live at a time when the phenomenon called “modernity” has emerged and social conditions have changed. Since modern life and society have new conditions totally different from the social conditions at the time of the Prophet (s) and the Imams (‘a), there is no more room for the implementation of Islamic laws.
Initially, they argued that Islam had not specified the form of government but delegated it to people.
Then, assuming that the determination of the form of government has been delegated to people, they concluded that in cases where Islam does not have a specific law, codification of law has been delegated to people. Thereafter, they went even further and said, “Even in cases where Islam has a pertinent law, it can be abrogated and changed!” Undoubtedly, in this case one must bid farewell to Islam.
Refutation of the above and the connection between Islam’s immutable and alterable laws
We have stated concisely that apart from immutable laws, Islam also has alterable laws because the laws of Islam are generally consistent with real good and evil and the life of man in the world depends on changing circumstances. The government also has secondary and alterable laws. To determine their form and framework in every period, to codify administrative laws and identify their suitability to the exigencies of time has been delegated to the wali al-faqih, who acts upon his duty within the framework and general principles of Islam.
It must be noted that to know the immutable and alterable laws of Islam and distinguish them from one another can only be done by a religious scholar who is technically called faqih or mujtahid. Since he is familiar with the spirit and sources of Islam, viz. the Book, Sunnah and conduct of the Prophet (s) and the infallible Imams (‘a), he can distinguish the immutable laws from the alterable laws and identify the characteristic features of each.
The mere fact that there are alterable laws in Islam does not necessarily mean that one can claim that all laws of Islam are alterable. If all the laws, ordinances and decrees of Islam were alterable, nothing specified in Islam would have remained. If all laws and decrees of Islam were mutable and Islam did not have any inalterable law at all, why did we stage a revolution, demand the implementation of Islamic laws and offer hundreds of thousands of martyrs along this way?
During the time of the Shah, by launching a reform and some changes the demands of the people could have been addressed and the ground for people’s enactment of laws be opened. If that is Islam and its changing laws are enacted according to the views and opinions of people, then we had no point in staging a revolution. We should have followed the nationalists and secured the interests of society according to their views. In that case, we would not have incurred all these losses! By following the nationalists liberal democracy, we could have conducted peaceful and fair elections. Through general suffrage, we could have sent our deputies to the taghuti Majlis and they could have changed unpopular laws according to the demand of people and their constituents! This is the gist of contentions inspired by alien ideas expressed today in some of those periodicals which are funded by our public treasury!
Some use allegory to influence the youth who do not have sufficient knowledge. For example, they say: “The Islamic government is a mere claim and has no objective reality because Islam deals with neither republicanism nor the separation of powers. Since Islam does not say anything about them, it is clear that Islam has no political program at all and everything is delegated to the people.”
Here we are dealing with those who believe in Islam, God, revelation, and the Qur’an, and not to those who play with the Islamic government, regarding it as an illusion. Addressing those who believe that there is God who has sent the Prophet (s) and revealed the Qur’an for our guidance, we would like to say that the Qur’an has explicitly mentioned laws, ordinances and decrees that are fixed, inalterable and immutable. Moreover, Islam and the Qur’an have repeatedly emphasized that they must not be changed and modified. Among them are the judicial laws of Islam.
Some issues are necessary and obligatory but they are mentioned in the Qur’an and traditions in plain and simple manner. Other issues, however, including judgment according to the laws and decrees of Islam, are emphasized and mentioned in such a manner that would make a person tremble should he intend to disobey or violate them. Somewhere in the Qur’an, God commands the Prophet (s) to judge according to the divine decree:
إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِتَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِمَا أَرَاكَ اللّهُ...
