Rational and religious validity of the majority opinion (book)

Author: Alireza Salehi

• abstract

The rational and Religious Validity of Majority Opinion(in persian:اعتبار عقلی و شرعی رأی اکثریت (کتاب)) by Mas’ud Emami is a study on the validity or invalidity of majority opinion on various grounds such as self-determination, truth-finding, religious justification, common good and acceptability. The author believes that theorists on the validity of majority opinion cannot be generally classified into two groups of proponents and opponents; they may approve the majority of opinion on the one hand and consider it as invalid on the other hand. The author sees the right of self-determination, which is closely linked to human genetic freedom, as the underlying reason for the validity of the majority opinion. On the other hand, he considers the truth discovery as the main ground against the validity of the majority opinion. According to him, religious legitimacy, common good and acceptability are not strong enough to legitimize majority opinion and thus cannot be considered as the final arbiter in disputes in this regard. Drawing verses from the Quran, the author of the book believes that the verses which condemn the view of the majority seek to discover the truth, i.e. the majority usually makes a mistake in identifying the truth and their views are invalid in this regard; however, many verses that describe the Prophet’s duty as merely to proclaim revelation and insist on no compulsion in religion imply the right of self-determination in collective life. Following this method, the author examines the practice of the infallible (AS) in life and notes that although they are often the most suitable people to set up a government, this would only be possible when people are willing to do so.

A short introduction

“The rational and Religious Validity of Majority Opinion” by Mas’ud Emami draws out the views of proponents and opponents of majority opinion based on five grounds: 1. the right of self-determination, 2. the discovery of truth, 3. religious justification, 4. Common good, and 5. acceptability (p. 10). The author tries to prove the claim that not all proponents and opponents of the majority opinion share the same views; rather, they may believe in the validity of majority opinion on one ground and consider it invalid on another (p. 10). According to the author, the right of self-determination based on rational and religious evidence is the only solid basis for proving the validity of the majority opinion and other grounds, in particular discovering the truth, are rejected. (p. 10-11)

Organization of the book

“The rational and Religious Validity of Majority Opinion” consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 explains related concepts such as genetic and legislative freedom, ideal government and the ultimate arbiter, and democracy. Chapter 2 examines the rational validity of the majority opinion based on each of the five grounds. Chapter 3 discusses the Quranic reasons why majority opinion is invalid and the problems associated with it, followed by a list of verses that show that majority opinion is valid. The fourth chapter examines the majority opinion in practice of the Infallible (AS), and, finally, the fifth chapter discusses the place of majority opinion in the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Methodology

In this book, the author tries to prove his claims based on rational and religious evidence. The most important chapter of the book deals with a rational analysis of the five grounds of the validity of majority opinion and refers to the verses of the Quran and narratives to justify the rational conclusions adopted from each of the grounds. In chapters 3 and 4, the author provides a comparative analysis of the Quranic verses and narratives based on two grounds of right to self-determination and discovery of truth, dividing them into two categories: belief in the invalidity of the majority opinion based on the discovery of truth and belief in the validity of the majority opinion based on the right of self-determination.

Basis for the validity or invalidity of majority opinion

In the most important and detailed chapter of the book, the author evaluates majority opinion based on five grounds (right of self-determination, discovery of the truth, religious justification, common good and acceptability) and concludes that majority opinion can be valid only based on the right of self-determination and other grounds can never or rarely prove this fact.

The right of self-determination

The right of self-determination is considered the fundamental basis for the validity of majority opinion. This right is closely linked to human formative freedom. According to the author of the book, human free choice is a preliminary step towards achieving perfection in this world and the next, and self-determination gains value when one is not forced to make a single choice, but chooses between different options-a point which is approved by verses of the Quran and narratives (pp. 27-40) Moreover, this right is considered to be beyond the scope of religion and jurisprudence; since it is commanded by practical reason, which is also followed by religion; and though its subject is related the rules of sharia, when reason encounters the do's and don'ts of sharia law, it does not consider it obligatory to fulfill them (pp. 40-42). In other words, people have to implement the divine rules from the perspective of Islamic legislation; yet they are free to do so from the genetic perspective and no one can force them to obey God's commands. (p. 117)

According to the author, the right to self-determination or enjoyment of formative freedom is a general rule which includes all human voluntary actions, whether in individual or collective form; therefore, establishment and survival of any state, even by an Infallible (AS), without the will and consent of the people, is not justified by the rules of reason and religion, and it is the consent of the people which brings legitimacy to any state (p. 43)

