Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Session 19: Distinctive Feature of Islam in the Realm of Politics and Government

Three views on determining the special function of 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

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

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

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 forMuslim 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.

References

1.Surah an-Nahl 16:90.

2.Surah adh-Dhariyat 51:56.

3.Surah an-Nahl 16:90.

Session 20: A New Perspective on the Station of Law and Government

An organic perspective on society

In previous sessions, the main subjects of legislation in Islamic political establishment and government were discussed. In order to know the station of political and government organs in society according to Islam, we shall mention some similarities and analogies, to better comprehend the essence of the subject.

Since time immemorial, scholars have likened society to the human body, saying: Just as the human body is composed of various members and organs and enormous cells, society consists of various entities and institutions with numerous parts. Each part is made up of individuals each of which is equivalent to a cell of the human body. Of course, this analogy is sometimes exaggerated.

Usually, in theoretical and practical works and activities, it is difficult to identify the correct and moderate extent of this above analogy. Some say: Just as the human body is composed of diverse organs which are different in their natural constitution and can perform only a specific function, so are members of society different from one another in accordance with their essence of creation. Every member of society has been created for a specific function and has to perform only that function and not go beyond that.

For instance, we know that in the beginning all cells of the body come into being from a single cell and it is through the mutation of that cell that different types of constructive cells come into being. Some cells have delicate and tender structures that compose organs such as the eye and brain. Some have strong structures that compose the bones. The cells of bones can never be used in lieu of cells of the eye. Neither can the function and duty of the eye be performed by the bone. They have come from the same single cell but after mutation, the mutated cells become so varied that each of them can perform only the function determined for it, and they cannot be interchanged.

They say that essentially, members of society are created diversely for various tasks. One member cannot perform another’s function. Since time immemorial, thinkers and philosophers have believed that the races and classes of society have specific frontiers, and each of them has been created for a certain work-for example, the black race has been created for heavy physical work and the white or yellow race for mental work. They imagined that the difference of color and race makes each person perform a specific function. This analogy is an exaggeration, which neither science nor philosophy and religion confirm or believe it anymore.

Islamic approach on organic perspective of society

From the Islamic viewpoint, all people in terms of their physical and psychological constitution can render diverse works in society. Of course, talents and capabilities are divergent and not of the same level. But it is not true that a boundary has been drawn between two races which they can not

go beyond, and that the black can not perform the functions of the white and vice versa.

According to Islam, there are similarities between society and the human body that can be used in explaining the conditions of groups and individuals, but to compare society with body organs with diverse natural compositions and conclude that members of society are naturally and structurally different from one another is not correct. Among the new sociologists there are also those who say that society is also an organism and the different strata and echelons of society resemble the organs of a body, and its natural relationship, unites individuals. Seemingly, this is also an extreme view.

Is the relationship among members of a society exactly like the relationship of cells that compose an organ in a body? Is this analogy between the cells and members of society acceptable?

To prove that society has such a relationship is extremely onerous. However, there are similarities between society and individuals that can be used to know the social standings of individuals. In his famous poem, Sa‘di has described these similarities in this manner:

بنى آدم اعضاى يكديگرند كه در آفرينش ز يك گوهرند

ﭼو عضوى به درد آورد روزگار دگر عضوها را نماند قرار

The Children of Adam who are of one essence in creation are parts of one another.

When one part feels pain, the other parts do not remain at ease.

Undoubtedly, this similarity establishes the need for cooperation among members of society and awakens man’s emotions to strengthen his relationship with other individuals, sympathize and cooperate with them, and not deprive them of the resources he may acquire. This reasonable similarity that can prove very useful and is rooted in traditions reported from the Noble Messenger (s ) and Imam as-Sadiq (‘a ). The tradition of Imam as-Sadiq (‘a ) is as follows:

أَلْمُؤْمِنُونَ في تَبَارِّهِمْ وَ تَرَاحُمِهِمْ وَ تَعَاطُفِهِمْ كَمِثْلِ ٱلْجَسَدِ إِذَا ٱشْتَكىٰ تَدَاعىٰ لَهُ سَائِرُهُ بِالسَّهَرِ وَٱلْحُمّىٰ.

“In performing acts of kindness, sympathy and benevolence, the faithful are like a single body. When one part feels pain, the other parts remain restless without sleep day and night.” 1

As you see, His Holiness compares the Islamic society and the faithful to a body and Sa’di has generalized it and likened the human to a body.

An analogy is meant to highlight that aspect in one being whose existence in the other is not well known. Therefore, not all attributes and qualities of one thing [mushabbahun bih ] should be passed to the thing likened [mushabbah ]. For example, if we describe a brave man as a lion, it means that we want to highlight his quality of bravery. It does not imply that he also has a mane, or walks on all fours!

