State theories in Shiite jurisprudence (book) - Revision history

Sarfipour: /* Criticism and evaluation of the book */

2026-04-25T16:28:59Z

Criticism and evaluation of the book

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 25 April 2026
Line 114:		Line 114:

	== Criticism and evaluation of the book ==		== Criticism and evaluation of the book ==
	After its publication, the book Theories of State in Shiite Jurisprudence was criticized and evaluated by some political jurisprudence researchers, including ~~Seyyed~~ Sadeq ~~Haqiqat~~. According to him, the prominent feature of the book is that for the first time, it has comprehensively classified the theories of Shiite political jurisprudence. Moreover, by distinguishing between the principles, foundations, and interpretations, it has made possible a precise understanding of the theories, and it has shown well that there is only one reading in Shiite jurisprudence. <ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 181.</ref>. Of course, according to him, this book collects the theories of sovereignty or the foundations of legitimacy, not the state theories. <ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of the state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 182.</ref>. Another point is that the book is neither analytical nor critical in the strict sense, but the level of this writing is description and classification. The other point is that the theories presented are in the field of political thought, not only in political jurisprudence.<ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 182.</ref>. The lack of comprehensiveness in collecting theories related to the state is another criticism that has been made to the book.<ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 183.</ref>.		After its publication, the book Theories of State in Shiite Jurisprudence was criticized and evaluated by some political jurisprudence researchers, including [[Sayyid Sadeq Haghighat]]. According to him, the prominent feature of the book is that for the first time, it has comprehensively classified the theories of Shiite political jurisprudence. Moreover, by distinguishing between the principles, foundations, and interpretations, it has made possible a precise understanding of the theories, and it has shown well that there is only one reading in Shiite jurisprudence. <ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 181.</ref>. Of course, according to him, this book collects the theories of sovereignty or the foundations of legitimacy, not the state theories. <ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of the state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 182.</ref>. Another point is that the book is neither analytical nor critical in the strict sense, but the level of this writing is description and classification. The other point is that the theories presented are in the field of political thought, not only in political jurisprudence.<ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 182.</ref>. The lack of comprehensiveness in collecting theories related to the state is another criticism that has been made to the book.<ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 183.</ref>.

	Hamze Ali Vahidimanesh, in his review of the book Theories of State in Shiite Jurisprudence, believes that this book ignored the common positions of the jurists on the issue of guardianship of the Islamic Jurist and tried to highlight the differences.<ref>Vahidimanesh, "Criticism on the book on state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 180.</ref>. He did not take into account the works of theoreticians and studied only a part of the works that would satisfy his goals.<ref>Vahidimanesh, "Criticism on the book of State theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 210.</ref>.		Hamze Ali Vahidimanesh, in his review of the book Theories of State in Shiite Jurisprudence, believes that this book ignored the common positions of the jurists on the issue of guardianship of the Islamic Jurist and tried to highlight the differences.<ref>Vahidimanesh, "Criticism on the book on state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 180.</ref>. He did not take into account the works of theoreticians and studied only a part of the works that would satisfy his goals.<ref>Vahidimanesh, "Criticism on the book of State theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 210.</ref>.

Sarfipour: /* Criticism and evaluation of the book */

2026-04-25T15:22:58Z

Criticism and evaluation of the book

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 25 April 2026
Line 117:		Line 117:

	Hamze Ali Vahidimanesh, in his review of the book Theories of State in Shiite Jurisprudence, believes that this book ignored the common positions of the jurists on the issue of guardianship of the Islamic Jurist and tried to highlight the differences.<ref>Vahidimanesh, "Criticism on the book on state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 180.</ref>. He did not take into account the works of theoreticians and studied only a part of the works that would satisfy his goals.<ref>Vahidimanesh, "Criticism on the book of State theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 210.</ref>.		Hamze Ali Vahidimanesh, in his review of the book Theories of State in Shiite Jurisprudence, believes that this book ignored the common positions of the jurists on the issue of guardianship of the Islamic Jurist and tried to highlight the differences.<ref>Vahidimanesh, "Criticism on the book on state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 180.</ref>. He did not take into account the works of theoreticians and studied only a part of the works that would satisfy his goals.<ref>Vahidimanesh, "Criticism on the book of State theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 210.</ref>.

