The Interrelatedness of Right and Duty

By: Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
The topic which has been allotted for this session is the mutual relationship between people and government. Of course, the technical and exact description of this topic is “the mutual rights and duties of people and government” because “relationship” itself is not something specific which we have to deal academically and discuss all types of relationships ever imaginable, even those which have no legal underpinning and do not create a duty for anyone. Therefore, the topic of discussion is specifically allotted to the mutual relationship between people and government which assumes a legal form.
Before embarking on the main discussion, it is necessary to mention some fundamental points. (Of course, each of these points can be a separate subject for academic discussion and research.)
Right and duty are two interrelated concepts, and in a sense, two sides of a single coin. When we say, “The people have rights over the government,” it means that “The government is obliged to grant those rights.” Similarly, when it is asked, “Which right or rights the government has over the people?” its other meaning is “What is the duty of people toward the government?” On the contrary, when we say, “What is the duty of the people or the government?” it means that the government (or people) has rights over the people (or government). So, merely to establish the right of one party requires the affirmation of duty of the other party. This is one of the meanings of the interrelation of right and duty.
One of the issues in the philosophy of law and the philosophy of politics is the same interrelatedness of right and duty. What is meant by the interrelatedness of right and duty, as we have stated, is that wherever a right is established for one over the other, the latter is obliged to give that right to its owner. Of course, there are types of correlativeness between right and duty, one of which is the same stated correlativeness.

Types of Interrelatedness among Concepts
This is the further explanation: The interrelatedness of two things means that these two things are related and connected to each other, and it has different types. Sometimes, the interrelatedness is so extensive that the existing connection between them has been embedded in the meaning of these concepts; for example, the interrelatedness of two brothers whose bond of brotherhood is clear because the meaning of brother is that he has a brother or sister. It is not possible for the concept of brotherhood to appear anywhere and opposite to it, there is no brother or sister. The same is the case of the father-child relationship. If the concept of “father” is to be proved, opposite to it, the concept of “child” must also definitely exist. We do not call as “father” anyone who has no child. In any case, this is one type of interrelatedness among concepts which is embedded in the meaning of the words themselves.
Another type of interrelatedness is that which has not been embedded in the meaning of the word. Rather, rationally and logically, the party to which one of the two interrelated ones is credited, gives credit to the other party. In other words, the rational requirement of some terms is that another term opposite to it must exist. One example is the terms “government” and “people.” If there is no “people” opposite of “government”the dominant apparatus ruling over them the “government” has no meaning at all and the concept of “government” will never be affirmed.
In this type of interrelatedness, the connection existing between concepts is not embedded in the meanings of the terms and the concept of the terms itself does not require it either. Instead, a certain external rational reason dictates that opposite of a concept which is credited, another concept is to be considered as well. For instance, in a dealing in which one type of exchange between goods takes place, the mere transfer of an item to the other party does not necessarily require the payment of money for the receipt of the item, for the other party may give the money and in return, not to receive the item.
Yet, interests require that the goods must be exchanged together, and anyone who produces an item which is more than his need should transfer it to another party in exchange for receiving an item he needs. So, the transfer of goods by itself does not necessarily require the payment of money in return for receiving an item, but the social interests dictate that business transactions and buying and selling must be proportionate. That is, when someone transfers a product to another person, he has to receive something in return which is valuable proportionate to his transferred product.
If a person is defrauded and cheated in a transaction, that transaction is invalid in the sense that the cheated one has the right after becoming aware of being cheated to cancel and revoke it. The reason for this is that here there is no proportion between the exchanged goods. If a glass instead of a pearl or diamond is sold to a person and a huge amount of money is received from him, in this case a transaction has taken place (because after all, glass has a value and is transferred to another party and the payment for it is received) but this transaction is invalid, and the fair-minded ones do not approve it. Why? It is not because the mere exchange or transfer of goods dictates that each of the two parties should definitely receive the proportional goods for the money paid; rather, it is because the social interests dictate so. As such, fraudulent transaction is invalid. The same is true in the case of “delusive” transaction which takes place without the other party being sure of which thing he has to give.

