Human Dignity

Disproportionate punishments are those punishments passed or enforced without considering the criteria of proportionality, namely the criteria of harm done, the absolute or relative seriousness of crimes, the kind of committed crime and offender characteristics, the degree and kind of victim’s culpability. Considering the penological aims, such as retribution, deterrence and securing social defense, as a part of proportionality test, in the process of determining, distinguishing and enforcing proportionate punishments, is contrary to the rationale and philosophy of proportionality principle. In fact, this approach eviscerates this principle and leaves only an empty shell. The main cause of the prohibition of disproportionate punishments in the international, regional, national human rights' documents is the proscription of using human beings as a means to an end (instrumentalism), aiming at the heart of human dignity. In the Iranian legal system, there are no clear rules and regulations about the prohibition of these kinds of punishments and the determined punishments in many penal codes, such as the Islamic penal code (1991, 1996), the Penal Code of Armed Forces Crimes (2003), the Act against Narcotics (1997) and the Punishment aggravating Act of Bribery, Embezzlement and Fraud (1988) are not compatible with the standards of proportionality, especially with the absolute and relative seriousness of offences, offender characteristics and victim’s culpability. This article tries to explore the principal criteria of proportionality between crime and punishment, the concept of disproportionate punishments and the philosophical foundations of the prohibition of such punishments and their contradiction with human dignity.

This paper argues for acceptance of digniry as a concept that ne use to describe an aggregate ef values and qualities of someone or something that deserve esteem and respect. The primary value that creates the nght to have dzgniry is life. The degree of dzgniry according to a particular life form depends on its place in the evolutionary scale. Human beings are the hzghestform ef life so thry possess the highest degree ofdigniry

Explaining and interpreting the honor and dignity of man and then finding ways to realize it in human life is one of the most important and fundamental topics in religious sources, especially the Qur'an and hadiths. Since insult is the opposite of honor and respect, the present research is trying to investigate the phenomenon of insult with a skeptology approach using a descriptive-analytical method and based on library and documentary information, while measuring and setting human honor and its accessories as a criterion. Considering that any description and attribution knowingly and intentionally causing the weakening and humiliation of human honor and its accessories is considered a category and an example of insult. In this research, the degree of compatibility and incompatibility of the Islamic rulings of inheritance, retribution, corporal punishment of women and women's testimony have been criticized and investigated with respect to human dignity. The results of the research show that Islamic rulings in the aforementioned four topics are based on reality, expediency and health of the family and society, necessity or in order to inform, change undesirable behaviors and prevent crimes. Also, some of the issues raised are necessary as a prescriptive ruling for a specific stage and with special conditions that have been established by the holy legislator.  

Introduction: Dignity is related to the inherent honor of the object, and the foundation of morality can be inferred and expressed from a kind of return to the human being and realizing his inherent honor and dignity. Therefore, the current research aims to examine the development of human dignity as the foundation of ethics in Islamic philosophy and Western humanist philosophy, and in this passage, it has emphasized Farabi's point of view as a representative of Islamic philosophy and Rousseau as a humanist philosophy. Material and Methods: The present review article examined human dignity from the perspective of Islamic and western philosophers in a descriptive manner. In order to achieve this goal, articles related to research keywords from Science Direct, Pub Med, Google scholar and related books were examined. Conclusion: According to Western philosophy, which is based on humanism, man is a part of nature and his relationship with the supernatural is loose and he has no need to determine a task from the supernatural. But in Islamic philosophy, man is under God's lordship and as the caliph of God and in connection with his divine successor, who has rights and duties. Western humanist philosophy, represented by philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, has tried to define human dignity around the human axis and the discourse of humanism. But Islamic philosophy, with the representation of philosophers like Farabi with a religious and spiritual perspective, considers a person to have a very high and great position, which can go as far as reaching the stage of dialogue with what is essential.

The present article seeks to investigate the theoretical foundations of human rights in Islamic thought.  It would briefly overview the foundations of human rights in international law as well. By reflecting on the epistemological, cosmological and anthropological foundations of human rights in Islamic thought we can reach a realistic view relating to human being and his/her identity thereby justify human rights. Divine rights include two collections of rights: statutory rights that are recognized for human beings in the Book and Sunnah and those rights that are originated from Fitrah and nature. From an Islamic point of view, there is no contrast between Divine rights and those originated from Fitrah. Using reason and the revelation, legal school of Islam is one of the most reliable and reasonable sources for clarifying Fitrah and natural rights. Basing human rights on dignity is logical when correlation between human being and dignity is referred to correlation between humanity and dignity. That being the case, potentiality of humanity leads to potentiality of dignity and the actuality of the former results in the actuality of the latter. All of the results of secular human rights are not necessarily in contradiction with Islamic views and there are cases in which, despite difference in foundations, similar results can be seen. Accordingly, most of the articles of UHRD can be confirmed by Muslims.

