Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi in an Interview with Ijtihad Network: Some Consider Emphasizing Religious Ceremonies to Be a Kind of Religious Zeal!

“I saw that one individual relied on a tradition and claimed that the issue of contagion and transmission of disease to others is fundamentally out of the question. This is a problem where some, in facing narrations, adopt a single tradition while ignoring conflicting traditions that must be reconciled, so that the sum of what is inferred from all narrations can be presented as the stance of religion. Therefore, if a cleric says that the issue of disease transmission is fundamentally out of the question because of a certain narration, this weakens the seminary and the clergy, and the public assumes that all seminary scholars hold such an opinion. If someone negates the issue of contagion altogether, and denies it before the eyes of all these specialists and non-specialists who possess certainty of disease transmission, this is indeed a source of regret.”

Exclusive to Ijtihad Network: Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi is among those professors who, while possessing foresight in contemporary issues, have also preserved their traditional and Jawahiri approach. In the incident of the coronavirus pandemic, he is a critic of the approach of those who express opinions on medical matters without precise knowledge. In the view of the member of the Board of Trustees of the Fiqh Center of A’immah al-Athar, preserving the lives of the believers is obligatory upon the Islamic government, and therefore, it must prevent the progress and spread of this disease by any means necessary. The details of the interview of Ijtihad Network with this lecturer of advanced (Kharij) jurisprudence and principles at the Islamic Seminary of Qom are as follows:

Ijtihad: To prevent the spread and transmission of this virus, must public and recreational spaces such as swimming pools and cinemas, or religious spaces such as shrines, be closed? What is the ruling on participating in religious ceremonies during these events? Does the quarantine of cities also become necessary?

Professor Nur Mufidi: Before addressing specific instances, we must discuss the core principle of preventing the contraction of this disease, as well as preventing its transmission and spread. If this discussion is clarified, the remaining issues will also be resolved.

It appears that by the ruling of intellect, scriptural evidences, verses, narrations, and the consensus of the rational people (uqa’la), a person must protect their health, and this is a necessary and binding obligation. The intellect rules on the necessity of preserving life (hifz al-nafs) and deems the repelling of potential harm (daf’ al-darar al-muhtamal) obligatory. Although some have restricted the “necessity of repelling potential harm” to otherworldly harm, if the worldly harm is of such a nature that, even if its probability is low, the potential consequence is severe, the intellect rules on the necessity of repelling such a harm.

Ijtihad: Is this issue related to innate human nature (fitrah) or is it related to intellect (aql)?

Professor Nur Mufidi: Both fitrah and aql rule on this matter. The innate nature of the human being commands them to strive for self-preservation. In the science of ethics, this discussion is raised that a certain fear of death exists in human beings. A portion of this fear must exist within human beings so that they preserve themselves. Therefore, while the fear of death is condemned in some aspects and must be countered, this fear has been placed within the human being as a divine blessing; had it not been for this blessing, humans would have exposed themselves to imprudence.

Therefore, apart from the innate nature of the fear of death and the fact that this fear compels the human being to counter matters that might lead to their death, it is also among the independent comprehensions of the intellect (mudrakat al-aql) that a human being preserve themselves. Thus, both the ruling of intellect and the ruling of innate nature exist here.

Ijtihad: Do you accept the Rule of Implication (Qa’idah al-Mulazamah)?

Professor Nur Mufidi: Yes, of course, with the specific conditions established in its proper place.

Ijtihad: Some deny the Rule of Implication on the grounds that the intellect does not possess comprehensive knowledge of all benefits (masalih) and corruptions (mafasid), and therefore, the Lawgiver might know matters that the intellect does not comprehend.

Professor Nur Mufidi: The Qa’idah al-Mulazamah raised by scholars in the domain of practical intellect (aql al-amali)—concerning what ought to be and what ought not to be, and the goodness of justice and ugliness of oppression—has specific conditions. In any case, one of the instances of oppression is self-oppression (zulm ala al-nafs), which is ugly, and naturally, if we view the implication within this scope, we can derive the Sharia ruling from it in cases where self-oppression is realized. At the very least, this case is among those core certainties from which Sharia approval and rulings can be derived.

Ijtihad: Why, instead of relying on the rational ruling, do you not propose the certainty (qat’) of the necessity of preserving life, so as to avoid the objections directed at the Rule of Implication?

