Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi in an Interview with ABNA News Agency: Examination of the Jurisprudential and Legal Dimensions of the Zionist and American Enemies’ Use of the Territory of Arab and Islamic Countries

There is no doubt whatsoever that America’s act is an act of aggression, and if anyone places their country’s domain (land, air, or sea) at the disposal of that hostile, aggressive nation, this constitutes participation in the use of force and is unequivocally a criminal title.

According to the AhlulBayt International News Agency (ABNA), Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi, President of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence, provided a brief examination of the jurisprudential and legal dimensions of the Zionist and American enemies utilizing the facilities of the soil and territory of Arab and Islamic countries against the Islamic Republic of Iran in an interview with ABNA.

No Authorization Exists for US Military Action and Attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran

In this interview, he stated: There is no doubt whatsoever that America’s action is an act of aggression; the American attack is definitely an instance of aggression and contrary to the United Nations Charter, because it held no authorization from this international body, and even traditional US allies refused to accompany it in this regard, objecting that no authorization exists for US military action and attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore, the principle of America’s attack is an act of aggression contrary to international rules.

Nur Mufidi noted: The combination of American operations with the usurping regime of Israel further increased the intensity of this aggression—a regime whose essence is formed by aggression, and whose genesis fundamentally rested upon trespass and aggression against Islamic countries. Therefore, the partnership, accompaniment, and cooperation of these two large armies of the world in attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran magnified the severity of this criminal act, emphasizing it further.

He posited: Once we categorize the core of this attack as an action contrary to legal and international criteria, naturally any cooperation and accompaniment with this illegal, contrary-to-international-law act acquires a distinct character. On this basis, we wish to examine: What is the jurisprudential and legal ruling regarding countries that provided their airspace, land, or sea to these two aggressor regimes? Another key question is: What reaction can Iran demonstrate against the actions of countries that provided facilities to these two aggressor regimes?

US and Israeli Military Action Against Iran: A Cowardly Attack

The Professor of Advanced Classes at the Islamic Seminary stated: It is certain and established that the military action of America and Israel regarding Iran and the cowardly attack on Iran is contrary to many international rules; it is an illegal act, which is why many countries condemned it. Now, place this beside the action attempting assassination, assault, and trespass upon the supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran—bombing the headquarters and residence of the Supreme Leader resulting in his martyrdom. This constitutes a distinct criminal title separate from trespassing upon Iranian soil and attacks launched across various parts of the country.

He emphasized: If I were to list the criminal titles of America and Israel in these attacks, it would form a lengthy list. That is, America’s action is not merely attacking Islamic Republic soil as a single criminal act incompatible with international peremptory norms (jus cogens) and jurisprudential rules, but encompasses multiple criminal titles. I mentioned these points preliminarily so that the dimensions of those collaborations and the depth of the tragedy regarding placing territory at the disposal of these two aggressor regimes acquire greater clarity for the audience.

The Prohibition of Assisting a Hostile Enemy Based on the Rule of Assisting in Sin (I’anah ‘ala al-Ithm)

Responding to the first question, Ayatullah Nur Mufidi stated: In this brief opportunity, I will point to at least two or three jurisprudential rules. Of course, numerous Quranic verses are citable in this regard, which forms an independent topic. In Islamic jurisprudence, we possess the Rule of the Prohibition of Assisting in Sin and Aggression (Qa’idah Hurmat I’anah ‘ala al-Ithm wa al-‘Udwan), derived from the verse “And do not cooperate in sin and aggression” [Quran 5:2]. Aggression unequivocally falls under this verse as an instance of oppression (dhulm), and the attack by these two regimes on the Islamic Republic of Iran is unequivocally an instance of oppression, aggression, and sin. Therefore, whichever person, organization, or country provides services to aggressors (America and Israel)—placing its soil, air, or sea at their disposal—this constitutes assisting in aggression and oppression. This is a manifest instance of sin, and the retribution encompassing aggressors will seize them as well; there is no doubt about this.

The Prohibition of Assisting a Hostile Enemy Based on the Rule of Negation of Dominance (Nafy al-Sabil)

Pointing to another jurisprudential rule, he stated: Another rule applicable here is the Rule of Negation of Dominance (Qa’idah Nafy al-Sabil), derived from Quranic verses including “And never will Allah grant to the disbelievers over the believers a way [to overcome them]” [Quran 4:141]. According to this established rule accepted by both Shia and Sunni schools, if an action results in the dominance (sultan/sabil) of disbelievers over Muslims, it is unequivocally forbidden, void, and rejected. Setting aside this aggression itself, providing Islamic country territories to construct bases for their movements, controlling Islamic countries, and interfering in vital Islamic affairs is per se forbidden (haram) and illegitimate based on this verse and rule. What dominance is higher than America constructing military bases across these countries, interfering in internal affairs, and offering dictates on appointing/dismissing officials? This is beyond doubt an instance of sabil and dominance.