“Indeed We have sent down to you the Book with the truth, so that you may judge between the people by what Allah has shown you...” [38]
Elsewhere, He mentions the duty of Muslims vis-à-vis the decree and verdict of the Messenger of Allah (s) and the need to obey him, saying:
فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىَ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لاَ يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا َسْلِيمًا
“But no, by your Lord! They will not believe until they make you a judge in their disputes, then do not find within their hearts any dissent to your verdict and submit in full submission.”[39]
As you can observe, God the Exalted, by using the phrase “but no, by your Lord” [fala wa rabbuka] which is an oath, considers as faithful [mu’min] only those who consult no one but the Prophet (s) in their disputes, differences and conflicts. But if they do not refer to the Prophet (s) to resolve their disputes and conflicts nor ask him to judge over them, or, if the Prophet (s) issues a fair judgment concerning their conflict, they regret asking him and are not pleased with his verdict, they are not faithful.
So, the faithful have to choose the Prophet (s) to judge and adjudicate and if he issues a decree against their interests they should not have an iota of displeasure in their hearts. They are supposed to totally submit to the Messenger of Allah (s). Those who acknowledge Muhammad (s) as a messenger of Allah but do not accept his decree and judgment, according to the statement of God, have no faith in the laws of God and the apostleship of the Prophet (s). They are indeed liars and hypocrites. How can a person believe in the apostleship of the Prophet (s) without accepting his decree and judgment?
Elsewhere in the Qur’an, in consecutive verses God introduces a person who judges contrary to the divine decree as transgressor, unbeliever and wrongdoer:
...وَ مَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِما أَنْزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُولئِكَ هُمُ الْكافِرُونَ
“Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down—it is they who are the faithless.”[40]
...وَ مَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِما أَنْزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُولئِكَ هُمُ الظّالِمُونَ
“Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down—it is they who are the wrongdoers.”[41]
...وَ مَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِما أَنْزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُولئِكَ هُمُ الْفاسِقُونَ
“Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down—it is they who are the transgressors.”[42]
Will anyone who reads these verses of the Qur’an with such a tone ever think that the judicial laws of Islam are only related to the time of the Prophet (s) and a maximum of twenty years thereafter, and after the expansion of Muslim territories and the annexation of Iran, Egypt and other countries, those laws were no longer applicable and were entrusted to the people? Will anyone who reads these and other verses of the Qur’an arrive at this conclusion? Or, will he conclude that those verses mean that under no circumstances of time and place should the divine decree be trampled upon?
By noticing the tone of the verses any rational and fair-minded person who has faith in God and believes in those verses as truly God’s words will definitely realize that it must be acted upon till the Day of Resurrection and that the laws of God must be the focus of attention and action and not be violated:
...وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
“…And whoever transgresses the bounds of Allah—it is they who are the wrongdoers.”[43]
Moreover, if some verses are ambiguous, it is the task of the religious scholar to determine whether their purport is confined to a particular time or meant for all times; whether it is limited to a particular community like the Arabs of the Arab Peninsula or encompasses all communities.
With the purpose of avoiding submission to the laws and decrees of Islam, satisfy their carnal desires and satanic demands and misguide the young generation, the transgressors allege that the sociopolitical laws of Islam are related to the early period of Islam and thereafter they are no longer applicable. It is true that we have chosen the label “Islamic Republic” but the Islam in it is only ceremonial. It is the people who choose and abide by what law they like, unless it is absolutely against divine decree! Unfortunately, some people have also unexpectedly expressed the same notion in their articles and speeches.
Divine laws’ jurisdiction encompasses all spheres of human activities
Thus, it is clear that the non-specification of the exact form of government in Islam does not mean that government, laws and ordinances are generally related to the judicial, legislative and executive powers and that other powers, to be possibly discussed in political philosophy theories in future, are all delegated to the people and God has no view about them. Rather, in all spheres of personal and social actions, including the realm of politics and governance, God has laws and ordinances.
We cannot find a case about which Islam does not have a general decree. To elucidate, some of the laws we know of are obligatory or mandatory, that must be acted upon. On the contrary, there are laws, prohibiting certain actions and items we know of, that must be abandoned. The rest are permissible, and laws pertaining to them are not mandatory. These non-mandatory laws are recommendatory [mustahabb], abominable [makruh] and permissible [mubah]. So, explicit actions and items are considered obligatory [wajib], prohibited [haram], mustahabb, makruh, or mubah. In any case, all of them are parts of the decree of God.