Peace is the essential core of all religions, and peacemaking is a telos for which all religions offer guidance. Grounded in principles such as justice, rational and social growth, forbearance, and forgiveness, peace—within the Radawi culture—is counted among the most foundational principles of international relations. The creation of peace is, before anything else, a spiritual act rooted in the honoring of genuine human rights. Unlike the negative definition adopted in much international-legal discourse—i.e., peace as nothing but the absence of war—the Radawi culture treats peace as an affirmative concept: amicable coexistence premised on the preservation of human dignity. This descriptive-analytical study argues that, contrary to the ethnocentric and unrealistic claims of certain Western Orientalists such as Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington—who portray Islam as incompatible with peace and democracy and as a font of violence and terrorism—Islam is a bearer of peace and friendship, and it is capacious enough to furnish a new and comprehensive paradigm for international relations. In the Radawi culture, the scope of peace embraces not only the narrow sense (the absence of armed conflict) but also the broader sense (justice-centered social flourishing). In this culture—contrary to what is commonly asserted in the law of armed conflict—there is no doctrine of preemptive self-defense; peace is sacred, and jihād is a fundamentally humanitarian measure meant to expand peace and security under divine sovereignty by negating ṭāghūt (illegitimate domination), defending the oppressed, and combating injustice.

This research explores the arguments for and against the realization of strong artificial intelligence from the perspective of Qur’anic teachings. Opponents, citing verses from the Holy Qur’an, consider strong AI an instance of polytheism in creatorship, a tool for misguidance, human deification, alteration of divine creation, transgression into the divine domain, and a violation of human dignity and divine vicegerency. In contrast, proponents, by offering more precise interpretations of the same verses and applying principles of Islamic philosophy, demonstrate that strong AI is compatible with the teachings of the Qur’an. They argue that creation in the sense of innovation ex nihilo is exclusive to God, and what humans do is the manipulation of God’s creations, which is not forbidden according to Qur’anic verses. In other cases, most of the opponents’ arguments are based on limited interpretations or specific readings of Qur’anic verses. The research results indicate that there is no inherent conflict between strong AI and Qur’anic teachings; rather, this technology can be placed in the service of humanity within the framework of Islamic values.

This study explores the foundations and principles of popular governance in the Alawi discourse, with a particular focus on the political thought and practice of Imam Ali (AS). It argues that Alawi political theory emphasizes active citizen participation in decision-making, implementation, and oversight. Imam Ali (AS) considered government a divine trust, whose legitimacy is contingent upon public acceptance and consent. Core principles of this model include justice orientation, transparency, consultative governance, accountability of rulers, and the protection of human dignity. Within this framework, the people are recognized not merely as the "Pillars of Faith" and "God's Family," but also as holding a pivotal role in the formation, administration, and supervision of government. The study further suggests that revisiting the political legacy of Imam Ali (AS) can provide valuable insights for contemporary political systems seeking to develop indigenous models of popular governance that combine divine legitimacy with popular approval. Such a model has the potential to address the needs of modern Islamic civilization and to serve as a normative basis for effective governance in Muslim societies.

A Reviving Rationality Theory offers a knowledge-based and practical framework to rebuild rational thinking in response to the complex crisis of our time. This crisis comes from the limits of traditional rationality, modern instrumental rationality, and postmodern relativism, which have led to stagnation, alienation, environmental destruction, and theoretical paralysis. Reviving Rationality defines rationality as an evolving system of knowledge and action based on three principles: coherent epistemic pluralism, constructive criticism, and evolutionary responsibility. Using multilayered critical realism, it examines reality at four levels (empirical, event-based, structural, and evolutionary) and draws knowledge from five sources (logical reasoning, empirical experience, practical intuition, social dialogue, and historical wisdom). By solving the paradox of fallibilism through distinguishing between the content, method, and purpose of knowledge, and emphasizing human dignity as a core principle for both knowledge and action, this theory moves beyond classic dualities like structure versus freedom or individual versus society. It systematically critiques instrumental rationality, postmodern relativism, and static traditionalism, proposing a three-stage process (analysis, synthesis, decision) and four criteria (logical coherence, alignment with evidence, practical effectiveness, and ethical consistency) to evaluate beliefs and decisions. Reviving Rationality is not a return to traditional or modern rationality, nor a full acceptance of postmodern critiques; instead, it provides an evolutionary, responsible, and inclusive framework that combines the strengths of scientific methods and logical analysis with diverse knowledge sources and ethical considerations to tackle complex issues like climate change and social inequality. This framework is a theoretical tool for rational and humane thinking, open to critique and improvement.