Mouood Mouood English Edition
13. The Right to Seek Knowledge
Liberty in seeking knowledge is a human right which has been extensively discussed previously. In short, women are as free as men in acquiring knowledge and there is no need to repeat the discussion.
14. The Right to Spiritual and Mystical Improvement
Humans have the capacity and ability for spiritual improvement and intellectual advancement. Thus, women and men have the right to strive for lofty spiritual ranks and attain spiritual perfection and transcendent refinement and no one has the right to bar anyone from this path.
This was a summary of the rights woman have as humans. All people are obligated to accept these rights. Not only must everyone refrain from subverting these rights, they must also struggle to help defend them. The government and others are responsible for the fulfillment of these rights and must provide the instruments for the attainment of women’s rights.
• What is the meaning of ‘natural rights’ and‘acquired rights’?
Reply: Two types of rights can be conceived for humans: natural rights and acquired rights. Natural rights are rights whose source and provenance is the special genesis of humans. Such rights do not require laws or conventions. Every“natural capacity” is a basis for a “natural right”. The reason that these rights are equal or equivalent for all humans is that no human is born superior, dominant, or subservient to others and the social systems of human life are not natural (inborn) or fatalistic. Jobs, posts, and responsibilities are not distributed by nature. Therefore, these rights belong to everyone and every human individual benefits from them according to nature. As these rights do not need to be formulated, no one can take them away and obstruct others from these rights. Regarding these rights, color, race, femaleness, maleness, or other differences or advantages are unimportant and no one is different. For example, the rights to learn or marry are rights that have been chronicled by the genesis of humanity and nature itself. Someone who attempts to prove such rights have nothing new to say. They can only recite obvious and definite truths. Correspondingly, those who attempt to deny such rights are in conflict with logic, nature, and the human genesis.
It is of primal importance to observe and honor the natural rights of others. Thus, constitutional and civil laws must be legislated based on natural and inherent rights and under no condition must they violate or conflict with such rights.
If laws do not conflict with foundational rules and principles—some of which have been enumerated—their differences and temporal development must be considered a result of prevailing conditions and changes in circumstances. For instance, in a society it may be necessary to designate various restrictions and regulations for facilitating administration so that everyone may equally enjoy their natural rights, such as restrictions in familial marriage, birth control, conditions and manners of marriage and other contracts, labor laws, property laws, etc. These laws may differ from country to country. Even so, in similar circumstances, all humans who are subject to these laws have an equal right to benefit from them and the law itself determines exceptions, if any.
Another aspect that is usually regarded in the legislation of laws is that they must clarify what is to be done when rights are in conflict. For example, suppose some have a specific contagious disease in which case the law might bar them from marriage until they are cured. This deprivation of a natural right is because their enjoyment of their own right equals the divestment of others of some of their rights. Thus, the preference is that, in order to preserve the legitimate rights of the majority and to prevent their loss, the rights and liberties of a minority are restricted. The law must determine these limitations. It must secure the rights of the society while also respecting individual rights and liberties and attempting to further them.
To state matters differently, secondary and specific laws incorporate the factor of objective truths and adhere to securing and providing the natural rights of all citizens with respect to specific temporal and physical conditions. Here, the question exists as to whether, apart from humanity’s natural needs and attributes and also the necessities of social life, there are any other factors involved in the formulation of laws?
In answer we must say: God, the Wise, the Glorified, has created humans for a specific purpose. He has ingrained some of the prerequisites for this objective in the nature and constitution of humanity. As an example, for the perpetuation of the human race, it is part of an individual’s being to feel the need to marry and have affection for their children. When determining laws, we do not have the right to oppose this plan and ideal in a way that jeopardizes the continuance of humankind. This is one reason that the formation of a ‘family’by two members of the same sex cannot be sanctioned.
In addition, each person must choose and pursue various objectives based on their own principles and values. The development and success of individuals and societies alike depend upon this. In addition to not deterring or impeding the journey towards advancement and salvation, laws must make such paths smother, easier to cross, and brighter. Of course, as a result of the limits in humanity’s knowledge and differences in opinion among people, laws that human beings legislate differ from each other and sometimes even conflict.
Some people state that this discussion has a close and interlaced relationship with“the relationship of truth and ideology”, or in different terms “the relationship of truths and requisites”. Can it be said that requisites (legislated laws) are completely derived from and based on realities?
This is a basic issue which the late ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, Shahid Mutahari, and some others have discussed at length. Other authorities do not agree with their logic. I believe that requisites are based on realities. Humans have capacities and needs and as a result, they must fulfill them. As I have stated before, legislative rights and matters are a response to humanity’s genetic needs and circumstances which cannot be denied or opposed. However, one point must be kept in mind: any “requisite” cannot be derived from any “fact”.
If, for instance, science comes to the conclusion that such and such race is superior to another race in some abilities and features, we may conclude that each must develop their own greater points of capacity and their acquired rights must be determined based on their success and efficiency. We cannot conclude racial bias from such differences because racism is a formula that is based on an essential difference between races. If we regard the races different in their humanity, then we can differentiate their natural rights and merits.
However, because all are identical in their humanity, their natural rights are absolutely equal. Everyone has the right to freedom, self-determination, education, political activeness, health, hygiene, etc. and they must all have complete benefit of the facilities and rights that are the entitlement of all human beings. Then, if varying results are achieved after this equal benefit, each person must take their suitable place in the society and play a role that is most appropriate to their abilities.
Some assert that there exists equality among all humans in regard to natural rights. Racial and individual differences have no effect on these rights. However, because acquired rights are based on the capacities, endeavors, and circumstances of people, naturally they will not be equal or similar. Now that there is equality in this matter, is there a specific rule that can be considered the basis and criterion for acquired rights?
In answer I must say that one criterion is the manifestation of capacities. If a person works hard and attains competence in knowledge and science, management and leadership, or physical prowess, that person must be situated in his or her appropriate place in life so that their individual skills are wasted and impeded to the least extent possible.
Another criterion is that benefiting from individual rights must not cause damage or loss to others or violation of their rights. They must not even induce detriment in the persons themselves. Also, they must not cause disorder in or harm to the social system and must not conflict and cause discord with other human standards and criteria. The corpus of these criteria may be summarized in the word justice; meaning that no right may be inharmonious with the principles of justice.
If the use of a right entails injustice, it becomes unjust and loses its status as a right. It is not permissible or lawful for any woman or man to violate the rights of others with the pretext of benefiting from their own rights. This is forbidden on grounds of rights abuse.
