Analyzing the position of the rule of Wujūb-i Hifz-i Nazm (The Obligation of Preserving the Social Order) and its limiting rules in Shiite jurisprudence

The rule of Wujūb-i Hifz-i Nazm, also known as Hurmat-i Ikhtilāl-i Nazm (The prohibition of Disrupting the Social Order) in Shia jurisprudence, is among the significant principles in jurisprudence, which has increasingly attracted the attention of contemporary Shia scholars. Each jurisprudential principle occupies a special place within the structure of Shia jurisprudence; Therefore, comprehending the prioritization and examining the relationship of each principle with other jurisprudential rules will lead us to a sound understanding of the comprehensive Shia intellectual thought. This principle, within approved Shi’a sources, derives its authority from three sources: the Qur’an, narrations (Hadith), and intellect (Aql). With regard to the Qur’anic foundations of this principle, two groups of verses may be identified. The first consists of those that prohibit corruption on earth, addressing humanity in general and forbidding all forms of disorder and disruption. The second group reflects the aversion of the Divine Lawgiver toward corruption and the corrupt; through their content, these verses serve to reinforce the principle of the obligation to preserve social order. In the case of narrations, two reports may be cited. The first is a narration from Imam al-Ridā (peace be upon him) concerning obedience to the authority (‘ulū al-amr), explained on the basis that without such obedience society would fall into disorder—an outcome not approved by the Divine Lawgiver. The second is from Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), regarding the marketplace of Muslims and the necessity of trust in individuals’ ownership; otherwise, the very structure of the Muslim market would collapse. The third foundation is reason (‘aql): given the established correlation between reason and the Religion, and the authoritative status of reason in independent rational judgments, the obligation to preserve social order and the reprehensibility of its disruption are thereby affirmed. However, within the comprehensive framework of Shia jurisprudence, the position of this principle is variable due to the dependency of rulings upon underlying expediency and detriments. Accordingly, four principles may be identified as restrictive and influential upon this rule, which—in situations of conflict with the principle of the obligation to preserve order—take precedence and consequently impair the operative function of this principle. The first principle is the preservation of the core of Islam (ḥifẓ biḍat al-Islām). Due to its paramount importance, this principle significantly influences many other jurisprudential rules. According to juridical texts, when the core of Islam is endangered, believers must refrain from any reservation regarding their lives or property and defend the foundation of Islam with all their might. Given this elevated status in jurisprudence, in cases of conflict with the principle of preserving the social order, the former takes precedence and restricts the applicability of the latter. The subsequent principle is the protection of the life and property of Muslims. This rule, depending on temporal circumstances, may both align with and conflict against the principle of preserving order. In certain contexts, the preservation of social order ensures the safeguarding of individual rights, lives, and possessions, as the negative consequences of disorder ultimately rebound upon the Muslim community itself. However, in cases of conflict between the two principles, the priority is accorded to the protection of life and property due to its greater significance, thereby superseding the obligation to preserve order. Another limiting and influential principle that undermines the function of preserving order is the rule of enjoining good and forbidding evil (amr bil-maʿrūf wa al-nahy ʿan al-munkar). Shi‘a scholars have stipulated the absence of harm or corruption as a condition for the obligation of this duty. However, there exist matters of such paramount importance in the view of the Divine Lawgiver—such as the preservation of the very foundations of Islam or the protection of the lives of a group of Muslims—that He would never consent to their abandonment. In such cases, individuals are required to employ all possible means in defense of these higher interests, and the condition of avoiding harm is set aside. It is therefore evident that, in circumstances where the principles of enjoining good and preserving order come into conflict, the former takes precedence, leaving no ground for the application of the latter and thereby impairing its function. Finally, the ruling prohibiting cooperation with tyrannical and illegitimate governments also represents a significant approach toward restricting the principle of preserving order. In such societies, Shi‘a communities, by turning away from the commands of the illegitimate ruler of their time, actively move toward discord and opposition against the ruling authority, thereby contributing to the disruption of the existing social order.

کلیدواژه ها:

Political jurisprudence ، Shiite jurisprudence ، expidenc ، Wujūb-i Hifz-i Nazm ، the preserving the order