Professor Nur Mufidi: This certainty and confidence you refer to is the product of this very ruling of the intellect, the rational people, and the Sharia. This is the analysis of that very certainty. Therefore, they do not contradict one another.

Of course, if we wish to examine the issue from a Sharia perspective, the verse: “And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction” (Quran 2:195) indicates this very matter; because any action that causes a person to expose themselves to destruction and difficulty of this kind has been prohibited. “Destruction” (tahlukah) in the verse also encompasses both worldly and spiritual destruction.

Ijtihad: Jihad and the like are also worldly destruction. Does this verse encompass them as well?

Professor Nur Mufidi: No, the issue of jihad and the like is not included in the verse; because in jihad, a more important interest (maslahat)—such as preserving the religion and honor—exists. Fundamentally, we have a rule called “the necessity of preserving life” (wujub hifz al-nafs) based on which the jurists issue decrees that a human being must avoid any action that exposes them to death or killing.

Regarding health and personal hygiene, and observing matters related to these issues, great emphasis has been laid in the narrations. While some spiritual effects result from certain hygienic recommendations in the Sharia, worldly effects also result from them concerning health and self-preservation (hifz al-sihhah). Naturally, self-preservation and health represent a pillar of a religious society, and if a human being performs an action that damages this blessing of health, it is an instance of extravagance (israf) and is prohibited. In any case, israf is not confined to food and drink. In all worldly blessings, the realization of israf is possible. One of the instances of israf is that a human being exposes the blessing of health to risk in some way; therefore, the proofs of the prohibition of israf and squandering (tabdhir) can also be raised in this discussion.

The rational people also possess this conduct and practice, and not only do we not see a prohibition (rad’) of this practice of the uqa’la, but we can bring numerous approvals from the evidences for this conventional practice. The issue of preserving life is so important that, according to the Quran, in conditions of distress (idtirar), one can even eat dead meat. That prohibited matters are deemed permissible for the human being in conditions of distress, and their prohibition is lifted, is for the purpose of preserving life; otherwise, there is no other reason for allowing the commission of a prohibited act.

Therefore, the issue of the necessity of preserving life is a rational, Sharia, and conventional matter. If the issue is of this degree of importance, whatever damages this matter will naturally not be permissible.

Now, under the current conditions of the spread of the coronavirus, although the mortality rate of this virus has not been reported as very high, it can potentially be a significant source of harm—especially for specific age groups and specific patients, where the harm is higher and more serious. If this virus spreads publicly, the resistance of lower age groups is not fully certain, and it may lead to their destruction.

That they say the mortality rate of this disease is low is correct on the condition of serious care, and since the possibility of serious care for those afflicted with this disease is not fully prepared everywhere, if this virus becomes widespread, all individuals will face serious harm. Therefore, performing any action that causes the spread of this virus is not permissible.

Public gatherings, whether in religious or non-religious places, facilitate the spread of this virus and naturally expose more individuals to destruction. Therefore, regarding this issue, specialists must express their opinions in accordance with the rate of spread, which is apparently high. This is because this issue depends on the opinion of the experts as to what stage we are in, and what requirements each stage possesses.

It is possible that at a certain stage, quarantine is necessary, and at another stage, it is not. This issue must be referred to the opinion of the specialists and the central management prepared by the government as the management of this crisis and illness, and everyone must comply with this center, and here one must not violate their directives. This is because the primary reason for the necessity of imitation (taqlid) is this very referral of the ignorant to the expert. In this issue, there is no difference between a religious matter and a non-religious matter. Therefore, at times, non-expert opinions expressed in these matters are a source of regret.

For example, I saw that one individual relied on a tradition and claimed that the issue of contagion and transmission of disease to others is fundamentally out of the question. This is a problem where some, in facing narrations, adopt a single tradition while ignoring conflicting traditions that must be reconciled, so that the sum of what is inferred from all narrations can be presented as the stance of religion.

Therefore, if a cleric says that the issue of disease transmission is fundamentally out of the question because of a certain narration, this weakens the seminary and the clergy, and the public assumes that all seminary scholars hold such an opinion. This is due to a lack of deep exploration of narrative books and a lack of research. One must investigate the narrations in terms of chain of transmission and implication.

Yes, the narration negating the transmission of disease can be interpreted as meaning that contagion is not the sufficient cause (illah tammah) of contracting a disease; rather, contagion is the prerequisite (muqtadi) for contracting a disease, and other matters such as the divine will can also affect a person contracting the disease. Now, if someone negates the issue of contagion altogether, and denies it before the eyes of all these specialists and non-specialists who possess certainty of disease transmission, this is indeed a source of regret.