The right to self-determination may sometimes conflict with the will of others and cause distortion in social life. In such cases, it has been recognized that the fundamental rule of free choice of the people is violated only to the extent necessary to preserve social order and that the individual's right to free choice is respected as far as possible (pp.48-49). The best option for setting up compulsory laws is the will of the people; since consensus may rarely occur in society, the principle of free choice suffers the least when the majority opinion prevails over the minority opinion (p. 51). According to Mas’ud Emami, preferring the majority opinion in collective decision-making both ensures the principle of formative freedom and is the best option for settling disputes among people. (p.52) The author concludes by listing the following conclusions when the right to self-determination is considered as the basis for validity of majority opinion: the need to resort to referendum for collective decision-making without exception; the non-contradiction of compulsory laws required by the community with the right to self-determination; and the equal value of the opinions of members of the community regardless of their beliefs, ethics or expertise. (p. 59-60)

Discovery of Truth

The truth discovery justification for the validity of majority opinion focuses on the fact that the majority opinion discovers an unknown and a controversial fact (p. 60). According to the author, this ground is relied on by the opponents of the validity of the majority opinion (p, 60) and they do not actually notice the right to self-determination (p. 61). The author believes that this is a good reason for the invalidity of majority opinion; however, since Western thinkers see truth as relative, they consider the majority opinion as a means to attain truth (pp. 61-62). The author of the book does not consider it correct to refer to public opinion in cases where the truth is clear and believes that mass opinion cannot determine right and wrong, nor can it discover them (p. 69). Although he believes that mass opinion cannot discover the truth, he considers it valid only as a presumptive implication for truth finding. According to him, the opinion of the majority of scholars in a particular discipline or knowledgeable advisors can be used by decision-makers to identify the unknown fact. Of course, it cannot be dismissed as the ultimate judge (p. 70-72)

Religious legitimacy

Proving the legitimacy or illegitimacy of referring to public opinion through interreligious evidence is another ground relied upon to prove the validity of majority rule. According to the author, supporters cite evidence such as pledge of allegiance, consultation and some narratives, while opponents cite Quranic verses and narratives that condemn majority opinion in order to invalidate their evidence. (p.73) By reporting the views of Islamic jurists who believe in validity of majority opinion based on religious legitimacy, the author says that majority opinion is invalid in times of the presence and its validity is limited to the period of occultation; while based on the right of self-determination, the majority opinion is valid even at the time of presence (pp. 75-88). He continues that such reason for validity of the majority opinion is related to Islamic legislation and seeks to authorize the duty-bearers to decide themselves; (pp. 82, 91) While the right of self-determination is a formative issue and focuses on impermissibility to force the duty-bearers (p. 82 and 91) In conclusion, according to the author, religious legitimacy cannot be the final judge in resolving disputes among people. This is because there may be disagreements about the recognition of religious legitimacy, while the ultimate judge must be an indisputable fact (p. 93).

Common good

Based on common good, establishing and governing a state requires public consent and no government can be formed if it is not based on public opinion or it will not be effective (p.93). According to the author, this will be useful when rulers face problems in forming or maintaining government; but majority opinion will no longer make sense if rulers can advance their governmental agenda in other ways. Therefore, common good as a basis for the validity of majority opinion has some limits. According to him, on this basis, people are not the decision-makers, and common good in the governance of a community is not limited to public consent; many factors play a role and rulers of the community may try to secure the interests of society through factors other than public consent (pp. 96-97)

Acceptability

The last basis for the validity of majority opinion is the acceptability of the masses. According to some people like Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi and Muhammad Mu’min, people have no contribution in the legitimacy of the rulers; but their votes serve to create acceptability for the rulers and to objectify their power. (pp. 97-98.) On this basis, the right to sovereignty belongs to God who determines the ruler and the acceptance and approval of the people is the means by which a state is established. (p. 100.) According to the author, acceptability can be a basis for the establishment and maintenance of a dictatorial government, since people serve only as a means of establishing a government. (p. 103-104)

