Ayatollah Sayyid Mojtaba Nourmofidi in an Interview with the Ijtihad Network: Jurists Recognize the “Right to Life” of Plants and Animals
Introduction: Environmental jurisprudence is itself one of the emerging branches of Contemporary Jurisprudence; it is therefore natural that its foundations and presuppositions have not yet been seriously addressed. For example, some assume that jurists’ presuppositions in environmental discussions include not recognizing the right to life of animals and plants and not respecting the environment. In this regard, we spoke with Ayatollah Sayyid Mojtaba Nourmofidi, president of the Contemporary Jurisprudence Research Institute. Having seriously pursued fields of Contemporary Jurisprudence for years and taught numerous courses in some of its contemporary branches, he believes that although jurists have not addressed environmental issues in detail, they have never failed to recognize the right to life of animals and plants. The full interview with this teacher of advanced jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence at the Qom Seminary follows:
Please explain precisely what is meant by environmental jurisprudence, as well as its dimensions and scope.
Ayatollah Nourmofidi: Considering the definitions given for jurisprudence itself and for the environment, environmental jurisprudence may be described as a body of prescriptions and prohibitions established by the Shari‘a concerning human conduct toward the environment. The environment means the setting encompassing all natural conditions and everything related to the beings that live on this planet. Environmental jurisprudence, in fact, helps us understand what basis human beings should adopt regarding their negative and affirmative conduct toward the environment.
There are, however, two usages concerning whether the environment, as a subject, pertains exclusively to human beings or encompasses all species of living beings. Sometimes, the environment means the human environment, in which human beings play the central role; at other times, it means the environment of all living beings, encompassing all animals, plants, and vegetation. Jurists’ discussions of the environment are, of course, usually based on the first perspective, examining the environment with human beings at its center. This itself requires discussion.
According to development specialists, environmental protection is one of the Millennium Development Goals and one of the three pillars of sustainable development. This is also a consequence of the problems that have arisen for humanity in recent centuries. Humanity faces a series of serious challenges. Environmental issues did not receive this degree of attention in the past, but humanity now faces serious problems concerning water, soil, and air. Many animal and plant species are now becoming extinct. Vast forests have been destroyed, and forest cover has diminished. The same applies to rangelands. Underground water resources have drastically declined. On the other hand, countries’ industrial development has discharged enormous volumes of wastewater into bodies of water and the soil. Factories now also severely damage the air through their use of fossil fuels, and this pollution has caused the ozone layer to develop holes. In addition to all this, some of the weapons produced in various countries, whether for deterrence or confrontation with other countries, are biological in nature and extremely harmful to humanity.
Therefore, given how deeply human life has become entangled with this subject, particularly in recent years, and because it encompasses a broad range of issues, environmental jurisprudence includes an extensive body of questions, many of which have not yet been studied and require examination and research.
Before entering the field of environmental jurisprudence, which foundations must be considered and positions adopted regarding them?
Ayatollah Nourmofidi: Many subjects that have emerged in the modern world had precedents in the past. In the past, however, these subjects were very simple, whereas they have now become highly complex. Thus, if we consult the works of earlier scholars and jurisprudential sources regarding environmental jurisprudence, we see that it received attention in a simple form. Today, however, it has become extremely complex because of the extensive connections it has developed with various matters. Presuppositions in this field must therefore certainly be discussed.
A specialized academic discipline has been established for the environment and for each of its related subjects. Given these complexities, we certainly require preliminary discussions. Some of these preliminary discussions were raised in the past not only regarding the environment but also in relation to other subjects. It appears that the presuppositions should be divided into two categories: presuppositions specifically required for entering environmental jurisprudence, and general presuppositions required for entering it that are also applicable to other fields of jurisprudence.
Regarding the general presuppositions, the first point is that we must certainly adopt particular approaches toward many new questions or subjects. The social approach is the most important approach that must be considered in this regard. If we wished, from one perspective, to categorize jurisprudence and jurists, we could say that a large group of jurists have approached issues from an individual perspective, while another group has considered the social approach. Of course, the closer we come to recent decades, the more prominent this social approach becomes. A social approach to jurisprudence is therefore particularly important when examining environmental issues.