Ways of comparing society to the human body

Society and an individual can be compared to the human body as possessing diverse yet well-coordinated systems and organs that are contributory in the subsistence and growth of man. Society also has various institutions that generally facilitate its movement. For example, there is a system in the body called circulatory system which facilitates the circulation of blood in the body and whose center is the heart. The heart pumps the blood which is produced through the activity and coordination of the spleen, stomach and liver. In the end, through the veins, arteries and finally aorta, the blood reaches the cells and makes their subsistence possible.

The circulatory system has organs such as the heart, veins and arteries, which transmit the blood throughout the body. The blood that flows in the veins must have oxygen so as to ensure the subsistence of cells. As such, the lungs and other organs of the respiratory system provide oxygen to the body which, together with the blood, is distributed throughout the body. Similarly, the food nutrients produced by the digestive system are transferred to the blood. So, by the coordination and connection of the three systems-circulatory, respiratory and digestive-it becomes possible for us to survive.

Apart from the abovementioned systems, there are also other systems that guide, organize and control the activities and processes of the digestive system. For example, in the body there is a set of glands with specific functions and activities; a set of nerves that conduct their activities under the command of the mind and stimulate organs such as the stomach and others which function with the help of the nervous system.

As you can see, the steadfastness, consistency and subsistence of the body depends on the activity of various systems which engage in their own activities through a particular order and coherence and in full coordination with one another. We can compare society’s institutions and organs to the body’s systems and organs and create an analogy. For instance, the process of production of food and its distribution to the whole body is similar to the economic institutions of society. They produce the materials needed by society and then distribute them by means of distributing agents. This is exactly like the blood that is produced in the body and then sent to the organs by means of the heart and blood-vessels.

If there is malfunctioning in the circulatory system, due to the obstruction in some veins and the blood cannot circulate easily, the body will get sick. Sometimes, a part, which is deprived of food, experiences decay and is eliminated. In so many cases, it must be removed from the body, and in so many cases also, malfunctioning of blood circulation paralyzes the body. So, in order to maintain the wellbeing and life of the body, the blood must flow in the veins easily and without difficulty. Similarly, in society capital and needed items should always be available.

If the capital is confined and forestalled somewhere and its flow obstructed, the economic system-which includes the production and distribution of agricultural and industrial products and administrative services-malfunctions in such a manner that society’s needed items do not easily flow in society, making it ill, lethargic or even bankrupt. This analogy is correct and reasonably acceptable.

Likewise, the government apparatus can also be likened to the body’s nervous system which is actually the body’s commander and comprised of two parts, viz. sensory and motor. Like the body, society is in need of the brain to take decisions and give commands as well as workers to execute the command within the organs of society and stir them to action. For this reason, government apparatus consists of two vital branches: (1) the legislative branch which enacts/makes rules after identifying society’s interests and means of providing them, and (2) the executive branch which implements the rules and regulations.

Our sensory nerves and organs pave the ground for cognition while our motor nerves pave the ground for execution in our body. The preliminaries of the senses are provided by the sensory nerves while the brain is the tool for thinking and judgment. Of course, the soul of man has the power of thought, but its tool is the brain.

By means of the brain, the mental operation is conducted and commands executed by the motor nerves. One is the mental force of the soul which engages in acquiring knowledge and information while the motor nerves constitute the soul’s activating force. This system is similar to the government apparatus, and its status and role in society can be assessed.

Elucidating the station of government in society through the organic perspective

Once we look at our body organs and their coordinated activities we realize clearly that we have no hand in making those organs and in organizing their activities. Scientifically speaking, nature has created them and stimulates them to move and function. But in religious parlance, we say that it is God who has created those organs with specific features, capabilities, talents, and potentials. He is capable of bringing about a body with such magnificence, complexity and elegance. And higher than that, the nature of our soul is much more complex, magnificent and far-reaching than that of the body.

Since God has placed this body at our disposal, we should know the proper way of using it. We should use our body in such a manner that we enjoy a long life replete with good health and happiness, and not injure it. If we eat or drink unwholesome foods, and not abstain from drinking liquor and using narcotic drugs, can we have a healthy body and a long prosperous life? Obviously, the answer is negative. That is, we have to limit freedom in actions which we like and not eat just anything we desire. We have to pay attention also to the type, quality and quantity of food we eat, determine the time of eating, follow health prescriptions for, if we do not our lives will be seriously endangered.

Regarding what we pointed out on the systematic system of the body organ and the need to observe the health prescriptions, a doctor or medical expert tells us, “Do not eat such-and-such and do not consume alcohol and narcotic drugs because these will cause your nervous system to malfunction and destroy your kidneys and liver,” how should we react to him? Shall we thank him for guiding us and showing us the way to sound health, or shall we complain to him for minding our business? The one who places the

health prescriptions at our disposal is rendering a very valuable service and showing us the way to sound health and prosperity. So, we need to be grateful.

The case is similar in connection with society. If someone says, “I cannot understand the meaning of life at all and I do not want to live, or it makes no difference to me whether I am alive or not!” he will certainly be treated as unintelligent. If he did not want to observe the instructions, according to the law of cause and effect his actions will end up in either ailment or death. If a person has no aim in life, he should consign his fate to the turn of events.