Two Types of Relationship between Right and Duty
With respect to the topic of discussion, when we say, “The ruler has a right over the people,” the concept of the ruler’s having rights demands the observance of those rights by the people. There is sense in saying that one has right over the other, if his right needs not be observed. Similarly, the meaning of saying, “Someone owes me something” is that “That person has to give me that thing.” It cannot be said, “I have a claim upon a person” if that person could either pay it or not depending on his choice! This situation is not consistent with the concept of being a creditor.
The meaning of having a claim is that the debtor has to pay his debt unless the creditor relinquishes his right. Therefore, the concept of right requires that in return for it, there should be a party obligated to respect that right. This relationship of right and duty is a conceptual interrelatedness; that is, two things that are related, and that connection has been embedded in the meaning of the word. One relationship of right and duty is this one in which wherever a right is regarded for a person, with respect to him the others are duty-bound to observe it.
The other correlation of right and duty is their relationship in terms of “balance.” That is, if we consider a right of person A over person B, in return we also have to determine a right of person B in relation to person A so as to observe balance between right and duty for the two parties. For example, whenever a right is determined for the ruler, a right is also to be considered for the people in relation to the ruler. These two rights are opposite to each other and like the two sides of a scale. Once there is a right for this party, there should also be a right for that party. Naturally, the right that person A has over person B is the duty of person A to observe. The same is true in the case of the right person B has over person A. So, the two rights and two duties are like the two pans of a scale which are balanced.

The Relationship between Right and Duty from the View Point of Imam Ali
An elegant expression (if not to say the most beautiful expression) in this regard has been reported from Imam ‘Ali (‘a) in Nahj al-Balaghah when he says: “It does not accrue to any person unless it accrues against him also, and right does not accrue against a person unless it also accrues in his favor… Then, from His rights, He, the Glorified, created certain rights for certain people against others. He made them so as to equate with one another. Some of these rights produce other rights. Some rights are such that they do not accrue except with others.”1
Even when God the Exalted determines a right for Himself over His servants, He determines a corresponding right for His servants.2 Of course, given the fact that people do not have any right over God, how can it be possible for anyone to acquire any right over God? This requires a profound and extensive discussion which we will embark on at an appropriate time in the future. But here we shall point it out in brief.