	== References ==		== References ==
	{{References}}		{{References}}

Sarfipour at 15:22, 25 April 2026

2026-04-25T15:22:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 25 April 2026
Line 108:		Line 108:
	According to Kadivar, in this theory, the unelected jurist does not have actual guardianship, and more rights have been predicted for the people than in the theory of Naeeni and Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr. Human experience can be used to manage the society in different time and place conditions, and finally the Islam of the state will be ensured by observing the conditions of the Islamic ruler. (p. 158)		According to Kadivar, in this theory, the unelected jurist does not have actual guardianship, and more rights have been predicted for the people than in the theory of Naeeni and Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr. Human experience can be used to manage the society in different time and place conditions, and finally the Islam of the state will be ensured by observing the conditions of the Islamic ruler. (p. 158)
	=== Restricting the jurist (wali al-faqih) of jurists in the theory of Islamic elected state ===		=== Restricting the jurist (wali al-faqih) of jurists in the theory of Islamic elected state ===
	The theory of Islamic elected state was presented by three Iraqi and Lebanese jurists, Seyyed Mohammad Baqer Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr, Mohammad Javad Mughniyeh and Mohammad Mahdi Shams Al-din. (p. 159). According to Mohsen Kadivar, this theory does not give any special political privileges to the jurists and their duties are limited to judging and ~~calling to good~~. Also, this theory of the Islamic state based on direct divine legitimacy is specific to the time of the infallible. According to him, in this theory, the management of political affairs during occultation is left to the people themselves. To be sure, the fixed rules of Sharia must be observed and the changing rules must not be inconsistent with the fixed rules. Finally, this theory considers the form of the Islamic state to be a council, and its being Islamic is due to the Islamic laws. (p.173-174)		The theory of Islamic elected state was presented by three Iraqi and Lebanese jurists, Seyyed Mohammad Baqer Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr, Mohammad Javad Mughniyeh and Mohammad Mahdi Shams Al-din. (p. 159). According to Mohsen Kadivar, this theory does not give any special political privileges to the jurists and their duties are limited to judging and enjoining what is right. Also, this theory of the Islamic state based on direct divine legitimacy is specific to the time of the infallible. According to him, in this theory, the management of political affairs during occultation is left to the people themselves. To be sure, the fixed rules of Sharia must be observed and the changing rules must not be inconsistent with the fixed rules. Finally, this theory considers the form of the Islamic state to be a council, and its being Islamic is due to the Islamic laws. (p.173-174)
	=== The impact of jurisprudential rules of ownership and representation on the political life of society ===		=== The impact of jurisprudential rules of ownership and representation on the political life of society ===
	The theory of the representation of common private owners regarding the state in Shiite jurisprudence was presented by Mahdi Haeri Yazdi in his book Wisdom and Government (p. 175). The establishing political legitimacy on the jurisprudential rule of ownership and the issue of choice based on the jurisprudential rule of representation, and finally specifying the place of religion and jurisprudence in the politics and planning of society have been reviewed. (p. 175)		The theory of the representation of common private owners regarding the state in Shiite jurisprudence was presented by Mahdi Haeri Yazdi in his book Wisdom and Government (p. 175). The establishing political legitimacy on the jurisprudential rule of ownership and the issue of choice based on the jurisprudential rule of representation, and finally specifying the place of religion and jurisprudence in the politics and planning of society have been reviewed. (p. 175)

