Session Forty-Six, The Proofs of the Inherent Dignity of the Human Being

Session Forty-Six
The Proofs of the Inherent Dignity of the Human Being — The Second Proof: Traditions (Riwayāt) — The Conflicting Traditions — Examining the Recent Six Groups — The Conclusion of the General Response — The Specific Responses to the Six Groups
May 26, 2025

Summary of the Previous Session

We noted that the recent six groups of traditions that conflict with those indicating inherent dignity have a common and general response, which can be presented by considering the seven points. If we examine the mentioned traditions with these points in mind, many of the traditions that might, at first glance, appear to conflict with those indicating inherent dignity will be excluded from the scope of conflict.

The Conclusion of the General Response

According to the general response, a vast spectrum of non-Muslims are naturally excluded from the scope of the mentioned traditions by virtue of the noted points. Their case is restricted to a highly limited group, which is itself justifiable; because those who lead the propagation of disbelief and false beliefs, harbor hatred and hostility toward religious people and religious leaders, practice obstinacy and denial, and rise in opposition out of stubbornness, or those who resort to practical opposition and warfare against Muslims—they are punished and penalized for committing these acts, just like criminals who are punished for committing crimes, and this is also a rational matter. Of course, they are dealt with to the extent of their crime, otherwise attention to some of their natural needs and their fulfillment is among their natural rights, which still remains in full force. That is, the proportion between crime and punishment is observed, and this shows that there is truly no conflict between these traditions and those indicating dignity. This was the general response we mentioned, and we had a general conclusion.

Specific Responses

In addition to this common general response, we can also mention specific justifications for most of these traditions.

1. The Fifth Group

Regarding the fifth group, which concerned hatred toward disbelievers and enemies of the religion and avoiding heart-felt love for them, it was briefly pointed out in the previous session that this tradition and its likes actually indicate that the description of “disbelief” is involved in this ruling. When it says “Whoever loves a disbeliever…” (من أحب کافراً) or “Whoever hates a disbeliever…” (من ابغض کافراً), it is as if the description of being a disbeliever is involved in the love and hatred. That is, one detests the disbeliever for his disbelief (li-kufrihi), but other than from the aspect of disbelief, it is not so. What is meant is not a personal love, a personal liking, or a personal hatred; rather, this traces back to the fact that this can lead to the strengthening of disbelief and the disbeliever, and it can also have a spiritual and psychological impact on the person who loves or hates, and from this perspective, it has been prohibited to warn him against sliding toward disbelief and to protect him.

2. The Sixth Group

The sixth group, which comprises traditions indicating the permissibility of slander against certain individuals, especially the people of doubt and innovation, may not be considered conflicting if we observe several points:

First: The tradition is from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), who said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) said: ‘When you see the people of doubt and innovation after me…'” (إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ أَهْلَ الرَّيْبِ وَ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ بَعْدِي). The people of doubt and innovation existed during the era of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) himself, but when he says “the people of doubt and innovation after me” and speaks of them with such severity, he means those who, after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family), laid the foundation of a fundamental and deep deviation in religion. This is to increase the sensitivity of Muslims toward this group, lest the same fate that befell the followers of Moses and Jesus—where religion was afflicted with innovations and distortions—befall Muslims as well. Therefore, those who were the basis and foundation of deviation do not have the same effect as any person of doubt, even if at a very weak level.

Second: He states: “manifest dissociation from them” (فَأَظْهِرُوا الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْهُمْ); manifesting dissociation from the people of innovation poses no problem, and its purpose is to separate the ranks.

Third: “and increase your revilement of them, speaking against them, and criticizing them” (وَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ سَبِّهِمْ وَ الْقَوْلِ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةِ). What makes the matter somewhat difficult here is the abundance of revilement (sab), which requires justification. An abundance of revilement means frequent insulting and bad-mouthing.

Question:

Professor: I explained and said that this is directed at a specific class after the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) who laid the foundation of all deviations until the Day of Resurrection; as if he does not want to say any absolute person of doubt and innovation. That is, the mother of all innovators who are the root of all doubts, skepticism, and hesitation.