Therefore, just as preserving life is obligatory and exposing oneself to destruction is prohibited, violating the opinion of specialists in this regard is prohibited, and the grand sources of emulation (maraji’) have also emphasized this matter, and the conduct of our scholars throughout the centuries has been to submit to the opinion of specialists.

Of course, when there is a difference of opinion among specialists, that is another discussion; but in the subject under discussion, there is a consensus that public places, gatherings, whether religious or non-religious, whether academic or non-academic, facilitate the contraction of this disease.

When, under certain conditions or based on certain interests, some of the obligatory Sharia rulings can be temporarily suspended, how can we not rule on the temporary suspension of a recommended matter?

The issue of visitation (ziyarat) is a strongly emphasized recommended act, as are religious gatherings, whether congregational prayers or mourning sessions for the Ahl al-Bayt; however, in the opinion of specialists, these gatherings can be dangerous for Islamic society and can infect many of the believers. Can we not temporarily suspend these gatherings? The majority of those who participate in these religious gatherings are the religious and the scholars, and it is under no circumstances permissible to expose individuals to this disease.

Some assume that emphasizing the holding of religious and devotional ceremonies is a kind of courage and indicates religious zeal (ghayrat-e dini), whereas it is not so. In the biography of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) as well, these precautions and cares existed.

Some assume that religious zeal does not permit the closure of religious gatherings, because closure leads to the weakening and loss of prosperity and the degradation of these religious gatherings and religious places. This is incorrect. Rather, one must follow the opinion of the specialists, and in this direction, the seminary and the clergy must be pioneers—as they are—and over these past few days, the maraji’ have also emphasized following the opinion of the specialists in all stages.

Ijtihad: Do you believe in the binding authority (hujjiyyah) of the expert’s opinion?

Professor Nur Mufidi: If a person is an expert in the true sense of the word, rather than a pseudo-expert, in my view, even if the opinion of a single expert is not binding on its own, the accumulation of expert opinions collectively can possess credibility and binding authority.

Ijtihad: Is observing personal and social hygiene necessary in this regard?

Professor Nur Mufidi: Yes, definitely, this is necessary, and in our religious teachings, observing personal and public hygiene is emphasized. The discussions of bathing, cleanliness, and the disposal of waste mentioned in the Sharia all indicate this matter.

During the outbreak of these diseases, those very recommended acts become binding obligations, and neglecting them is both a crime against oneself and an encroachment upon others (idrar ala al-ghayr). This is because here, it is not only the individual himself who is concerned.

In the individual domain, a person who does not observe the hygiene associated with these days not only infects himself, but also causes harm to others due to the unavoidable connections that exist in society today, and harming others is prohibited and entails liability (daman).

Whoever does not perform these cares and causes the transmission of disease to others has not only committed a prohibited act from a legislative perspective, but the ruling of liability (daman) is also established here.

Of course, in this regard we have a narration that is not in the Shiite narrative collections but is in the Sunni narrative collections, and Ibn Abi al-Hadid has recorded it in his explanation of the Nahj al-Balaghah, and I think one of the commentators of Al-Kafi has also quoted this narration, narrating a story on the occasion, and then quoting from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) that: “If you hear of plague in a land, do not enter it, and if it occurs in a land while you are in it, do not exit it.”

It is understood that this statement of the Prophet is for this direction: both to prevent contracting the disease—which is the implication of the prohibition of entering disease-stricken areas—and to prevent the spread of the disease—which is the implication of the prohibition of exiting the areas of outbreak.

This narration, although open to objection in terms of chain of transmission, its content can be acceptable. This narration, although advisory (irshadi) and not legislative (mawlawi), is an advisory to the self-preservation of the individual and preserving the health of others. Public hygiene possesses a more comprehensive aspect compared to personal hygiene. Therefore, both personal hygiene and public hygiene, under the current conditions, are among the necessary matters in which there is no doubt. Of course, one must not neglect the narrated supplications for health and the like.

Ijtihad: What is the duty of the government in this regard? Is it necessary for the government and municipality to disinfect public spaces, or to provide training and distribute masks?

Professor Nur Mufidi: What we can list as a responsibility for the ruler and the government is the welfare, security, and health—both physical and mental health—of the members of the Islamic society. This has a broad meaning.