Alongside this jurisprudential approach, the governmental approach is highly important, because many of the issues we face either fall within the government’s sphere of responsibility and are beyond the capacity of individuals, or are themselves fundamentally produced by governmental conduct. It is therefore important that a governmental approach to this field of jurisprudence be considered.
The third issue that, in my view, must be considered generally and particularly in environmental jurisprudence concerns how human beings should confront emerging issues and whether, in facing new matters generally, we intend to adopt a restrictive and negative approach or an expansive and affirmative one.
New phenomena that enter human life are usually met, at the individual level, with a negative posture and an attitude of rejection. How we confront and deal with these phenomena is highly important.
Among the specific presuppositions for entering environmental jurisprudence, however, three issues are particularly important. The first concerns the position we fundamentally adopt toward the environment itself. Should we consider the environment in its general sense? In other words, should we say that the subject we wish to discuss and analyze jurisprudentially is the preservation of the environment for human beings, or the environment in its general sense, considered independently of human beings and their benefit? Different species of living beings constitute an environment for human beings. We must therefore determine the scope and boundaries of these resources, whether they affect human life directly or indirectly.
The second issue concerns the position of human beings in relation to these resources. Do we ultimately regard human ownership of these resources as complete and private? A range of jurists adopt precisely this view regarding land, water, and air. Or do we regard ownership of these resources as vested in the ruler, state, and government, considering them part of the public treasury whose management rests with the government and ruler? Regarding anfal, mountains, forests, rangelands, lands, and similar matters, it must be established in whom their ownership is vested. These presuppositions have a major effect on environmental jurisprudence and must be considered.
Another presupposition and general preliminary principle for entering environmental jurisprudence—and indeed all fields of jurisprudence—is the issue of subject identification. Subject identification merits attention from two perspectives. Sometimes a particular subject or a new phenomenon emerges, such as the formation of holes in the ozone layer, creating problems for humanity and all beings on Earth. This is one category. In my view, however, subject identification must extend beyond this so that the issue can be properly formulated for jurisprudential examination. Proper formulation also depends on considering the full range of subjects and issues from a broad perspective and, on that basis, identifying and researching a list of subjects and issues that must be examined in jurisprudence. Subject identification is therefore important from both perspectives. To organize the structure and formulation of environmental jurisprudence, we must first understand environmental subjects themselves, their various connections with different disciplines and branches of knowledge, and their connections with the various dimensions of human life.
What presuppositions have jurists held when resolving issues of environmental jurisprudence?
Ayatollah Nourmofidi: The answer to this question also becomes clear from the previous remarks. First, issues of environmental jurisprudence were not usually raised as distinct questions in the past. It is true that most environmental issues discussed were related to warfare. In other words, the most prominent issue that prompted discussion of the environment was war, whether between unbelievers and Muslims or among certain Muslim groups. Discussions in this regard included the prohibition of cutting down trees, the impermissibility of poisoning or contaminating drinking water, the impermissibility of burning agricultural land, and similar matters.
In general, environmental issues typically arise from human intervention. If human beings do not interfere with nature, no problem arises and nature performs its own functions. According to the Qur’an and narrations, human intervention in nature should be directed toward cultivating, developing, and improving the earth. God Almighty states in Surah Hud, verse 61: “هُوَ أَنْشَأَكُمْ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ وَ اسْتَعْمَرَكُمْ فيها” — “He brought you into being from the earth and charged you with developing it.” The direct meaning of this verse is that human beings must cultivate and develop the earth, which necessarily means that they have no right to destroy it. If human beings intervene in nature for cultivation and development—what is today called development—the scope and boundaries of that intervention must naturally be clarified.
This discussion was raised to some extent in the past. From this perspective, limited discussions appeared in jurisprudence. More important than this issue, however, and discussed more extensively, were human interventions in nature during wars and conflicts. Most of the issues in this regard for which we can find historical precedents relate to this area. The issues we face today, however, are far more complex and profound and have lasting and far-reaching effects. In the past, if poison was poured into water, its effects appeared immediately and caused a number of people to be poisoned. Today, however, when a factory is constructed, its industrial pollution affects the environment and damages the ozone layer. The effects of this issue continue through several intermediate stages and are neither perceptible nor tangible, yet they threaten future generations.