He should eat whatever he likes and do whatever he wants, and thus, whatever is supposed to happen will happen, and he will get sick and die. But anyone who has an aim in life and wants to live long, enjoy his health to the fullest, so as to acquire spiritual growth and perfection cannot afford to be indifferent to medical instructions. That is, he will have to limit his desires in accordance with the instructions dictated by medical experts.

If we assume that society is like an aimless person for whom life and death are meaningless, who wants neither survival nor autonomy, nobility nor honor, identity nor integrity, and believes in neither spirituality nor the hereafter, such a society can certainly do whatever it likes, has absolute freedom and does not need to observe any rules.

No purposeful work is possible without rules, and to achieve an aim is impossible with absolute freedom. If there is any aim in an activity, there will also be limits. The preliminaries of every activity must be done according to specific laws and orders, even if the aim is death.

If a society has any aim, it should observe rules. That is, it must restrict its freedom and restrain its desires. If it does whatever it likes, it will never achieve its aim. If it has no aim, it will not be in need of any regulations, and such a society is like the very aimless individual who will be condemned to death after a short while. Therefore, if a society wants to survive, grow, advance and possess honor and eternal bliss, it must have precise rules and regulations.

The question here is this: How should these rules be enacted? Who should enact them? Are these rules a set of real things that must be discovered? Or, are they merely a set of conventions and traditions that must be enacted and credited? This question is very important in the philosophy of government.

In nature we have a series of real rules which have been discovered by scholars. That is, a certain microbe causes a certain disease is based upon a real relationship that exists between a real cause and effect which scientists have discovered and arranged in the form of a law and placed it at the disposal of all mankind. In a bid to remain immune from the disease, you have to avoid the microbe. In case the disease becomes rampant, people should be vaccinated to become immune to that disease.

Similarly, if society wants to survive it has to observe certain rules. Do those rules really exist in nature which must be discovered by certain people? Or, are they conventional, extrinsic and imaginary things that can be changed in order to win the approval of people? This question is fundamental and vital.

Real benefit and harm as the bedrock of law

Is there really a relationship between security and the prevention of stealing? That is, if we want to have security, should there really be no stealing? Or, is there a conventional relationship between the two and is it possible to have security and stealing take place at the same time? Does killing have a real relationship with insecurity? That is, if a person has the right to kill anybody he likes, will it really lead to insecurity or, is it a conventional relationship? Does faith really cause tranquility of the heart or, is this also a conventional thing? Will sexual freedom really cause the breakdown of families or, is it also a conventional thing? One day, it is said in a society that sexual relationship is free because the people there accept it.

Another day, it is said there that it is restricted because some or a majority of people do not approve it. So, is the status of this law only a matter of preference and must the law be enacted according to their preference? Or, is it based upon a real relationship? That is, if there is sexual freedom, physical and psychological ailments will become rampant. The family unit will break down. Psychological diseases in men and women will become rampant. Undisciplined, unwanted, corrupt, and delinquent children will be born.

Some believe that social contracts are based on real benefits and harm. It is not true that they are based on public preference. In case the consumption of alcohol is unchecked, nervous and heart diseases will become widespread. If smoking is widely practiced, related sicknesses will also increase. The same is true in the case of social problems. If the relationship between man and woman is free, unconditional and unrestricted, it will have dire consequences for society, ample examples of which can be witnessed in Western countries.

So, in enacting the law we should pay attention to its real outcome and impact. It is not that we have to act upon the demand of people and see whether the majority want sexual freedom or not, or whether the majority vote for the legalization of narcotic drugs or not. Should the law be enacted in this manner? Or, should we discover what harms the narcotic drugs really bring to man even though a majority of people agree on their consumption? In your opinion, which way is correct? Should the social laws be based on the majority vote or, should they have a real and true foundation? That is, is social benefit and harm real and true, or is it merely conventional and subjective thinking?

Since the time of Hume in the Western world, epistemology says that dos and don’ts and moral concepts do not have external reality and are devoid of rationality and argument. “Good” and “bad” are preferences of people. If a person likes pink, he cannot be questioned why he likes it because one person likes a color while another person likes another. Social issues are not as subjective as choice of colors.

There is a real relationship between the actions of people and their impact upon their individual, social, material and spiritual life, and in reality, they are cause and effect. Actions of people in the individual and social context bring about felicity or perdition. As such, it must be seen which action causes felicity so as to be permitted, and which action causes

perdition and misery so as to be prohibited and law be enacted accordingly. Then, this question will be posed: Who knows best the real benefit and harm? We Muslims believe that God knows best.

In the dimension of legislation, therefore, the view of Islam is that there is a cause-and-effect relationship known as “benefit” and “harm” between the actions of people in the individual and social context and their outcome, as prosperity or wretchedness in this world and the hereafter. This benefit and harm must be identified and law enacted accordingly, and not according to the whims of the majority of people.

Reference

1. Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, vol. 12, p. 424.