The abundance of revilement is perhaps in contrast to those proofs that prohibit revilement, both in the Quran and in the traditions, and by the contextual clue of “speaking against them and criticizing them” (وَ الْقَوْلِ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةِ), meaning reveal their weaknesses, defects, and problems and speak about them frequently. Because in the Quran, reviling the gods of the polytheists is prohibited as it leads them to revile Allah as well. Or, for instance, the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) prohibited reviling the enemy troops and the troops of Muʿāwiyah. We have these explicit prohibitions; therefore, we must either interpret “increase your revilement of them” (اکثروا من سبهم) to have another meaning, or it was said because they were designated and specific founders of deviation until the Day of Resurrection, rather than encompassing a wide spectrum of human beings. Therefore, the exception of these individuals in the matter of revilement does not damage those proofs. “Speaking against them and criticizing them” (وَ الْقَوْلِ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةِ) means speaking of their weaknesses and problems, so that people are not deceived.

Fourth: “and slander them” (وَ بَاهِتُوهُمْ). This is a subject of dispute: does it mean to falsely accuse (to slander) them, or to confound/stupefy (bāhitū) them? Some scholars, such as Fayḍ al-Kāshānī and ʿAllāmah Majlisī, have mentioned the latter meaning. Therefore, this is open to discussion, and it is not certain that it truly means to falsely accuse (slander).

Fifth: The justification mentioned for these actions, which is “so that they do not crave corruption in Islam” (كَيْلَا يَطْمَعُوا فِي الْفَسَادِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ), is very important. With those who seek corruption in Islam and crave and enter this arena whenever they find an opportunity, these confrontations are carried out so that it does not lead to that. Thus, this is in fact the punishment of those who seek corruption in religion; otherwise, regarding the general public, the aspect of dignity remains.

Sixth: Even regarding them, it has not said that they have no right to eat and drink and that their natural needs should not be met; rather, solely because they seek corruption in religion, this becomes the punishment for the behaviors and actions they perform.

Seventh: “and the people beware of them and do not learn from their innovations” (وَ يَحْذَرَهُمُ النَّاسُ وَ لَا يَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْ بِدَعِهِمْ); that is, so that people beware and do not acquire any color or scent from their innovations.

Therefore, with these explanations, this tradition also does not conflict with the mentioned traditions.

3. The Seventh Group

As for the seventh group, which comprises traditions indicating the permissibility of cursing (laʿn):

First: There is a disagreement as to whether cursing is considered an insult or not. Some believe that cursing is not an insult or a humiliation, because cursing is seeking distance from Allah’s mercy. That is, in reality, it is a type of imprecation; imprecation can take different forms. In the view of many individuals, both in general custom and specific custom, cursing is not among the instances of insult, humiliation, or something that causes the degradation or weakening of a person’s dignity. When one says “May Allah curse him” (لعنه الله) or “May Allah curse you” (لعنک الله), it means: may you be far from Allah’s mercy, or may he be far from Allah’s mercy. Therefore, if we do not consider cursing to be an insult, it no longer conflicts with the traditions indicating dignity.

Second: Even if we say that cursing is somehow considered an insult, and seeking distance from Allah’s mercy is an insult to the accursed person, what is discussed is the permissibility of cursing, not its obligatoriness; that is, they have not made cursing mandatory upon the legally responsible person. They have given this choice to the human being to seek distance from Allah’s mercy for some human beings. This is different from it being made an obligation. Yes, in some cases, Allah Himself expresses this curse, or the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family): “Those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse” (أُولئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهَ وَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُون‏) [Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:159]. Allah curses them, but does distancing some human beings from Allah’s mercy, or seeking the distance of some from Allah’s mercy, negate inherent dignity? Does it conflict with inherent dignity? It seems that it is not so, and this is in fact the ontological effect and the recompense of some of the actions and deeds they perform in this world.

