RELATIONSHIP OF TRUTH WITH EXPEDIENCY
From what has been discussed above, the meaning of expediency and mischief and the need for the conformity of law with individual and social interests becomes clear. It is now the turn to moot the final question: what is the relationship between the truth and expediency?
In the beginning of the paper we pointed out that the word truth has different meanings. This difference must be carefully attended to so that no mistake or confusion takes place.
One of the meanings of truth in connection with our discussions is that deed should possess and appropriate and befitting aim and objective. That is to say it should cause the achievement of greater success. As against this, untruth means a deed which is devoid of such and objective, for instance meaningless and futile deeds.
According to this definition a deed which is expedient is true and an action devoid of expediency is untrue. Similarly, a law which specifies the first type of deed shall be true and the law which provides for the other type shall be untrue. In this way, truth and expedience shall be in conformity with and testifying each other. In other words, both the meanings shall be abstract essence and secondary philosophical intelligible which shall be segregated in consideration of the relationship between the action and the result accruing therefrom.
As far as rights as a legal term is concerned it means a legal privilege which is confirmed by individual or society and has a two-side relationship with the rightful and against whom the right is given, and necessarily provides and obligation for the opposite side. This is an essence of credibility which has close relationship with property. The basic difference is that in regard to property attention is not paid to two aforesaid relationships and only the relationship of owner with the property is taken into consideration
If the essence of right is considered in a wider sense and not limited within the circle of social relations, it would also include moral laws and would also hold true in case of relationship between the Creator and creation. However, the subject of truth should be related with voluntary action in some way or the other. If only the creative distinction of a being in exploiting the other being is taken into consideration there will be to place for credence to terms like right, property, etc., unless the privileged person performs voluntary deed in this connection or connected with the voluntary work of any other being. For instance, if the relationship of a tree with sunlight or the rainwater is taken note of and the negative or positive human effect is not given attention to the credence of right for the tree in relation to light and water will be nullified. But if human relationship is also added one can say the tree has the right to make use of sunlight and rain-water; meaning thereby that the man should not hinder the use of light or water. To be more appropriate, if the two parties to right the rightful and one against whom right is granted be free actors, this meaning would achieve better credence. For instance, it may be said that all human beings have the right to use sunlight and, therefore, nobody should hinder the usage of this divine blessing because in this case both, the rightful and the one against whom right is granted are human beings and subject of right is sunlight.
Therefore, the word right in legal and moral terms is used in instances where the possibility of exercising the will be someone having a free will is under consideration. It is so because morality and rights are voluntary deeds and their allied matters. Anything that is not connected with voluntary action is entirely alien to subject dealing with morality and law.
But the basic issue is that in cases where there is credence of right and duty what is the source of these credences? What is the basis to ascertain right and duty?
In order to reply this question certain instances are thought of, the most important of them being as follows:
(1) Right and duty are fixed by nature. It is the nature of tree which gives it the right to use sunlight, air and water; it is the nature of an animal which grants it the right to use vegetation. Also it is human nature which gives him the right to exploit vegetation and animals. Finally, it is the nature of a society which fixes the right and duty of individuals.
Irrespective of the fact that nature does not have an occult existence and especially because it cannot be proved that society has a nature, two other problems become evident:
Firstly, as pointed out the credence of right is correct for a thing or person only in case which necessitates the specification of duty for a person having a free will in that case. For instance, credence to the right of use of water, air and light for a tree is appropriate if it binds a man to observe this right and not to create hindrance in its usage. Any one who gives the right to a thing or person in fact provides a duty for the one who has free will to observe that right. Now the question is as to what authority has the trees nature on a man so as to fix such a duty for him? And reciprocally binds man to obey the order or the trees nature?
Secondly, when something causes clash between two beings, each of which want to exploit it, how can their right and duty be fixed? For example, if the life health or growth of man depends on drinking the water which an animal wants to drink, in that case will the right of man have preference or that of the animal? Who would specify such a right?
In reply to such a problem it can be said that universal nature which is the creator of all minor natures of man, animal and other creatures has bestowed greater right to the mightier and, therefore, mans right has a preference on animal rights.
Although it is a fact that the existence of the overall nature is not stable for the world the standard of right, at least in case of clash, in nothing but power and strength. Naturally, if the clash is between beings, the stronger man will have greater rights, this is the basis of the law of jungle and not the basis of human morality and laws.
(2) The other instance is that right and duty is fixed on the basis of their objectives. For instance, a tree moves to attain its particular objective which is the final stage of its grow. It should, therefore, exploit the means to achieve its ultimate goal. So is the ultimate object of mans move for perfection. It is this which decides its rights. As far as the clashes between human being are concerned, rights and duties should be so specified that the largest number of members of a society achieve those highest objectives.
However, this reply as also not convincing in any way because the dependence of a thing to reach its ultimate aim and perfection on the exploitation of other thing cannot be a convincing argument for man to ignore his own interests and desires. Similarly, he cannot create responsibility for any human being in relation to another individual because each of them is active and endeavor to reach their ultimate goal. How can, therefore, this individual submit to a limit for his own exploitations?
(3) The other matter is that the rights of every creature are fixed according to hi requirements. In a society its members have the right to exploit it according to their requirements. This case is similar to the previous one and raises similar doubts. In addition to this, the essence of the word requ8irement is doubtful and flexible and no specific limits can be fixed for that.