Therefore, if an action is neither mandatory nor forbidden, neither recommended nor abominable, the action of man is free. In the parlance of traditions it is absolute and free. In the jargon of the fuqaha, it is mubah, and mubah is also part of religious laws and divine decree. So, in the individual and social issues one cannot find a case which is excluded from the decree of God for every action or thing belongs to one of the five laws (wajib, haram, mustahabb, makruh, and mubah). Of course, in the legal and political usage, mustahabb and makruh have moral dimension and are not tackled as legal issues which are either wajib that must be observed, or haram that must be avoided, or mubah.
A concluding question: If we accept that Islam has a view about the essence of government, for example, stating the specific qualifications of the person heading the Islamic government, has Islam delegated to the people those affairs and issues about which it has no opinion, and that the decision about them is not related to the sacred religion, and the general understanding and perception of the people concerning them must be upheld?
At this juncture, even those who are acquainted with the juristic subjects of Islam to some extent sometimes use dubious expressions that can be exploited by others. For example, they say: “We learn from religion some of the issues in our lives and concerning them we refer to the Book, traditions and even the conduct of the Holy Prophet (s) and pure Imams (‘a). But regarding other issues we use our reason. In reality, we have two reference sources in knowing the proper way of living, viz. revelation and reason.” This nonchalant interpretation is sometimes adopted by those who are authorities and really religious people. Since it is not devoid of problems and causes others to err, I deem it fitting to assess it.
It is necessary to note that we have two terms for religious or divine decree:
1.The first term, religious decree—or devotional and divine decree—refers to the decree inferred from the Book and the Sunnah and is mentioned in the Qur’an and traditions as binding. According to this term, any decree deduced through another way, say, by means of reason, is not referred to as “religious decree” but it is called “dictate of reason” [hukm-e ‘aql]. If reason directly discerns a decree or ruling [hukm] and is convinced of it, and at the same time, religion says something about it, this religious view is an instructive [irshadi] statement and does not entail a religious or devotional decree. To elaborate, without external help our reason directly discerns certain things. For example, every person can understand and perceive that justice is good and injustice is bad. No one doubts this dictate of reason. Then, once justice is enjoined in a Qur’anic verse, according to the fuqaha this verse is considered “instructive” in nature. That is, it only guides and directs us to a decree which our reason can understand and discern.
The fuqaha’s use of this term for religious decree misguides others and makes them think that we are not in need of a religious decree for all the aspects and issues of our lives. In some issues the discernment and dictate of reason is sufficient. They think that if God does not say anything about a thing, He has not exercised His authority over it and delegated it to reason [to discern]. So, the domain of our lives is divided into two: The first section is where God exercises His authority and the second section is where our reason is the authority. This implies that God does not exercise authority in all places, and in everyplace we should not be concerned with what God has decreed. In fact, wherever God does not say anything, it is up to us to know His decree by using our reason.
As can be observed, some have exploited and misinterpreted the first term for religious decree and the nonchalant expression of the fuqaha on the basis of which religious decree is regarded as any devotional decree mentioned in the Book and Sunnah in contradistinction to the definite dictate of reason about which religion does not say anything, and in determining its ruling our reason is not dependent on religion which only offers an instructive decree. They have assumed that some aspects of our lives are beyond the authority of God and the reference authority in codifying pertinent laws is human reason.
2. The second term ‘instructive’ concerns the legislative will of God; that is, whatever God wants from us is in the obligatory or permissible form. So, whatever God definitely wants us to do is a decree of God. Sometimes, it is expressed in the Book, the Sunnah and other religious sources. At times, it is realized through reason. Accordingly, reason itself is one of the means of knowing and discovering the decree of God.