Sarfipour: /* Selection theories */

2026-04-25T15:03:36Z

Selection theories

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, 25 April 2026
Line 98:		Line 98:
	Kadivar considers the theory of constitutional state with the permission and supervision of jurists with its two readings (legitimate and constitutional) to be the fruit of the constitutional revolution and in response to the questions and demands raised at that time (pp. 112-115). The most prominent feature is restricting the power by the constitution and the separation of powers (p. 112). According to him, These two interpretations according to the constitutional state have the commonalities and differences. Both of them acknowledge the maintaining the principles of religion, Islamic splendor, observance of justice, consultation and performing the state in the occultation era. However, they differ in the way of managing public affairs during absence, the relationship between law and legislation and the perception of equality and freedom. (p. 118-117)		Kadivar considers the theory of constitutional state with the permission and supervision of jurists with its two readings (legitimate and constitutional) to be the fruit of the constitutional revolution and in response to the questions and demands raised at that time (pp. 112-115). The most prominent feature is restricting the power by the constitution and the separation of powers (p. 112). According to him, These two interpretations according to the constitutional state have the commonalities and differences. Both of them acknowledge the maintaining the principles of religion, Islamic splendor, observance of justice, consultation and performing the state in the occultation era. However, they differ in the way of managing public affairs during absence, the relationship between law and legislation and the perception of equality and freedom. (p. 118-117)

	The author summarizes the principles of this theory based on the opinions of Mirza ~~Naeeni~~ as follows: (a) taking the foundations of the constitutional state from the book of God and Sunnah; (b) maintaining internal systems and protection from foreign interference by the constitutional state; (c) managing accounting affairs by competent authorities with the permission of jurists; (d) drafting a constitution; (e) monitoring the performance of the state by the parliament; (f) taking charge of unwritten affairs in consultation with the people's intellectuals; and (g) observing equality and freedom (p. 119-121).		The author summarizes the principles of this theory based on the opinions of [[Mirza Mohammad-Hossein Gharavi Na'ini]] as follows: (a) taking the foundations of the constitutional state from the book of God and Sunnah; (b) maintaining internal systems and protection from foreign interference by the constitutional state; (c) managing accounting affairs by competent authorities with the permission of jurists; (d) drafting a constitution; (e) monitoring the performance of the state by the parliament; (f) taking charge of unwritten affairs in consultation with the people's intellectuals; and (g) observing equality and freedom (p. 119-121).

	=== People's guardianship over each other in the theory of people's caliphate with the supervision of jurist (wali al-faqih) ===		=== People's guardianship over each other in the theory of people's caliphate with the supervision of jurist (wali al-faqih) ===
	The theory of people's guardianship under the supervision of jurist (wali al-faqih) has been introduced as the final opinion of [[Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr]], which is explained in Al-Islam Yaqoud al-Hayyat (p. 129). In this theory, man is free from the sovereignty and dominion of other than God and has ruled over his own destination (pp. 129-130). Accordingly, based on the rule of consultation and guardianship, people will exercise sovereignty over each other equally (pp. 129-130), and they will monitor these acts of guardianship and sovereignty in terms of compliance with Islamic regulations. (pp. 129-134). In this theory, apart from the role of the people, jurist (wali al-faqih) plays an essential role in political life (p. 136) and that women, like men, share in the actions of guardianship. jurist (wali al-faqih) is more supervisory than executive. (p. 139)		The theory of people's guardianship under the supervision of jurist (wali al-faqih) has been introduced as the final opinion of [[Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr]], which is explained in Al-Islam Yaqoud al-Hayyat (p. 129). In this theory, man is free from the sovereignty and dominion of other than God and has ruled over his own destination (pp. 129-130). Accordingly, based on the rule of consultation and guardianship, people will exercise sovereignty over each other equally (pp. 129-130), and they will monitor these acts of guardianship and sovereignty in terms of compliance with Islamic regulations. (pp. 129-134). In this theory, apart from the role of the people, jurist (wali al-faqih) plays an essential role in political life (p. 136) and that women, like men, share in the actions of guardianship. jurist (wali al-faqih) is more supervisory than executive. (p. 139)
Line 110:		Line 111:
	=== The impact of jurisprudential rules of ownership and representation on the political life of society ===		=== The impact of jurisprudential rules of ownership and representation on the political life of society ===
	The theory of the representation of common private owners regarding the state in Shiite jurisprudence was presented by Mahdi Haeri Yazdi in his book Wisdom and Government (p. 175). The establishing political legitimacy on the jurisprudential rule of ownership and the issue of choice based on the jurisprudential rule of representation, and finally specifying the place of religion and jurisprudence in the politics and planning of society have been reviewed. (p. 175)		The theory of the representation of common private owners regarding the state in Shiite jurisprudence was presented by Mahdi Haeri Yazdi in his book Wisdom and Government (p. 175). The establishing political legitimacy on the jurisprudential rule of ownership and the issue of choice based on the jurisprudential rule of representation, and finally specifying the place of religion and jurisprudence in the politics and planning of society have been reviewed. (p. 175)