(4) The fourth case is that since right and duty go together, the right of a person is fixed in accordance with the obligation and responsibility he accepts for himself. In other words, everyone has the right to benefit from the achievements of a society to the extent he benefits the society. This equation and balancing of rights and duties of individuals in relation to each other is called justice.
This statement is acceptable in regard to rights resulting from contracts and rights accruing from performance of responsibilities which a man takes upon himself voluntarily. But as far as primary rights and duties are concerned, such as the right of a new born on his father and mother and their obligation in regard to their children, as well as the right of the disabled and the born-invalids on the society, the above statement does not solve these issues.
(5) The fifth case relates to the fact that the right and duty of each individual is fixed on the basis of depreciation and deflection of the interests of the individual and the society. This is a more serene matter that those discussed earlier. It clarifies the relationship between right and expediency better than others. However, it should be noted that firstly human interests are not entirely concerned with material and worldly interests. While accounting for and evaluating these interests, attention has to be paid to moral and eternal interests as well. Secondly, the evaluation of various interests and the fixation of the extent of their trends is a very difficult and complicated matter and, as a matter of fact, it is beyond the capability of ordinary human beings. It is here that clarifies mans need for guidance through revelation is clear. And sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may conduct themselves with equity (57:25)
Finally, one-minute point remains uncovered by all that has been said above. It is that on what basis man has the right of expropriation in things beyond himself, whether inanimate objects, vegetables, animals or other human beings? Again the question is that irrespective of contracts and optional commitments is man considered responsibility in regard to them? Wherefrom does he get the right to use his limbs and organs?
A clear and logical reply to this question cannot be obtained on grounds of material outlook and without taking into consideration the principles of religious faiths. However, such a reply can be given on the basis of divine outlook.
When human being feels the necessity of giving credence to essences like right and duty in order to direct his voluntary movements and behaviors, he has, in the first instance, to take into consideration the actual relationship amongst the creatures so as to establish credibility on the basis of realities. However, the most fundamental realistic relationship can be found between the creator and the created. It is the relationship of actual ownership of the Almighty Allah towards His creatures. Hence, the first right of possession of creatures is established for the Creator. On this basis the right of possession for every existent being has finally to be authenticated by divine design. Therefore, if the Almighty Allah did not permit man to use his limbs and organs he could not have this right. The right to possession of other beings, all of which are the total and absolute property of the Creator could not, therefore, be imagined. Also, the first duty of a man originates from the real overlordship of the Almighty Allah and no duty can take precedence over it. All other rights and duties spring from this right and duty.
No doubt, man due to negligence from the Almighty Allah and His real ownership, turns attention towards his genetic domination on his own organs, limbs and energies and considers that he has the right of possession on them. But no sooner he realized his own bondage towards the Almighty Allah; he would know that his ownership of his own organs and limbs is along the ownership of Allah and towards other servants (of Allah). No doubt man sees his possession of blessings available in his environment as free and unrestricted. It is only in connection with clash with others that he realized the need to give credence to rights and duties. It is on the basis of standards such as precedence in possession or severity of requirements etc. that man gives credence to laws, preferences and privileges and accepts duties and responsibilities. In fact the motive for these credits is the need for a comfortable and peaceful social life which cannot be achieved except by observing these rules. But once this matter gets related to Origin and Resurrection, the question arises that if mans deeds become the source of credence of right on the basis of an external element, why cannot his own creation and that of the entire world become the source of right for the Creator? If the comforts of social life induce him to accept limitations for his own possessions and recognize obligations for himself, why should he not pay attention to the natural inclination towards attainment of spiritual perfection and eternal bliss and accept responsibility towards their achievement.
However, the right and duty which relate to matters beyond social relations go farther than their legal essence. But in consideration of the fact that legal system forms a part of the total value system, they cannot be considered wholly alien to each other. So is the case of value system which cannot be considered unrelated with religious order?
In conclusion, it is said that according to divine thought mans primary right of possession of his organs and limbs and other God given blessings and comforts originate from the Will of Allah towards the perfection of creatures and the ever-increasing realization of their accomplishment. If and when there is a clash in the perfection of different creatures, the lesser perfect beings are sacrificed for the sake of more perfect beings. For instance, vegetation and animals are subjected to the exploitation by man who has achieved greater perfection, both dejure and be facto. Similarly, if the realization of accomplishment for all the individuals of a society is subject is subjected to the sacrifice of some, this has to he done. No doubt the Almighty Allah will not leave such sacrifices unawarded and their sacrifices will be compensated for in the best possible manner in the eternal world.
Thus all rights and duties, whether moral or legal revert to the prudent will of Allah. In case where wisdom can minutely discover the requirements of prudence, there will be no need for divine revelation. But in most of the cases need for divine revelation and Prophethood is felt because of complicated formula and lack of comprehension by ordinary wisdom of all the changes and pressures of their effects and the exact balancing of preferences and evaluation. It is for reason that Allah, the Prudent, in consideration of His extreme Benevolence and as demanded by His Wisdom has sent prophets and divine laws so that men may recognize the path of their perfection and possess accurate equilibrium for evaluation. And the heaven, He raised it high, and He made the balance, that you may not be inordinate in respect of the measure (55:7-8). In this manner, the harmony between genesis and legislation also becomes clear.