Naturally, regarding this issue that has arisen, the government bears responsibility, the scope of which is also extensive, encompassing all preventive measures, training, preventing the spread, and facilitating access to hygiene tools required by the people for personal and public hygiene to prevent and contain the spread of the disease.

If negligence (qusur) or, God forbid, fault (taqsir) occurs in these cases, it is also liable, and if the government does not perform its duty, we can rule on its liability as well; but naturally, prevention, preparing the means for prevention, and the like are the responsibility of the government, and in this matter, the government can enact binding regulations.

For example, it can compel some factories to dedicate their production to a specific product. Directing resources toward prevention, disinfecting public transport, and whatever relates to this issue are among the duties of the government in its general sense, and all components of the government bear responsibility in this regard.

Ijtihad: Do narrations such as “Flee from the leper” (firra min al-majdhumi) indicate a devotional obligation (wujub al-ta’abbudi) or are they advisory (irshadi)? Is there a jurisprudential rule in this regard?

Professor Nur Mufidi: The narration raised in the question, considering the collections in which this narration was raised, is an advisory ruling (hukm al-irshadi). In the chapters of marriage, trade, or the leftover water used by a leper where one must not perform wudu, this narration was raised; however, if we examine this narration in various chapters, it is an advisory to the very same ruling of the intellect and the rational people based on preserving life, prevention, and caution against contracting the disease.

Naturally, any disease that is contagious and whose spread is due to contact and communication is encompassed by this narration. Some, in the subject under discussion, have relied on the Principle of No Harm (La Darar). In my view, one can rely on the rule of the necessity of preserving life from destruction and killing. Perhaps one can also rely on the Principle of Deception (Qa’idah al-Ghurur). Although this rule concerns the chapter of trade, regardless, one can perhaps rely on it. Of course, La Darar, in my view, is a state decree and a governmental ruling.

Ijtihad: Is it necessary for the government to practice honesty in these cases, or does expediency lie in concealment?

Professor Nur Mufidi: It appears that honesty is a matter from which no one loses—neither in the domain of individual and limited relations, nor in the domain of extensive and public, particularly governmental, relations. Honesty causes public trust in the sovereignty, and this is an asset that can lead to the support and assistance of the government in various positions, and if public trust is weakened for any reason, gradually the emotional bonds between the government and the people will vanish, and subsequently weaken their cooperation and assistance with the government, which has unfavorable consequences. There is no doubt in this.

We also see the recommendation of honesty in the advices of the leaders of religion. It has also been observed in the sirah of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) themselves. It has also been seen in historical experiences. If the foundation of the government is established upon honesty and is proven to the people, it has numerous benefits; but the meaning of practicing honesty is not that it is necessary to occasionally express matters that might cause instability in the minds of the people and, God forbid, lead to public panic.

There is a difference between lying and not disclosing the entirety of a truth. The government must not lie to the people; but if the conditions are such that the entirety of the truth should not be expressed to the people, there is no objection in concealing a portion of the truth. Similar to a war, if they wish to declare the statistics of all the deceased, it causes the weakening of the resolve of the remaining fighters. In this case, concealing a portion of the truth is unobjectionable; but fundamentally, in the present era and considering the current mass media, the possibility of lying or the possibility of concealing a portion of the truth does not exist.

Therefore, not expressing issues by the government opens the way and the field for those who come to distort realities and feed them to the people. Consequently, the era is not an era where we can, by relying on the excuse that expressing the truth might cause panic, refrain from expressing the entirety of the truth. Because this work establishes a grey environment that the biased can severely exploit.

Therefore, I neither say absolutely that the entirety of the truth must be expressed in all conditions, nor do I say that you should lie to the people. However, attention must be paid to the fact that we must understand the times well and we must be careful that excess and negligence do not occur.

Some assume that the more they practice concealment, the better it is. Others assume that through exaggeration, they must create sensitivity and mobilize everyone. Neither exaggeration, panicking the people, and destroying the mental peace and security of the people is correct—as this very anxiety and stress also reduces the physical resistance of individuals against the disease; nor is concealment and covering up a correct method. These excesses and negligences are always troublesome for us.

In any case, this illness is a difficulty for society, and all officials have concerns regarding it. Therefore, in this environment, one must both calm the people and remain sensitive; but in this commotion, strange and bizarre opinions are expressed that cause the confusion of the people.