The Possibility to Use the Right to Be Wrong in the Eyes of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran

The most important or one of the most important concepts in the legal sciences and legal systems is the controversial concept of “right” which has a long history behind it. In the meantime, “The right to be wrong” has also entered legal texts and documents in addition to theory. This right is the result of the growth of rights and the product of many centuries of struggle between the government and citizens in Western liberal thought and the result of various social, economic, and political happenings. The "right to be wrong" in a simple and concise sense, means respecting the conscience of others, even when we are sure they are wrong. In other words, this concept means non-interference of others in the wrongdoing of the right holder. Based on this, a person can build his moral system in such a way that, even according to others, is considered wrong, unjust, or immoral. "Right to die" or "Right to refuse medical treatment" and "Abortion", "Right to choose a racist party", and "Homosexuality" and... are some clear examples of the right to be wrong. Right to be wrong, which emphasizes the trans-ethical nature of rights by differentiating the right in the objective and subjective sense i.e., between "being right" and "having a right", reveals the content of the right in a new sense. Acknowledging the concept of having a right to be wrong in legal systems implies the acceptance of the principle of tolerance in regulating and harmonizing the legal relations of citizens and accepting the concept of "pluralism" instead of "plurality".

Literature Review:

Comparing the concept of the right to be wrong with the basic foundations of the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran voiced in the constitution shows that it cannot be assumed that this concept is accepted by the constitutional legislature through neither the textualist, structuralist nor intentionalist interpretation methods. Reflecting on the fourth and fifth articles, the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh in particular, the sixth paragraph of article 2, and finally the thirteenth article of the constitution, confirms the claim of the authors in this regard with a loyal and faithful interpretation of the text and the structure of the constitution. Also, referring to the constitutional negotiations documents -as an important source in understanding the fundamental rights of societies- in an attempt at an intentional interpretation, does not open a way to apply the concept of right to be wrong in this system. However, using the philosophical hermeneutic method instead of the previous interpretive methods, which seeks a dynamic interpretation of the text by understanding the "meaning of the meaning", while paying attention to the "requirements of the time", "the historicity of the text" and finally "the compromising between of the views of the author and the interpreter", makes the idea of accepting the right to be wrong in this legal order and system possible.

In this research, in addition to clarifying the concept, the theoretical foundations and justifications of the "right to be wrong", and emphasizing its prominence and prevalence in legal systems, its possibility in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran was measured and examined through the hermeneutic method.

The Guardian Council, which according to Article 98, is the only official interpreter of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has prevented the possibility of using a dynamic interpretation method, especially the new hermeneutics method, and refuses to accept the right to be wrong since its establishment. This institution has only authorized and used the two methods of textual interpretation (with an emphasis on the literary meaning of the word) and intentional interpretation, in the framework of the principles of Shia jurisprudence and based on Shia’s thought system in the interpretation of the holy texts and avoiding self-serving interpretation. This has become an issue that, of course, can be revised to make the domestic legal system more efficient. Reflecting on the capacities of Imamiyyah jurisprudence in identifying the concept of the right to be wrong and its application in domestic law and constitution, of course, requires another time.

The findings of this article show that the Islamic vision accepted in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran has distinct principles regarding rights with a liberal point of view, which has manifested itself in the form of the Sharia law governing the Constitution. "God-centeredness in all matters", distinguishing between "God's right" and "people's right" and finally the supremacy of "natural rights" over "conventional rights" are unchangeable and unbreakable elements in Islamic thought. According to this view, human rights are conventional and contractual, and nature, law, and above all, human beings, do not have inherent rights. it is through God-given rights that human rights are valid.