Question:

Professor: “Increase the revilement” (اکثروا السب), by the contextual clue of what precedes and succeeds it, does not mean revilement in its popular and literal sense; rather, it means speak of his evils and reveal them. … Carrying it to this meaning with the contextual clue has no problem at all. I mentioned that, in the first place, both revilement can be interpreted to mean that, and slander… then we said, even if we concede that revilement is in its literal sense and slander is in its literal sense, this is not a generality, but rather relates to designated and specific individuals. Therefore, its conflict with those traditions is resolved … because they are, as it were, excepted. However, even they, if they need food, if they need clothing, or certain natural rights born of their natural needs, which we shall address later, must be provided for, and they enjoy those rights within that specified scope. However, to deprive them of all these rights beyond the extent of the crime they committed—it is not so … The scope in which we believe in inherent dignity is a specific and clear scope; this is other than the scope claimed today for the inherent dignity of human beings, such that, for example, a man can marry a man; certainly we do not say this, while some state that this is the requirement of human dignity. Surely these are not meant.

4. The Eighth Group

The eighth group comprises traditions indicating the humiliation of the people of Dhimmah, and how they should be dealt with when collecting the jizyah, for example: “He may seize them by it until they embrace Islam; for Allah said: ‘…until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled’ (حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَ هُمْ صاغِرُونَ) [Surah Al-Tawbah, 9:29]. And how can he be humbled if he does not care about what is taken from him, until he finds humiliation in what is taken from him and feels pain due to it, and thus embraces Islam” (لَهُ أَنْ يَأْخُذَهُمْ بِهِ حَتَّى يُسْلِمُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ قَالَ حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَ هُمْ صاغِرُونَ وَ كَيْفَ يَكُونُ صَاغِراً وَ هُوَ لَا يَكْتَرِثُ لِمَا يُؤْخَذُ مِنْهُ حَتَّى لَا يَجَدَ ذُلًّا لِمَا أُخِذَ مِنْهُ فَيَأْلَمَ لِذَلِكَ فَيُسْلِم‏). The jizyah must be taken in such a manner that they feel humiliated, and this causes pain to them, and then they embrace Islam. This is a clear and obvious humiliation toward the people of jizyah, while they are not even Harbi disbelievers but Dhimmis.

As we stated, we also have other traditions showing how the Imams (peace be upon them) faced the people of Dhimmah. We narrated the story of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him); and in an unauthentic narration, it is mentioned that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was sitting somewhere and a funeral was passing by; the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stood up out of respect for that funeral; then the companions said: O Messenger of Allah! Why did you stand up? It was a Jewish man. The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said: Yes, but he was ultimately a human being. We have these traditions as well. All of these discussions we conduct are regardless of their chain of transmission (sanad); some of these also have issues in their transmission. However, it must be noted that ultimately, some of the people of Dhimmah who do not face Muslims with sincerity—regarding them in particular, it has been ordered to deal with them in this manner. The proof for this is that this matter has been delegated to the Imam (peace be upon him); both the essence of the jizyah has been delegated to the Imam (peace be upon him) and the quality of its collection. The very fact that it has been delegated to the Imam (peace be upon him) shows that this is not a general and public rule. In this tradition it states: “That is up to the Imam, to take from each person among them what he wishes, according to his wealth, in accordance with what he can tolerate” (ذَلِكَ إِلَى الْإِمَامِ يَأْخُذُ مِنْ كُلِّ إِنْسَانٍ مِنْهُمْ مَا شَاءَ عَلَى قَدْرِ مَالِهِ مَا يُطِيق‏). This is in the hand of the Imam (peace be upon him); for each person to the extent he can bear. But from this side it also says: “And the Imam has no right to more than the jizyah; if the Imam wishes, he places it on their heads… and if he wishes, on their wealth” (وَ لَيْسَ لِلْإِمَامِ أَكْثَرُ مِنَ الْجِزْيَةِ إِنْ شَاءَ الْإِمَامُ وَضَعَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى رُءُوسِهِمْ… وَ إِنْ شَاءَ فَعَلَى أَمْوَالِهِمْ). The very fact that this matter has been delegated to the Imam (peace be upon him) and left to him indicates that this humiliation is not a rule or principle, but rather in some cases, interest or necessity may require that such treatment take place, and it has the aspect of punishment.