As such, we submit and follow the dictate of reason. By means of reason’s discovery of the divine legislative will, we realize that this decree is the very thing that God wants from us. If it is mentioned in fiqh that apart from the Book and Sunnah, we have another means of knowing religious decrees, i.e. reason, it is absolutely true that reason is also a means of discerning the decree of God.
In view of this interpretation and term for religious decree, all the actions and activities of man in individual, social, legal, judicial, internal and external, and international domains are included in the decree of God. Sometimes, the decree of God is established by the Book and Sunnah, and at times, through reason. Of course, the proof of reason must be so clear and definite that we can be certain that whatever is established by reason is the decree and legislative will of God.
Notes:
[35] It refers to the Constitutional Movement, Constitutional Revolution or simply Constitutionalism (1905-11) in Iran during the twilight of the Qajar dynasty. [Trans.]
[36] Contrary to the alterable laws of Islam are the inalterable laws that are fixed for all times and applicable everywhere.
[37] A mutawatir hadith is one which has been reported by so many different chains of transmission and such a number of narrators in every generation normally could not agree to fabricate a tradition without the fact of its fabrication becoming known. [Trans.]
[38] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:105.
[39] Surah an-Nisa’ 4:65.
[40] Surah al-Ma’idah 5:44.
[41] Surah al-Ma’idah 5:45.
[42] Surah al-Ma’idah 5:47.
[43] Surah al-Baqarah 2:229.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Presenting Some Questions Regarding Islamic Government

There are other questions regarding Islamic government which must also be addressed. Has Islam, only laid down the conditions and qualifications of the person who heads the government and not specified the form of government? That is, does Islam only recommend who must head the government and leave other things including the form of government to the whims of people and change according to the changes in social circumstances?
A more technical question which is comprehendible and understandable to those who are acquainted with juristic and legal discourses is this: Is the government a foundational [ta’sisi] or conventional [imdha’i] matter? A set of Islamic laws or juristic rulings is foundational. Before their actual forms are shown to the people, the sacred religion mentions these laws as well as describes their actual manifestations. For example, the ritual prayer [salah] is a foundational form of worship.
The religion of Islam has mentioned it and the manner of performing it has also been demonstrated to the people by God through the Prophet (s). Besides, before this obligatory act and the manner of its performance were conveyed to the people, no one had been aware of it. In general, the forms and manners of all ritual acts of worship are foundational as the people learned them from the Prophet (s).
For example, obligatory acts like fasting, Hajj pilgrimage and other devotional laws are all foundational.
In contrast to these foundational laws of Islam, there is a set of Islamic laws which in the parlance of jurisprudence [fiqh] is called ‘conventional’. That is, in their social interactions and intercourses, people have formulated a series of rules, regulations, contracts, and agreements, some of which are unwritten but people are bound to them; for example, trade and barter.
At the beginning the sacred religion had not ordered the people to engage in trade or barter whenever they needed a commodity. The people of wisdom knew of the necessity of this affair and they formulated the ways and manners of engaging in them. Then, religion approved this wise practice and gave it a religious credence, stating, for example:
وَأَحَلَّ اللّهُ الْبَيْعَ...
“Allah has allowed trade.”[34]
God allowed and made permissible [halal] the same trading and transactions practiced by people. This approval and permission of trade is a conventional [imdha’i] and not a foundational [ta’sisi] religious ruling. It is like the acceptance of a system formulated by people of wisdom on how to conduct their mutual transactions.
Now, this question is raised concerning government: Before God ordered people through the prophets (‘a) to abide by the divine government, had the people themselves founded a particular form of government which was later endorsed by religion? Or, did people also acquire knowledge of the form of government from God, and that if the prophets (‘a) had not ruled over people by God’s leave and permission and people were not obliged to follow and obey them, they would not have known the form of government?
In sum, once we say that the Islamic government is a well defined system with a religious legal standing and God has made it incumbent upon people to submit to it, the question asked is whether this government has been ordained and founded by God? Or, did the people themselves choose this form of government and found it on the basis of a social contract and God only endorsed and approved it, and therefore, this government has been considered Islamic as it has been endorsed, approved and sanctioned by God?