	== Criticism and evaluation of the book ==		== Criticism and evaluation of the book ==
	After its publication, the book Theories of State in Shiite Jurisprudence was criticized and evaluated by some political jurisprudence researchers, including Seyyed Sadeq Haqiqat. According to him, the prominent feature of the book is that for the first time, it has comprehensively classified the theories of Shiite political jurisprudence. Moreover, by distinguishing between the principles, foundations, and interpretations, it has made possible a precise understanding of the theories, and it has shown well that there is only one reading in Shiite jurisprudence. <ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 181.</ref>. Of course, according to him, this book collects the theories of sovereignty or the foundations of legitimacy, not the state theories. <ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of the state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 182.</ref>. Another point is that the book is neither analytical nor critical in the strict sense, but the level of this writing is description and classification. The other point is that the theories presented are in the field of political thought, not only in political jurisprudence.<ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 182.</ref>. The lack of comprehensiveness in collecting theories related to the state is another criticism that has been made to the book.<ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 183.</ref>.		After its publication, the book Theories of State in Shiite Jurisprudence was criticized and evaluated by some political jurisprudence researchers, including Seyyed Sadeq Haqiqat. According to him, the prominent feature of the book is that for the first time, it has comprehensively classified the theories of Shiite political jurisprudence. Moreover, by distinguishing between the principles, foundations, and interpretations, it has made possible a precise understanding of the theories, and it has shown well that there is only one reading in Shiite jurisprudence. <ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 181.</ref>. Of course, according to him, this book collects the theories of sovereignty or the foundations of legitimacy, not the state theories. <ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of the state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 182.</ref>. Another point is that the book is neither analytical nor critical in the strict sense, but the level of this writing is description and classification. The other point is that the theories presented are in the field of political thought, not only in political jurisprudence.<ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 182.</ref>. The lack of comprehensiveness in collecting theories related to the state is another criticism that has been made to the book.<ref>Haqiqat, "Examination and criticism of state theories in Shiite jurisprudence", p. 183.</ref>.

Sarfipour: /* Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy */

2026-04-25T13:57:34Z

Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:57, 25 April 2026
Line 89:		Line 89:
	The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).		The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).
	=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===		=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===
	Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to due to the imposing of the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by [[Mohammad Baqer Majlesi]], [[Mirza Abolqassem Gilani]], [[Sayyid Ja'far Kashfi]], [[Fazlollah Nouri]], and [[Abdolkarim Haeri Yazdi]] and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).		Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to due to the imposing of the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by [[Mohammad Baqer Majlesi]], [[Mirza Abolqassem Gilani]], [[Sayyid Ja'far Kashfi]], [[Fazlollah Nouri]], and [[Abdolkarim Haeri Yazdi]] and [[Mohammad Ali Araki]] (p. 61-79).

Sarfipour: /* Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy */

2026-04-25T13:56:51Z

Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:56, 25 April 2026
Line 89:		Line 89:
	The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).		The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).
	=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===		=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===
	Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to due to the imposing of the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by [[Mohammad Baqer Majlesi]], [[Mirza Abolqassem Gilani]], ~~Seyyed Jafar Kashafi~~, ~~Fazolollah~~ Nouri, and ~~Abd Al-Karim~~ Haeri Yazdi and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).		Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to due to the imposing of the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by [[Mohammad Baqer Majlesi]], [[Mirza Abolqassem Gilani]], [[Sayyid Ja'far Kashfi]], [[Fazlollah Nouri]], and [[Abdolkarim Haeri Yazdi]] and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).

