|
... the science of peace |
|
|
Q:
When is it permissible to violate the laws of the state or to rebel
against it? And is it lawful to encroach on its properties? For more info check:
* Taken from: www.bayynat.org
Q: Does the leadership of the state or
the party have the right to decide on whether to establish relations
with a certain party or not; or is this a matter that needs the
consultation of the leading jurist or the religious authority?
A: In such cases, the authority figure
whose legitimacy is based on the legitimate aspects of jurisdiction
must be consulted. On the other hand, the said authority figure must
not be arbitrary in his decisions or opinions especially with respect
to the matters in which he has no significant experience; otherwise he
would lose the justness upon which his jurisdiction is founded. Nay,
he must have recourse to the people of experience who could determine
the good and the evil in this regard whether the question was at the
level of the relation between two states or at the level of the
relation between an Islamic movement or party and another state or
party. Accordingly, we must resort to those who are endowed with
legitimacy. And it goes without saying that between a jurist and a
non-jurist who both had treated the issue, the opinion of the jurist
remains more reliable provided that he decides on his actions and
attitudes after discussing the said issue with the people of
expertise.
The limits and specifications of the just state
Q: How can we define the just state in
terms of limits and specifications? And what is the difference between
such a state and the oppressive one?
A: The just state is the one that enjoys
a legitimate leadership according to the understanding and
characteristics of a legitimate leadership related to the various
jurisprudences in this context.
The just state is the one that enjoys a just law, meaning that it goes
in conformity with the legitimate rule.
The just state is the one in which rules and judgments are rightly and
justly implemented, meaning that observing people’s abidance by the
law must be carried out through just and legitimate means.
The oppressive state is the one that has no legitimate leadership, no
Islamic law and no Islamic practices.
Q: Generally speaking, can we consider
the state that people had democratically chosen and recognized a
legitimate state or not?
A: This issue varies according to the
different jurisprudential lines concerning the question of legitimacy.
In fact, if we adopt the principle of consultation as a way and mode
of ruling that carries legitimacy, then the leadership of the state
must be elected through the process of consultation; that is, the said
leadership must be principally and firmly based on the said
consultation. Sometimes, the result of this process could meet
people’s consent on a certain person who fulfills the required and
adopted legitimate specifications. The core issue is not about people
choosing whomsoever they deem suitable or favorable, for he, actually,
might turn out to be an unbeliever who does not embody the legitimate
requirements that have to be found in the ruler. Therefore, people’s
consent does not generate legitimacy; and even if we resort to
consultation, the leadership must meet all the required standards and
conditions that need to be present in the ruler.
Embracing the principle of the rule of the jurists, however, means
that the jurist must be subjected to tests and experiments by people
in order to determine whether he, amongst all other jurisprudents, is
worthy of being appointed to their leadership. So, the jurist has to
obtain the acceptance and unanimity of people because that is the
standard that furnishes his rule with effectiveness or value, gives
him authenticity as a ruler and makes him the authority that ought to
be obeyed as in conformity with the principle of the jurists¡¯ rule.
Therefore, we do not believe that the consecutive governments that the
current regimes are witnessing could be considered as just governments
because their leaderships do not enjoy legitimacy (according to the
recognized jurisprudential specifications). Besides, the law in force
is not an Islamic one not to mention that the way law is implemented
on the ground does not comply with the Islamic conceptions and
standards.
Q: Let’s say there is a state that
raises the slogan of Islam but does not comply with some of the
Islamic laws such as dealing with usury, not sticking to
restrictions… etc. Do we consider such a state a just one?
A: If the fact that it does not abide by some of the Islamic
religious laws comes as a result of a compelling circumstance that
provides a legal condition based on the laws of the struggle between
good and evil; that does not deny the said state its Islamic mold
because its non-Islamic behavior is imposed by a temporal Islamic
strategy. As for the case when the state does not comply with the
authority of these laws; well, that does not deny it its Islamic
characteristic either. However, it would be considered a deviating
state, which means that it is an Islamic state but which lives
deviation from what is right with relation to some of its laws. This
deviation might take the form of subjecting the Muslims of such states
to the non-Islamic Personal Status Law and that is regarded as an act
of unbelief. As for subjecting non-Muslims to the above stated law -
with respect to their laws -; that is governed by the covenants
concluded between Muslims and others.
Breaching the laws of a state and encroaching on
its properties
A: We do not deliver any legal, advisory
opinion that permits taking over unbelievers’ properties; was this
unbeliever a state or a person. As for rebelling against the laws of a
certain state; well, if this state oppresses its people and Muslims
were part of that people; on that account, Muslims have the right to
fight to overthrow the government or the ruling power. However,
Muslims must not contravene the codes and regulations of the country
they are living in if that would disrupt the established order; all
the more so, they could be forbidden from doing so.
Q: Some jurists make it permissible to
encroach on the properties of the non-Islamic state and to take
possession of it after obtaining the authorization of the legitimate
ruler, considering that those properties belong to an unknown owner.
What is your opinion?
A : We have two conflicting opinions with
regard to the issue of the state’s properties. The first one
restricts the property to the sound and chosen person. It further
holds that body corporate or legal persons such as states,
organizations, parties or mosques have no possessions. Thus, what is
called the properties of the state does not actually belong to the
state because the state represents a moral entity and consequently it
does not own. On that account, the properties are considered to be
belonging to some unknown owner, and in such cases the fate of this
kind of properties is left to the legitimate ruler to determine.
On the other hand, the second opinion maintains that a state owns
properties. However, the official and formal approval of the
legitimate ruler must be obtained in order for those who run the
country. If the state was not authorized by the legitimate ruler, it
won’t actually be legitimate and in consequence does not own any
property; and if it did, such ownership would be deemed illegitimate
and fall under the classification of the properties belonging to an
unknown owner.
Nevertheless, when jurists find that the properties of the state are
of an unknown owner in both of the above mentioned cases, they do not
authorize their followers to encroach on or dispose of the state’s
properties especially if that might lead to a public disorder and
chaos.
A third opinion believes that there is no difference between the state
and any other person with regard to owning properties. It,
furthermore, upholds that there is no distinction between the material
human living party - that is, the natural person - and the artificial
person; from this perspective, this opinion says that the state owns
properties because it represents a recognized artificial or juridical
existence well established inside our mind and conscience. Therefore,
whenever we speak about evidences proving that the property owned by a
person or a party must be respected, the properties of the state would
also be included and implied.
Q: Amidst all these opinions, what do you
personally think?
A: On the one hand, I believe that states
have possessions and the properties belonging to a state are regarded
as those of an identified and known owner. On the other hand, I think
that the properties of the state show differences even if we say that
the properties the owner of which is unknown are left to the
legitimate ruler to decide about. In fact, we could say that the
properties of the state are the properties of the nation and based on
that, we must have recourse to the legitimate ruler in his capacity as
responsible for the nation’s properties not in his capacity as
responsible for the properties the owner of which is unknown.
| with Christians and Jews |