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Obligations of the Rulers in Islam

All over history, rulers, according to their qualifications, have played influential roles in the development and retardation of nations. The ideal, sincere ruler is he who governs his subjects on bases of leniency, justice, and equality.
The absolute ruler, on the other hand, is he who enslaves, humiliates, and exploits the subjects for his own interests:
The Prophet (s) said: "On the Day of Resurrection, a caller will cry out: where are the unjust rulers and their supporters, including those who provided them an inkpot, those who untied one of their bags, and those who sharpened a pencil for them. Join all these individuals to those rulers."
The unjust rulers will sooner or later suffer punishments that befit their acts of oppression. History is full of stories showing the bad results of the absolute rulers.
Al-Hajjaj ibn Yousuf ath-Thaqafi is the most hideous example of the unjust rulers. He ruled for twenty years during which he killed 120,000 individuals besides those whom were killed during his campaigns. In his cells, there were fifty thousand men and thirty thousand women…etc. Finally, this dictator was affected by canker and severe frost until he perished.
Rights of Subjects against Rulers
(A) Justice:
The absolute authority of the unjust rulers, in most cases, is the result of people's rebellion against and disobedience to the Lord:
The Prophet (s) said: "Allah says: I am Allah. There is no god but I. I have created the kings whose hearts are in My hand. I will make the hearts of the kings full of mercy towards the people who obey Me, but I will make them full of rancor towards the people who disobey Me. Do not engage yourselves in reviling at the kings. You must repent to Me so that I will make their hearts full of compassion towards you."
(B) Righteousness
Because most people try to imitate them, it is obligatory upon rulers to be characterized by righteousness and well behavior so as to act as good examples for their subjects. Likewise, the rulers' deviation and misconduct push most people towards deviation.
(C) Lenience
Rulers are required to govern people with means of lenience and avoid persecution because despotism is the most disreputable manner of the rulers and the most injurious act towards the subjects.
The Prophet (s) said: "Lenience will beautify anything it accompanies and will disfigure anything it leaves." (al-wafi; part 3 page 86 (as quoted from al-kafi).
Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said: "Habituate your heart to mercy for the subjects and to affection and kindness for them. Do not stand over them like greedy beasts who feel it is enough to devour them, since they are of two kinds, either your brother in religion or one like you in creation. They will commit slips and encounter mistakes. They may act wrongly, willfully, or by neglect. So, extend to them your forgiveness and pardon, in the same way as you would like Allah to extend His forgiveness and pardon to you, because you are over them and your responsible Commander (Imam) is over you while Allah is over him who has appointed you through what He has given to you of the knowledge of His Book and the practices of His Prophet (s)."
Imam as-Sadiq (a) said: "The lenient can win anything he wants from people." (al-wafi; part 3 page 87 (as quoted from al-kafi).
Lenience is of no value unless it is done to the virtuous people. The evildoers who disturb the social peace do not deserve any sort of lenient treatment.
Aspects of Lenience
Aspects of lenience can be shown through the words and deeds of the rulers. Hence, the ruler must use good wording and avoid obscenity. He must treat the subjects with kindness through sympathizing with their pains and tragedies and hurrying for helping them in misfortunes and crises. Finally, the ruler must try his best to save the subjects from heavy taxes.
Results of Lenience
Lenience creates the subjects' love for their rulers and save them from the need for flattering and hypocrisy.
God praised His Messenger Mohammed (s) for his lenience:
"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. (3:159)"
(D) Selection of the Retinue
A ruler, no matter how well-qualified he is, cannot dispense with supporters who help him do his duties properly. Such supporters, in fact, have a great effect in guiding and conditioning the ruler's morals and opinions. From this cause, it is important for the ruler to select well-qualified and decent retinue so that they will positively help him and contribute in achieving the subjects' pleasure.