The Director of the Dar al-Ma’rifah Institute stated: Setting aside this attack and aggression, opening such a path for America is per se forbidden, void, and rejected. Now, if a doubled measure in the form of aggression against another Islamic country occurs, it exposes this sabil and dominance even more clearly. When an Islamic country permits disbelievers and arrogant powers to use its territory to attack an Islamic country—where military attack aims at dominating and subjugating that Islamic country—this cooperation, accompaniment, and providing bases is in reality opening a way for the dominance of disbelievers over Muslims, considered illegitimate and forbidden by all Islamic sects.

Examination of the Legal Dimensions of US and Israeli Aggression

Ayatullah Nur Mufidi pointed to certain legal dimensions of US/Israeli aggression and utilization of neighboring countries, stating: Regarding international rules applicable here, all are international peremptory norms (jus cogens) and binding. Multiple rules exist in the UN Charter stating no state is permitted to place its soil, airspace, ports, or bases at the disposal of another country seeking to use them for aggression against a third state. I mention three or four items: the principle prohibiting the use of force—the cornerstone of modern international law—where Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force per se. A country attacking another is prohibited; furthermore, providing soil to attack another country is deemed participation in the use of force. That is, the core act is prohibited; if someone places their domain (land, air, or sea) at that country’s disposal, it becomes participation in the use of force, which is unequivocally a criminal title.

Referring to UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), he stated: Article 3 explicitly states that if a state permits its territory to be used by another state against a third state to commit an act of aggression, this act itself constitutes an act of aggression. As I noted, America’s action was an act of aggression; naturally, when established as such, any cooperation by providing territory constitutes participation in the use of force. Under this article, this is participation in an act of aggression, explicitly stating that such a country is no longer neutral but recognized as an aggressor. In the law governing state responsibility, if a state commits an internationally wrongful act, assisting that state knowingly creates international responsibility. That state cannot claim “I bear no fault”; it is accounted as assisting aggression and breaching a peremptory norm (jus cogens). Even if that state holds bilateral cooperation agreements (defense, economic, political) with that foreign state, it cannot cite those agreements to cooperate in wrongful operations to this extent.

Ayatullah Nur Mufidi noted: Other principles dictate that states must recognize each other’s national sovereignty; if a state aids another by placing airspace or ports at the disposal of a country breaching that sovereignty, this itself constitutes a breach of national sovereignty. Likewise, principles of good neighborliness dictate that any action constituting participation in aggression breaches those neighborly principles.

Collaborating Countries with the Hostile Enemy Are Legitimate Targets in Defense

He stated: Now, against this, based on established jurisprudential rules, Islamic Shari’ah, and international law, an attacked nation holds the right of self-defense. Legitimate defense (difa’-e mashru’) is discussed extensively in Islamic jurisprudence and international law. Legitimate defense means if a country encounters foreign attack, it is rational, logical, and religious, with no doubt that the attacked nation can and must defend itself. The question now is: If a country assists the aggressor, providing its territory and permitting an attack against an Islamic country from its land, does legitimate defense apply against the collaborating country as well? Legitimate defense unequivocally applies to this action as well.

Explaining this point, Nur Mufidi stated: One method for an attacked country to defend itself is targeting the origin and source of attacks and aggressions. When a facility serves as the launch site for missiles, aircraft takeoffs, or troop movements launching attacks, defense does not mean sitting passively at home deflecting incoming strikes. Legitimate defense extends in scope to destroying the roots of attack and aggression.

Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi explained the quality of legitimate defense: When US bases in these Islamic countries serve as missile launch sites, aircraft takeoff pads, logistical support, and refueling hubs, it is self-evident that Iran facing this aggression must blind the origin of the attack. Acting otherwise causes irreparable damage, tantamount to forfeiting defense beforehand. Therefore, from Shari’ah and jurisprudential standpoints, legitimate defense is Iran’s undeniable right, and responsibility for financial or human losses lies upon that country proportional to its collaboration. That country cannot disclaim responsibility for spilled blood.

He stated: In the Rule of Causation (Qa’idah al-Tasbib), when cause for liability (dhaman) is established—whether regarding destruction of property or bloodshed—Iran can demand compensation (gharamat); this is among accepted rules. Legally, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, an attacked state holds the inherent right of self-defense. It is clear that defense as an inherent right against a collaborating country encompasses striking the enemy’s attack centers and sources, constituting an instance of legitimate defense.

Collaboration with the US and Israel Is Unequivocally Rejected in Shari’ah and Jurisprudence

Summarizing his remarks, Ayatullah Nur Mufidi stated: In total, it appears that the actions of these countries from jurisprudential and Shari’ah angles are forbidden (haram), rejected, and void, while from a legal perspective this collaboration is utterly indefensible. Iran holds the right of self-defense against this all-out invasion and collaboration with the enemy. Thus, I see no theoretical problem, and you observe that many jurists and legal scholars—Muslim and non-Muslim—acknowledge this matter, barring certain political considerations in the world casting shadows over scientific expression, as seen in statements by Al-Azhar or the Muslim World League (Rabitat al-‘Alam al-Islami). Such political considerations dominated certain entities, preventing them from stating the truth.