Question:

Professor: It may have the aspect of discipline (taʾdīb) … This is the station of the Imam (peace be upon him); this depends on whether we believe in this station for the jurist (faqīh) during the era of occultation (ghaybah) or not. …

5. The Ninth Group

As for the ninth group, which comprises traditions indicating the ritual impurity of disbelievers, we explained this in outline. There is a dispute regarding their inherent impurity. Some believe that this impurity is accidental; meaning it is by virtue of their consumption of wine and pork, and if we are ordered to avoid disbelievers and they are introduced as impure, it is for this reason. If we say the impurity is accidental, this no longer conflicts with dignity; just like someone who becomes ill and doctors say do not approach him and avoid him. From the perspective of Islam, wine and pork are also impure and consuming them is prohibited, and disbelievers become impure by virtue of consuming pork and drinking wine, and this does not mean that they lack inherent dignity. Of course, this is a foundational response and naturally cannot be accepted on the basis of commitment to the inherent impurity of the disbeliever.

6. The Tenth Group

The tenth group, which itself comprises several minor groups, includes the expression of some severe and heavy rulings against disbelievers. A portion relates to heavy punishments designated for them, such as enslavement, execution, and restricting a captive disbeliever, or for example, that the property of a Nasibi can be seized. Each of these has a justification; for example, regarding the prohibition of marriage with the People of the Book, before being a deprivation for the disbeliever, it is a limitation for Muslims. They say to the Muslim: you must not marry a disbeliever; they say to the Muslim: you must not leave an inheritance to a disbeliever. Concerning the property of a Nasibi, the tradition was: “From Isḥāq ibn ʿAmmār, who said: ‘Abū ʿAbdillāh (peace be upon him) said: The wealth of a Nasibi and everything he owns is permissible for you, except his wife; for the marriage of the people of polytheism is permissible, and that is because the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) said: Do not revile the people of polytheism, for indeed every people has a marriage'” (عَنْ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ عَمَّارِ قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع مَالُ النَّاصِبِ وَ كُلُّ شَيْ‏ءٍ يَمْلِكُهُ حَلَالٌ لَكَ إِلَّا امْرَأَتَهُ فَإِنَّ نِكَاحَ أَهْلِ الشِّرْكِ جَائِزٌ وَ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص قَالَ لَا تَسُبُّوا أَهْلَ الشِّرْكِ فَإِنَّ لِكُلِّ قَوْمٍ نِكَاحاً). Here, he states that the property of a Nasibi and whatever is owned by him is permissible, except his wife. That the property of a Nasibi and a Harbi disbeliever is considered permissible does not conflict with inherent dignity; the Nasibi and the Harbi (especially according to the definition we hold for Harbi) are those who, as dangerous criminals, can have all their property confiscated. This is like the confiscation of property, which is customary in the entire world for certain crimes; someone who runs a drug cartel, or someone who earns income through crime and transgression—their property is seized and confiscated everywhere in the world; this does not conflict with inherent dignity. The Harbi disbeliever and the Nasibi are the same. Rather, this tradition itself supports that dignity. He states: the wife of that Nasibi is not permissible for you, because the marriage of polytheists is valid and has recognition. Then he supports and justifies this by the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family): “Do not revile the people of polytheism” (لَا تَسُبُّوا أَهْلَ الشِّرْكِ). This is an explicit prohibition of reviling polytheists. He states: do not say that he was committing fornication, “for indeed every people has a marriage” (فَإِنَّ لِكُلِّ قَوْمٍ نِكَاحاً). Ultimately, in their belief, this is marriage, and we also recognize this. Coincidentally, by virtue of this aspect mentioned in this tradition, the inherent dignity of the human being is emphasized within that minimal scope. Therefore, it seems that these traditions do not conflict.

Discussion of the Next Session

Up to this point, we have explained two proofs; we examined the verses and the traditions. Another proof is the rational proof; we can also prove the matter through rational proof. In the next session, we shall explain this proof, God willing. We shall also have a conclusion regarding the domain, God willing.