(E) Settlement with the Officials
Because most of them take pride in their authorities, officials usually challenge and treat people arrogantly and neglect their duties. Such behaviors will surely dissatisfy people with the ruling authorities. From this cause, it is necessary for rulers to supervise and call the officials to accounts so as to reward the dutiful and punish the negligent. By doing so, each individual will perform his duty towards the society properly, tragedies and varieties of flattering to the official will be eradicated, and all the social affairs will he prevailed by justice.
(F) Achievement of Social Happiness
The ruler is responsible for the moral and material development of the subjects. This happiness can be achieved when the ruler supervises the subjects, pays attention to their interests, secures their rights of security, justice, and luxury, raises their scientific, physical, social, moral, and structural levels, cares for the industrial, agricultural, and commercial development, and encourages the talents and abilities.
Rulers' Rights against Subjects
The ruler, in his capacity as the pioneer or the national development and civilization, enjoys definite rights imposed upon the subjects.
In the following words, Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) refers to the rights of the rulers:
"The ruled cannot prosper unless the rulers are sound, while the rulers cannot be sound unless the ruled are steadfast. If the ruled fulfill the rights of the ruler and the ruler fulfils their rights, then right attains the position of honor among them, the ways of religion become established, signs of justice become fixed and the Sunna gains currency. In this way time will improve, the continuance of government will be expected, and the aims of the enemies will be frustrated. But if the ruled gain sway over the ruler, or the ruler oppresses the ruled, then difference crops up in every word, signs of oppression appear, mischief enters religion and the ways of the Sunna are forsaken. Then desires are acted upon, the commands (of religion) are discarded, diseases of the spirit become numerous and there is no hesitation in disregarding even great rights, nor in committing big wrongs. In such circumstances, the virtuous are humiliated while the vicious are honored, and there are serious chastisements from Allah onto the people."
(1) Obedience:
Rulers enjoy the right of obedience against their subjects in the fields that achieve satisfaction of God. Obedience encourages rulers to treat their subjects sincerely while rebellion and disappointment are detestable manners that excite the rulers' rage and punishment.
Imam al-Kadhim said: "O Shia, do not humiliate yourselves by acting disobediently to the rulers. You should pray to Allah to perpetuate the just rulers and rectify the unjust. Your rectification will be achieved when your rulers are rectified. The just ruler is as same as the compassionate father. Hence, you should love for him that which you love for yourselves and reject for him that which you reject for yourselves." (Bihar ul-Anwar; Kitab ul-Ashara page 218 (as quoted from al-Amali).
(2) Support
A ruler cannot dispense with the support of his subjects who help him do his duties properly by means of intellectual and mental efforts.
(3) Advice
People of reason are encompassed by the duty of providing advices to the rulers when they tend to despotism enthralling the subjects. If such advices prove futility, then the intellectuals are not blamed. The Prophet (s) said: "The ruler is Allah's shadow on this earth and the shelter of the wronged. If the ruler governs with justice, he will be rewarded and the subjects must thank. If the ruler governs unjustly, he will be punished and the subjects must show tolerance until they are relieved." (Bihar ul-Anwar; Kitab ul-Ashara page 214 (as quoted from al-Amali).
Nowadays, the rulers have no longer accepted advices; therefore, the civilized governments have permitted criticizing the rulers by way of parliaments, press media, and memoranda.
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL NECESSITIES
Human being is the composition of two elements: body and spirit. These two elements are correlated and interacting. Man's happiness depends totally on the soundness of these two elements each of which has its own desires and necessities.
The physical necessities are the material factors that achieve growth, health, and vitality, such as food, drink, clothing, and other life necessities.
The mental necessities are the intellectual and spiritual desires, such as knowledge, freedom, justice, peace of mind, and the like.
For gaining sound body and soul, it is essential to respond to these necessities. For instance, weakness and ailment are the results of depriving the body of its necessities, while puzzlement, worry, and misery are the results of depriving the soul of its necessities.