In the past, the necessity of protecting the environment, to the extent that human beings are responsible for their living environment, was discussed even in relation to animals. Imam Ali (peace be upon him) said: “اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ فِي عِبَادِهِ وَ بِلَادِهِ فَإِنَّكُمْ مَسْئُولُونَ حَتَّى عَنِ الْبِقَاعِ وَ الْبَهَائِم” — “Fear God concerning His servants and His lands, for you are responsible even for places and animals.” He states that you bear responsibility even for places and animals. In any event, the complexities we face in the environment today were fundamentally not present in the past. Consequently, these presuppositions were not considered in jurists’ statements and did not become subjects of discussion and dialogue. We must therefore address the points I mentioned in response to the previous question. We did not face these challenges and problems in the past. Thus, although the basic issue of the human environment was considered, whether human beings should use the earth or whether plant and animal species should be preserved was not considered.
Can jurists’ presuppositions regarding environmental issues be understood to include assigning primacy and value to human beings, as opposed to animals and plants, and denying animals and plants a right to life?
Ayatollah Nourmofidi: The answer to this question has become almost clear from the previous remarks. There are two distinct discussions here. The primacy of human beings and the subordinate status of animals and plants is one discussion; denying animals and plants a right to life is another. In the discussion of human primacy, plants and animals are regarded as beneficial to a better human life. Our sources and narrations also contain extensive material concerning the preservation of water and soil and proper treatment of animals, which clearly indicates a right to life for animals and plants. Even an outlook that places human beings at the center and takes the human environment as its subject recognizes a right to life for animals and plants. Concern for this right can clearly be traced in jurists’ statements. Of course, the ultimate outcome, result, and benefit of preserving plants and animals return to human beings themselves, but their right to life is nevertheless protected. Therefore, jurists’ presupposition has certainly not been that plants and animals possess no right to life. It is true that this issue may have been overlooked, but the denial of a right to life has by no means been a presupposition.
In general, within the system of religious teachings, the intellectual framework of jurists, and the jurisprudential system, the right to life of human beings and various species of living beings is protected in a balanced manner. Verses 204, 205, and 206 of Surah al-Baqarah should be examined. God Almighty states:
“وَ مِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يُعْجِبُكَ قَوْلُهُ فِي الْحَياةِ الدُّنْيا وَ يُشْهِدُ اللَّهَ عَلى ما في قَلْبِهِ وَ هُوَ أَلَدُّ الْخِصامِ (204) وَ إِذا تَوَلَّى سَعى فِي الْأَرْضِ لِيُفْسِدَ فيها وَ يُهْلِكَ الْحَرْثَ وَ النَّسْلَ وَ اللَّهُ لا يُحِبُّ الْفَسادَ (205) وَ إِذا قيلَ لَهُ اتَّقِ اللَّهَ أَخَذَتْهُ الْعِزَّةُ بِالْإِثْمِ فَحَسْبُهُ جَهَنَّمُ وَ لَبِئْسَ الْمِهادُ (206).”
God Almighty states: “Among the people is one whose speech concerning the life of this world impresses you and who calls God to witness what is in his heart [in order to make it appear that his tongue and heart are in harmony], while he is the most obstinate of adversaries. (204) And when [such an obstinate enemy] attains power and authority—although some exegetes interpret tawalla as meaning ‘turns away’—he strives throughout the earth to cause corruption and destruction therein and to destroy crops and progeny; and God does not love corruption and destruction. (205) And when he is told, ‘Be wary of God,’ pride, obstinacy, prejudice, and stubbornness drive him to sin. Hell is therefore sufficient for him, and it is surely an evil resting place. (206)”
In these verses, God Almighty clearly states that a group of people cause the destruction of crops and progeny, presenting this as a clear instance of corruption committed by them. Therefore, destroying crops, human progeny, the human living environment, and the natural resources that constitute the most important part of the environment of living beings and plants is presented as corruption. Jurists therefore certainly recognize a right to life for plants and animals, and jurisprudence contains many rulings intended to protect them, which there is presently no opportunity to discuss.