Print out

Stands >2006 Stands >The Stand of  Moharam 01 1427H /January 31, 2006 A.D.
 

The legitimacy we believe in

Sayyed Fadlullah: We, in Lebanon, hear sometimes statements about giving legitimacy to a certain party, if it accepts certain commitments. We refuse this logic and believe that man's legitimacy in his country is not built on slogans and speeches. It is rather based on his loyalty to the country that is materialized in defending and protecting it against all threats and against the maneuvers of regional and international players.

Asked in his weekly seminar the following question: How do you view legitimacy from the Islamic perspective?

The Religious Authority, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah, said:

There are many meanings of the concept of legitimacy, depending on the different domains of politics, society or religion.

There is first the religious legitimacy, which is based on the adherence to the values, principles and teachings of religion. In many cases certain religious groups appropriate the concept of legitimacy and monopolize it accusing the other groups of disbelief and creating persecution.

We believe that there are a number of constants which no legitimacy could be established if they are not observed, yet there is a large room for judgment and multiple viewpoints in which no one can claim to be solely legitimate.

There is another kind of legitimacy known as "international legitimacy" which is based one way or another on the religious legitimacy, since the principles it is based on have been derived from the heavenly messages which made justice its goal, as well as the freedom of belief. It also refused to coerce anybody to believe in religion, and considered seeking knowledge, as one of the duties man should perform.

Islam acknowledges all the treaties and agreements that are based on the right and justice and that aim to serve man regardless of its source.

The Prophet(p.) acknowledged Hilf Al-foudoul that was agreed on in Jahilliya, the time of ignorance before Islam was revealed, for it protected the rights of the weak , and said: "If I were called for a similar pact I would have accepted.” We too accept all international treaties, pacts and charters that are based on the same values, and call on Muslims through their institutes, and based on their rich intellectual heritage especially in the fields of jurisprudence and law, to take an active role in all international institutions and conferences that deal with human rights to present to the world a bright image of Islam that respects freedoms and opens up on the other. They should emphasize that Islam does not accept any aggression against others whatever their religious or racial identities might be. They should also stand against the arbitrariness in applying the principles of international legitimacy that the arrogant world is turning into a sword that appropriates the right of self – determination and resisting occupation… etc.

We believe that the main element in the issue of legitimacy, any legitimacy, lies in building man and protecting him from all threats and aggressions, on the basis that laws were made to serve man, and not for hurting him, leading to this duality we witness in international politics and UN resolutions.

Based on this principle, we believe that the presence of nuclear weapons is something religiously unlawful in the first place. It threatens mankind by destruction. Then again, if it is the right of the super powers to protect themselves against the possession of any small group of the bomb, it is more so that the small countries should protect themselves. That is why we call for a world free from nuclear and mass destruction weapons.

We ask the superpowers which some of their top officials are threatening to use nuclear weapons: Who gave you the right to possess these weapons and what legitimacy allows you to threaten to use them, and what logic gives you the right to prevent the others even to think of having such a weapon while your military arsenals are packed with thousands? And if we were to assume that you have the right to object based on your suspicions that a certain country is thinking of making nuclear weapons as in the Iranian case, why do you then ignore the other countries that possess these weapons, like Israel that consists a threat to the Arab and Muslim world and to the international peace as evident by the survey of the EU commission.

What is happening nowadays is that the countries that claim to abide by international law and legitimacy, are the first to violate this law when it does not suit their interests. And that is why they give themselves the right to wage wars and topple regimes, as well the right of interpreting the law in accordance to their interests, or forcing other states to realize arrogant plans or desires… We have seen how America categorizes those who have opposed her politically as rogue states or dumped them in the axis of evil.

But if want to study what is going on in the world we will see that the US is the real rouge state. And that there is no axis of evil if it is not the American-Israeli one.

We, based on our juristic religious capacity, call on the Muslims and Arab peoples, the nations of the world and all free vanguards as well as the unbiased political and research institutions, to make all efforts to save the international law from the continuous arrogant aggressions and violations of the arrogant powers who believe that their interests are above anything else.

We, in Lebanon, hear sometimes statements about giving legitimacy to a certain party, if it accepts certain commitments. We refuse this logic and believe that man's legitimacy in his country is not built on slogans and speeches. It is rather based on his loyalty to the country that is materialized in defending and protecting it against all threats and the maneuvers of regional and international players.

We advise against indulging in the game of taking away legitimacy from groups or individuals on the basis of momentary political gains, and call for ending the game of exchanging accusations that has produced a political and cultural color blindness. We believe that the only alternative is a serious dialogue whose aim is protecting the country from foreign interference and personal ambitions that played a major role in putting the country on the verge of collapse.