Right and Duty in Relation to God
A person acquires right over a thing when he has some kind of ownership of it. For instance, I have the right to speak because I have my own tongue. I have the right to live in my house because I am the owner of it. In view of this, if a person is supposed to have a right over God, does he own anything of God? Does it make any sense for me to say that a person is the owner of something of God?! God forbid, is he the owner of the Essence of God, His Attributes, His dominions, or His creation?
Of which thing is he the owner? He himself and everything else are owned by God. How can he have any right over God? Originally, no creature has any right over God unless God Himself determines that right for him. Yes, if a person does not believe in God, his reckoning is with God. But if a person accepts God as the One Who has created the universe by His Will and the Owner of everything, there is no sense in imagining that somebody has a right over God. Everything that everybody owns belongs to God: To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. (2:255)
Who else can have any right? Out of His grace and favor to His servants, corresponding to His right over them, He has set rights for them upon Himself: He has laid upon Himself (the obligation of) their reward equal to several times the recompense as a mark of His bounty and the generosity that He is capable of.3
The right that God has over His servants is the right of servitude. The servant should worship Him. If he does not worship, what must he do?
Hence, the right of God over His servants is obedience and worship. But He has not set this right as unilateral, but rather ordained, “I have right over you to ask you to worship Me, but you have also the right that if you worship Me, you shall receive reward from Me.” This is the right ordained by God. Even if you spend your entire life in worshipping God, still you cannot acquire any right over Him because while worshipping Him, what are you really doing? The tongue is owned by God; we move our tongues the way God wants us to do.
The body belongs to God; we move it as God dictates; we kneel down and prostrate. In short, whatever form of worship through whatever member or limb of the body it is, God has endowed and created that limb, and all our actions, movements and pauses are undertaken by the power and might of God. Given this, what right do we have over God? We do not have anything of our own which we can allocate to God, let alone to say, “We did this thing.
So, we have right over you.” The Commander of the Faithful ‘Ali (‘a) says in Nahj al-Balaghah to the effect: “If right is supposed to be unilateral, God is most deserving of right over His servants and for His servants to have no right over Him. But God is not pleased even with this. Once the right for Him was established to order His servants to obey Him and to have the right of obedience and servitude over the people, He also set a corresponding right for the people.”4 They by themselves do not have such right but God has fixed it so as to establish the balance between the two sets of rights. Of course, apart from it, other rights have also been determined. For instance, in the Qur’an He says: And it was a must for Us to help the faithful. (30:47)
Who has given this right? What right do people themselves have? It is God Who has given this right to the faithful if they remain steadfast in their faith, He shall assist them: Certainly Our Decree has gone beforehand in favor of Our servants, the apostles, that they will indeed receive [Allah’s] help, and indeed Our hosts will be the victors. (37:171-173)
This is another right which God has given to His servants. Yet, another right is for Him to grant their reward in the Hereafter, and another right for Him is to make them victorious in this world. He shall grant succor to those who are treading His path, send hidden assistances and provide causes for them to emerge triumphant. What is given in return for this right? In return, it is to help God and His religion: O you who have faith! If you help Allah, He will help you and make your feet steady. (47:7)
If they are steadfast in faith, God will also help them: Indeed those who say, ‘Our Lord is Allah!’ and then remain steadfast, the angels descend upon them, [saying,] ‘Do not fear, nor be grieved!’ (41:30)
Anyhow, these two sets of rights are proportional and each of them requires duty. That is, since God has right over His servants, they have to obey Him (right for God and duty for His servants). On one hand, once they worship Him, they will acquire a right over God and that is for Him to give them reward (right for His servants and duty for God). However, God has set this “must” (obligation) for Himself out of His grace and favor for His servants. In simpler terms, we cannot determine a duty for God, but out of His compassion and generosity to His servants, He has fixed a duty for Himself. For example, He says: Your Lord has made mercy incumbent upon Himself. (6:54)
In the language of the Qur’an, kataba means a very heavy responsibility. Regarding prayer, He says: The Prayer is indeed a timed prescription [kitaban mawqutan] for the faithful. (4:103)
Whenever He refers to a very heavy duty, He says “kitab” [a written one]. Concerning fasting, He also says: O you who have faith! Prescribed [kutiba] for you is fasting. (2:183)
That is, fasting is a definite duty and it must certainly be observed. Regarding Himself, God also uses the same term and says: Your Lord has made [kataba] mercy incumbent upon Himself. (6:54)
That is, God has made it incumbent upon Himself to have mercy upon His servants. Of course, this mercy has conditions and it encompasses those who are meritorious and worthy of it. In fact, He has described His conditions elsewhere.5
In any case, correlation between right and duty sometimes means balance between the coinages of rights. Commensurate to the coinage of rights for one party, rights are to be considered for the other party. Naturally, since by the coinage of each right, duty on the part of the other party also arises, this finally ends up in correlation between right and duty. Here, correlation is no longer conceptual, but it is either a requisite of social interests or of Divine Grace. The social interests demand that once one party has a right, the other party should have also a right. Once the ruler has a right over the people, the people must have a right over the ruler. These two rights should be balanced and proportional to each other. One party cannot have enormous and profound right over another while the other party has no right over him and is only obligated to observe and give his rights.
As we know that right and duty are correlative to each other, wherever a right is established, without need for further reason, we can deduce that a duty for a person or persons will also be established. For example, if one proved the right of subsistence and living expenditure over his own father, there is no more need for basis to prove that father must provide so because the implication of the first basis stipulating that the child has right over his father is that the father is obliged to do that. By establishing the basis of the right or duty of one of the two parties, the other one is automatically proved. If it is proved through a certain basis that the government has right over the people, through the same basis it will be proved that the people should give it its right, and vice versa. This is another important point which must be noted.
Yet, another point is that determining the duties must be done on the basis of a reasonable foundation. Duty cannot be set for anyone without reason. If it is said that the government is duty-bound to offer a certain service to the people, it must be based on well-defined principles and logical basis. A duty cannot be placed on the shoulder of the government without any reason or just based on whims and caprice. It must be analyzed why the government has such a duty.
The government is founded on the basis of a certain raison d’être, and we have to see the reason behind the existence of government so as to understand what duties and responsibilities it has. The same philosophy that proves the necessity of the existence of government will make its duties clear in the process. Once the duties of the government are established, the rights of people will also be established. On the other hand, we should understand what rights the government has over the people; in other words, what the duties of the people toward the government are.
In presenting a logical answer to this problem, it is inaccurate to say that such thinkers as Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Lock, and others have given these views, and we select the midway of these views. Our answer will become logical once we specify what need for government we can see on the basis of our foundations and worldview so that we know accordingly which duties it has and which rights it creates. If we do not pursue the subject while keeping in view of the raison d’être of government, we will not arrive at the logical answer; rather, at a subjective answer devoid of any criterion and logical support.
However, if we prove rationally the reason that government came into being, the same proof will automatically state which duties the government has and which jobs it has to do. Once it became clear what functions the government has to perform, it will be proved what rights the people have over the government as well as what duties they have toward it. Therefore, the same reason that establishes the expediency of government also specifies its duties.