Physical Rights
Briefly, the physical right is to attend to the health regulations, such as moderation in food and drink, evasion of alcoholic drinks and drugs, abstinence from sinful carnal desires, habituating to cleanness, practicing physical activities, treating of the ailments, following the physicians' advices, and the like matters.
Mental Rights
Many people ignore the mental health because they are far away from the spiritual values. Few groups of people, however, can realize the mental complications that appear in the form of recalcitrance, rebellion, inclinations to the commitment of sins, excessive fondness of materiality, and desertion of the mental values. In view of that, the treatment for the spiritual defects has been more difficult and more laborious. In the same way, scholars and intellectuals have paid a greater attention to self-discipline and mental education; therefore, it is necessary for people of reason to care for such affairs.
(1) Self-education
Self-education can be achieved by enlightening with the divine recognition and the true belief and supplying with the beneficial knowledges that lead to the right guidance. Naturally, human souls incline to the belief in God, tend to knowledge, and yearn for discovering mysteries of the cosmos and secrets of life.
(2) Well Intention
Man enjoys two forms: one is external and represented by his body, and the other is internal and represented by his mental and moral traits. Man's external form is the target of praise and dispraise, according to its beauty or ugliness. In the same way, the internal form is the target of praise or criticism, according to its goodness or evil.
Like beautifying the external forms, rational people are accustomed to beautify their internal forms by means of clinging to well intention and well behavior, and avoiding showing off, hypocrisy, envy, and the like vicious manners.
Amir ul-Mu'minin (a) said: "Scholars and wise people used to correspond to each other three statements only: As for those whose main concern is the (preparations for the) life to come, Allah will satisfy their worldly concerns. As for those who maintain their hidden intentions, Allah will maintain their public affairs. As for those who establish good relations between Allah and them, Allah will establish good relations between people and them." (Bihar ul-Anwar; 1/62 (as quoted from al-khissal, al-Amali, and Thawab ul-A'mal).
Imam as-Sadiq (a) said: "As for anyone who keeps secret a good deed, Allah will, sooner or later, reveal a good reputation for him. As for him who keeps secret an evil, Allah will, sooner or later, reveal an ill reputation for him." (al-wafi; 3/147 (as quoted from al-kafi).
(3) Self-control
Due to the charming instincts and desires, mentalities tend to deviation to take to the depths of corruption. Hence, it is essential to control and immunize oneself against sins:
"… And (I swear) by the soul and that (Power) which designed it and inspired it with knowledge of evil and piety, those who purify their souls will certainly have everlasting happiness and those who corrupt their souls will certainly be deprived of happiness. (91:7-10)"
"However, those who had feared their Lord and restrained their souls from acting according to their desires, Paradise will be their dwelling. (79:41)"
The Prophet (s): "The faith of those who enjoy three traits is perfect: those whose rage does not take them out of the right, whose satisfaction does not take to the wrong, and who pardon when they are powerful." (safinat ul-Bihar; vol. 2 page 550 (as quoted from al-khissal).
4. Self-Judgment
Self-judgment is to call oneself to account every day regarding the good-deeds as well as the wrongdoings. If the scale of acts of obedience overweighs the scale of acts of disobedience, we must thank God for such success. But if the scale of acts of disobedience overweighs the scale of acts of obedience, we must discipline ourselves by reproach and criticism for the irregularity and going astray from the courses of the obedience to God.
Source: Imam reza network

The Role of the Islamic State

As indicated in the theory of distribution, the Islamic State possesses the sole right of ownership of natural resources. Consequently, it has absolute control over all aspects of economic activities. The owner of natural resources or, primary commodities, according to Sadr, is the sole owner of the secondary commodities. Basically, the govern­ment of the Islamic State can determine the flow of wealth in society and define the economic process. The major objective of the Islamic State is to set up policies to develop the natural resources to the fullest extent to benefit the entire society.