Majority opinion in the Quran

Analyzing the Quranic verses on majority opinion, Mas’ud Emami argues that from the Quranic perspective, majority opinion based on discovering the truth is invalid; but it is valid based on the right of self-determination (p. 107). According to the author, the first justification put forward by opponents of the validity of majority opinion is the large number of verses that condemn the majority and describe them as unintelligent, disbeliever, ungrateful, deviated from the right path, indulged in suspicion, etc. (p. 108-110) The author also believes that these verses do not consider the addressed community to be right in terms of beliefs, morals and behaviors, and that it is invalid in terms of discovering the truth; (p. 112) but they have nothing to do with people’s right to self-determination and do not distort it; because people’s opinion, takes precedence over the minority opinion, regardless of whether they are followers of truth or falsehood. (p. 113) The author of the book refers to some groups of verses of the Quran on human formative freedom, based on which the right to self-determination in collective life can be drawn out (p. 117-129). The first group of verses reminds the Prophet of Islam that his duty is merely to proclaim the message (of revelation) (p. 118-123); the second group of verses clearly prohibits the Prophet and others from forcing people to accept a religion (p. 123-125); the third group of verses states that people are free to accept the truth or falsehood (p. 125-127); and finally, in verse 256 of Surah al-Baqarah, any reluctance or compulsion in religion is explicitly rejected (pp. 127-128).

Majority opinion in the practice of the Infallible

The practice of the Infallible regarding the majority opinion is also evaluated in this book on various grounds. According to the author, majority opinion, in the practice of the Infallible, might be invalid on one basis and valid on another (p. 139). According to him, from a legislative perspective, a particular model of government might be established by the Infallible, but from a formative perspective, it is the people who have the right to accept or reject such a model. (pp. 140-141) The author sees the practice of the Prophet of Islam and the Infallible (AS) in their ruling as proof of the validity of majority opinion based on self-determination and the invalidity of majority opinion based on the discovery of truth. This is because even though the Infallible considered themselves to be chosen and appointed by God deserving to rule, they did not impose this vision on people. (p. 141) According to the author, approval of some uprisings by Alawites and descendants of Prophet by Imams does not invalidate the majority opinion; rather, it is about the minority protecting its right to identity and material and spiritual life against the oppression of the majority. (p. 143) The author believes that majority opinion based on the right to self-determination prevailed in the practice of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) and cites examples of defensive wars in the early Islamic period, migration and pledge of allegiance (pp.145-157). Referring to Imam Ali's actions and speech in the events after the death of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH), his non-violent action to win the Caliphate, and his practice during his Caliphate, the author states that there is a clear distinction in Imam Ali's life between the two foundations of the discovery of truth and the right to self-determination; because he calls his path as the right one and is not influenced by public opinion to abandon this right path, yet he emphasizes that the choice of rulers is the responsibility of the people. The author sees this as an indication of the invalidity of majority opinion based on the discovery of truth and its validity based on the right to self-determination (p. 157-170). Among other justifications of the author for the validity of majority opinion based on the right of self-determination are: withdrawal of Imam Hasan (AS) from ruling the community according to the will of people in the story of his entering to peace treaty with Mu’awiya, (p. 172), Imam Husayn’s (AS) departure to Kufa in accordance with the will of people (pp. 175-181), failing to establish a government by succeeding Imams because of not being accepted by people despite the virtues of the Infallible Imams (AS) (pp.181-182) and the establishment of the government by Imam Zaman (AS) following the will of people for his appearance (p. 183).

Evaluation and criticism

In his book, Mas’ud Emami notes that theorists may consider majority opinion valid on one basis and invalid on another; while theorists cannot have more than one justification for their views in one area. For example, concerning the formation of a government, it cannot be said that one theorist considers majority opinion valid based on the right to self-determination and invalid based on the religious legitimacy or common good. Therefore, it seems that the author should have classified the views based on different areas. Another point about this book is that it does not name the theorists. When the author examines various justifications, especially the right to self-determination, he does not specify the related theorists, and this makes the book weak in terms of documentation. In addition, after publication of The Rational and Religious Validity of Majority Opinion, the book was evaluated and reviewed in a scholarly conference called a debate on “Rational and Religious Validity of Majority Opinion”. In his review of the book, Muhammad Taqi AkbarNezhad points to the ignorance of God’s sovereignty and failing to see the relationship between the majority opinion and the story of Ghadir and Karbala and states that the theory gives up the divine commands [2].

footnotes

The debate on 'The Rational and Religious Validity of Majority Opinion' reported in IQNA website.

refrences

IQNA report on the debate on 'The Rational and Religious Validity of Majority opinion', posted on the IQNA website, May 9, 1400, accessed December 22, 1401.