Sarfipour: /* The difference of appointment theories */

2026-04-25T11:56:07Z

The difference of appointment theories

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:56, 25 April 2026
Line 89:		Line 89:
	The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).		The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).
	=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===		=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===
	Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to due to the imposing of the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by [[Mohammad Baqer Majlesi]], ~~Mirzaye Qomi~~, Seyyed Jafar Kashafi, Fazolollah Nouri, and Abd Al-Karim Haeri Yazdi and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).		Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to due to the imposing of the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by [[Mohammad Baqer Majlesi]], [[Mirza Abolqassem Gilani]], Seyyed Jafar Kashafi, Fazolollah Nouri, and Abd Al-Karim Haeri Yazdi and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).

Sarfipour: /* The difference of appointment theories */

2026-04-25T11:52:05Z

The difference of appointment theories

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:52, 25 April 2026
Line 89:		Line 89:
	The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).		The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).
	=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===		=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===
	Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to due to the imposing of the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by ~~Allameh~~ Majlesi, Mirzaye Qomi, Seyyed Jafar Kashafi, Fazolollah Nouri, and Abd Al-Karim Haeri Yazdi and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).		Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to due to the imposing of the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by [[Mohammad Baqer Majlesi]], Mirzaye Qomi, Seyyed Jafar Kashafi, Fazolollah Nouri, and Abd Al-Karim Haeri Yazdi and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).

Sarfipour: /* The difference of appointment theories */

2026-04-25T11:49:11Z

The difference of appointment theories

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 25 April 2026
Line 89:		Line 89:
	The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).		The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).
	=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===		=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===
	Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to the imposing the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by Allameh Majlesi, Mirzaye Qomi, Seyyed Jafar Kashafi, Fazolollah Nouri, and Abd Al-Karim Haeri Yazdi and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).		Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to due to the imposing of the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by Allameh Majlesi, Mirzaye Qomi, Seyyed Jafar Kashafi, Fazolollah Nouri, and Abd Al-Karim Haeri Yazdi and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).

Sarfipour: /* The difference of appointment theories */

2026-04-25T11:46:09Z

The difference of appointment theories

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 25 April 2026
Line 89:		Line 89:
	The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).		The difference between the theory of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Council of religious jurist (wali al-faqih) and the two theories of public appointing jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurists and absolute jurist (wali al-faqih) is that instead of one person at the top of the pyramid of power, a council of authorities takes over the affairs of the nation (p. 97). Meanwhile, according to the previous two theories, if a righteous jurist exercises guardianship, no more jurists are allowed to exercise guardianship (p. 88. So, the guardian of the matter is determined from among the righteous jurists who have the current guardianship (p. 89).
	=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===		=== Functional duality in the theory of legitimate monarchy ===
	Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of ~~limits~~, administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to the imposing the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by Allameh Majlesi, Mirzaye Qomi, Seyyed Jafar Kashafi, Fazolollah Nouri, and Abd Al-Karim Haeri Yazdi and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).		Legitimate monarchy is one of the other theories of appointment, according to the author, it is one of the few theories in Shiite political jurisprudence that has been experienced in practice and has been governing the political practice of Shiites for a long time. (p. 58) This theory has two principles: one; The appointment of jurisprudents in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah), such as adjudication and propagation of religious rules, enforcement of Hudud (fixed punishments under Islamic law), administration of endowments, etc., which is also interpreted as Sharia. The king has power in this area with conditions such as Islam, Shiism, and having jurist (wali al-faqih). Of course, according to him, this separation was due to the imposing the conditions of the time, and the jurists were forced to be satisfied with this amount of jurist (wali al-faqih) (pp. 59-60). Five interpretations of this theory are presented by Allameh Majlesi, Mirzaye Qomi, Seyyed Jafar Kashafi, Fazolollah Nouri, and Abd Al-Karim Haeri Yazdi and Mohammad Ali Araki (p. 61-79).