To achieve such an economic objective, the State has the right to distribute social economic resources to attain the maximum amount of production that brings prosperity to all people. The State has the responsibility to provide for the minimum essential needs of society and ensure the economic welfare of the people. It is unlike the capital­ist State, which leaves that function to the fluctuations of the market. Nor it is like the Marxist‑Leninist theory that advocates State control of all aspects of economic activities. The Islamic State sets the direction of economic activities, while giving individuals the right of private ownership to achieve the social goal. The government's role is to over­see and regulate economic activities. Accordingly, Islam has left the government with a high degree of flexibility in developing new regula­tions to meet any emergent economic circumstances. Sadr called the absence of restrictions in the Shari'ah as manatiq al-faragh (the dis­cretionary sphere of the law), where the jurist; has the authority to make judgements and rulings according to the principles of jurispru­dence. [33] He considers this area of legislation on the part of the lawgiver as a realistic approach to ensure the development of economic activities and the means of production. The leadership of the Islamic State then could initiate any new legislation and regulations that it sees as appro­priate to the new emergent circumstances in order to meet the eco­nomic needs of the people and secure maximum utilization of eco­nomic resources. In other words, the Islamic government is free to adopt a wide range of economic policies from full control of the economy to free‑enterprise in order to achieve its social goals. In this case, the government must depend on the economists and experts to watch for tile best possible alternative policies to set the direction of the State economy (provided that it will not overrule tile theory of distribution.)
Such an unlimited role of government in the economy of the Islamic State is justified because of its substantial social involvement. The State is responsible for the social welfare of all people. [34] The economic resources in the Islamic State are distributed not only accord­ing to work and ability to produce, but also according to needs. Not all people in society are able to work, and some of those who do are not able to satisfy their needs. Sadr identifies three economic classes in society: (1) those who have the mental and/or the physical power to produce more titan their needs; (2) those who are able to work, but only to the extent of meeting their essential needs; and (3) those who do not have the mental or physical power to work productively. The government's responsibility is to provide for the needs of the latter two classes, which are not limited to essential human needs. The people in the Islamic State must live in dignity, i.e., their economic status must be raised to an acceptable general level. Therefore, the State must have the economic resources to be able to finance the social welfare programme.
Whatsoever spoils of war God has given to His Messenger from the people of the cities belong to God, and His Messenger, and the near kinsman, orphans the needy and the traveller, so that it be not a thing taken in turns among the rich of you. (59:7)
The verse, according to Sadr, indicates two things: first, the allocation of economic resources between the government and the needy people; second, die distribution of wealth in such a way as to prevent the rich from controlling the economy. Based on the above interpretation, Sadr argues that the main principles of Islamic economics are: (1) public (i.e., State) ownership of the means of production and dis­tribution, and (2) centralized economic planning. It is only through the control of all the community's resources by society that the common need of social security is guaranteed and the essential economic rights of the individual are insured. Accordingly, the legitimate Islamic government has the responsibility to make longterm plans for serving the common good and overcoming instabilities of the market.
Islam recognizes differences of income between people, but strives to create an equitable standard of living. To realize such a socio‑economic condition, Islam, although it specifies fixed taxes to be collected from prosperous people, establishes a social and moral mechanism. A lavish and extravagant style of living is totally dis­couraged in Islam. Islam also forbids waste in production and consump­tion in order to direct the resources of the economy to produce com­modities that satisfy the needs of all people and bring about social equity. The State also has the authority to regulate wages and prices so as to overcome the selfishness and greed of those who possess economic wealth and insure an equitable standard of living for all people. In sum, the major goal of the Islamic State is the prosperity of all citizens.
Notes:
[33]. The jurist, according to Sadr, shall not change any of the primary princi­ples of Islam, i.e., the sphere of halal and haram, that which is obligatory and prohibited, respectively; but he may act within the realm of “secondaryâ€‌ matters, i.e the mandub and makruh, that which is â€کdesirable’ and â€کreprehensible’, respectively. The jurst may forbid any mandub action, or encourage any makruh ones.
[34]. Iqtisaduna, 607
Author: T.M Aziz
Source: erfan.ir