Jurisprudence and Government (book): Difference between revisions

}}

{{Author

|author2 =  

|author3 =  

[[Kazem Qazizadeh]] has stated with a historical perspective that the Shiites first considered all jurists to be authorized to act as guardians. Then, in order to solve the problem of conflict between jurists, [[Imam Khomeini]] believed in the velayat of the faqih, which according to Qazizadeh, is the first stage of the beginning of the theory of the [[guardianship of the jurist]]. After the formation of the [[Islamic government]] and the need to manage the society and the government, it led to the formation of the next stage in the theory of [[guardianship of the jurist|velayat-e-faqih]], which is the [[guardianship of the jurist|velayat-e-faqih]] of the most learned. He considered the next stages to be the appropriate jurisprudence, and after that, the elected jurisprudence, which is both correct and elected by the people. (pp. 90-91).

Qazizadeh then expressed three views about the position of people's vote:  

# Absolute Republic, meaning the total validity of the people's vote in the [[legitimacy]] of the government, which he called an extreme theory.

# Pure divine legitimacy means the negation of any credit of the people in the [[legitimacy]] of the government, which according to Qazizadeh is also extreme because the only effect of the people's vote is to be Shari'i in the process of discovering the rightful judge. He also referred to a proposal by [[Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi|Mohammad Taqi Mesbahe Yazdi]], based on which the members of the Experts Council should be elected not by the people's vote but by the jurists' vote (p. 93).  

# People's involvement in [[legitimacy]], in the sense that the people's vote is part of the factors that give legitimacy to the legal guardian, and thus, the people's vote cannot be ignored in any matter (p. 94).

==Media and Government==

===The Relationship between the Media and Government===

[[Mohammad Javad Fakhkhar Tousi]] first proposed different theories about the relationship between the media and government

# The media under the supervision of the Muslim Leader: This theory was proposed in the book of [[Hossein-Ali Montazeri]]'s studies based on two reasons: First, the Governor is responsible for managing the society and , second, all institutions are tools of the Governor for managing the society. (pp. 315-316)  

# The media is independent from the government: Fakhkhar Tousi first states the reasons for the theory and then criticizes each of them. Reasons include the necessity of [[enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil|enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong]] before the government and the ruler, the necessity of undertaking social duties by special institutions and the impossibility of entrusting it to government institutions, as well as the necessity of the independence of the institution of command and prohibition against the government. (pp. 318-320)  

# The combination of the first and second theories is as follows the national media should be in the hands of the ruler and the governor and allow a media independent of the government to be able to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong against the government. (p. 324)  

# National media and private media should be monitored, as well (p. 325). According to Fakhkhar Tousi, there is no fulfilment of the conditions of the prohibition of evil against the Muslim commander because the occurrence of negativity must be evident. Therefore, when we assume that someone has an excuse based on [[ijtihad]] or [[taqlid]], it is not permissible to prohibit negativity, and the Imam of Muslims has these conditions, and such a possibility is always given. Even if we are sure of the occurrence of negativity such a supposition leads to the fall of the Imam from the condition of command, it is not an example of [[enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil|enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong]]. (pp. 336-334)

Accordingly, he believes that the narrations indicating the permissibility of criticism refer to private criticism and the narrations regarding the sanctity of criticism refer to its public and public design. (p. 341) Fakhkhar Tousi also stated in response to a documented question about the life of [[Imam Ali (AS)|Imam Ali (PBUH)]] in dealing with critics that we cannot necessarily follow the example of imams since maybe the Imam was in the position of teaching or had another direction. (p. 346)

[[fa:فقه و دولت (کتاب)]]

[[category: book review]]