Human rights, as one of the central issues in Islamic jurisprudence, reveals fundamental differences in the perspectives of various jurisprudential schools. This research examines the legal rulings related to human rights from the viewpoint of Mohammad Reza Mozaffar, a prominent Shia jurist, and Muhammad bin Salih Ibn Uthaymeen, a notable thinker in Wahhabism. Legal rulings define the conditions and statuses that enable or prevent the realization of obligatory rulings. The main question of the research is how the differences between Mozaffar and Ibn Uthaymeen’s views on legal rulings affect the interpretation and implementation of human rights. The hypothesis of the research states that Mozaffar, by utilizing reason and consensus, provides a dynamic and comparative approach, while Ibn Uthaymeen adopts a more limited and traditional view, adhering strictly to religious texts. This descriptive-analytical study demonstrates that Mozaffar’s greater flexibility allows for the alignment of legal rulings with human rights issues and social justice, whereas Ibn Uthaymeen’s view, with its limitations in interpreting religious texts, creates challenges in adapting to contemporary needs.
Introduction
Human rights are one of the fundamental concepts that encounter various interpretations in different readings of Islamic jurisprudence. This article focuses on legal rulings and conducts a comparative analysis of the views of two contemporary jurists, Mohammad Reza Mozaffar (a Shia thinker) and Muhammad bin Salih Ibn Uthaymeen (a prominent Wahhabi jurist). The main question of the article is how the differences in the intellectual foundations of these two jurists affect the interpretation of legal rulings and their impact on human rights and social justice.
 
Research Methodology
The research method is descriptive-analytical, utilizing the analysis of jurisprudential sources, the direct works of Mozaffar and Ibn Uthaymeen, and related sources on legal rulings and human rights. Data were collected through library research and the study of jurisprudential, principled, and philosophical documents.
 
Theoretical Framework
Legal rulings are defined as rules that facilitate the realization or non-realization of obligatory rulings. In Shia jurisprudence, these rulings are analyzed through tools such as reason, consensus, conditions, impediments, and causes, while in Wahhabism, these rulings are based solely on religious texts, avoiding any form of rationalist ijtihad.
 
View of Mohammad Reza Mozaffar
Mozaffar places significant emphasis on the role of reason and consensus in analyzing legal rulings. He believes that temporal and spatial conditions and social justice must be considered in the analysis of legal rulings. For Mozaffar, legal rulings are not merely legal tools but a means to ensure human dignity and guarantee human rights. He examines conditions, impediments, validity, and corruption with a comparative and rationalist perspective, emphasizing the compatibility of jurisprudence with human rights concepts.
 
View of Muhammad bin Salih Ibn Uthaymeen
Ibn Uthaymeen views legal rulings strictly within the framework of religious texts. He avoids any rationalist ijtihad outside the tradition of the predecessors and considers human rights only within the framework of Islamic law. From his perspective, individual freedoms should be limited to the objectives of Islamic law, such as preserving religion, reason, life, and lineage. In his jurisprudence, legal rulings like conditions and impediments are seen as tools for restricting individual freedoms in favor of maintaining religious order.
 
Comparative Analysis
The methodological differences in analyzing legal rulings between Mozaffar and Ibn Uthaymeen are striking. Mozaffar relies on reason, consensus, and the needs of the time, while Ibn Uthaymeen considers only traditional texts as valid. Mozaffar’s flexible approach allows him to adapt rulings to modern human rights concepts, whereas Ibn Uthaymeen encounters conceptual and interpretive limitations in the face of social changes.
 
Impact of Their Jurisprudence on Human Rights
Mozaffar views legal rulings as serving social justice, individual freedoms, and human dignity, interpreting them in line with human rights. In contrast, Ibn Uthaymeen conditions freedom on the principles of Islamic law, rejecting any independent definition of it. The difference between these two perspectives ultimately relates to their differing philosophical foundations, their views on reason, and their engagement with the contemporary world.
 
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article finds that Mozaffar, by utilizing diverse interpretative resources, offers a dynamic and effective perspective in explaining legal rulings and their compatibility with human rights. In contrast, Ibn Uthaymeen presents a limited framework for analyzing legal rulings with his traditional and text-centered approach. The article suggests that to strengthen the position of Islamic jurisprudence in the contemporary world, adopting approaches like Mozaffar’s could be more effective in synergizing with global concepts.