State theories in Shiite jurisprudence (book): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
In the third introduction, the author points to two categories of negative and positive theories about the state during the time of occultation in Shiite jurisprudence. The first group of jurists who do not derive a specific form of governance from jurisprudential evidence considers the presence of jurists in public affairs to be limited to non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah) (pp. 33-39) whereas, there are jurists who recommend the comprehensive plan for governing the society according to Sharia (pp.39-40). In the fourth introduction, he also deals with the classification of state theories based on the foundations of political legitimacy. In this introduction, by posing the question whether the consent of the Islamic Ummah is involved in the legitimacy of the state or not, two bases of direct divine legitimacy and divine-popular legitimacy have been given. According to him, based on direct divine legitimacy, four theories and based on divine-popular legitimacy, five theories have been presented about the state in Shiite jurisprudence, and the main questions and common principles of both theories have been extracted (pp. 41-56). | In the third introduction, the author points to two categories of negative and positive theories about the state during the time of occultation in Shiite jurisprudence. The first group of jurists who do not derive a specific form of governance from jurisprudential evidence considers the presence of jurists in public affairs to be limited to non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah) (pp. 33-39) whereas, there are jurists who recommend the comprehensive plan for governing the society according to Sharia (pp.39-40). In the fourth introduction, he also deals with the classification of state theories based on the foundations of political legitimacy. In this introduction, by posing the question whether the consent of the Islamic Ummah is involved in the legitimacy of the state or not, two bases of direct divine legitimacy and divine-popular legitimacy have been given. According to him, based on direct divine legitimacy, four theories and based on divine-popular legitimacy, five theories have been presented about the state in Shiite jurisprudence, and the main questions and common principles of both theories have been extracted (pp. 41-56). | ||
After presenting the preliminary discussions, the author briefly introduces the principles of the nine state theories in Shiite jurisprudence. These theories include the legitimate monarchy, the public appointment of jurists, the public appointment of jurists, the absolute appointment of jurists, the constitutional state with the permission and supervision of jurists, the caliphate of the people with the supervision of the | After presenting the preliminary discussions, the author briefly introduces the principles of the nine state theories in Shiite jurisprudence. These theories include the legitimate monarchy, the public appointment of jurists, the public appointment of jurists, the absolute appointment of jurists, the constitutional state with the permission and supervision of jurists, the caliphate of the people with the supervision of the jurist (wali al-faqih), the elective jurists, the Islamic elective state, and the representation of common personal owners. | ||
== Formation of political theory in Shiite jurisprudence == | == Formation of political theory in Shiite jurisprudence == | ||
The author believes that from the 4th century to the 10th century, apart from brief references to state issues, no political theory was provided by Shiite jurists. The jurists in the Safavid and Qajar eras, with the works of jurists such as Mohaqeq Karaki and Mullah Ahmad Naraqi, the signs of the formation of political theories in Shiite jurisprudence were gradually revealed (pp. 14-18). According to him, in this period, we are witnessing the development of the appointment [[Theory of guardianship of the Islamic Jurist|theory of guardianship of the Islamic Jurist]] alongside the elective guardianship of the Islamic Jurist in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah) and the | The author believes that from the 4th century to the 10th century, apart from brief references to state issues, no political theory was provided by Shiite jurists. The jurists in the Safavid and Qajar eras, with the works of jurists such as Mohaqeq Karaki and Mullah Ahmad Naraqi, the signs of the formation of political theories in Shiite jurisprudence were gradually revealed (pp. 14-18). According to him, in this period, we are witnessing the development of the appointment [[Theory of guardianship of the Islamic Jurist|theory of guardianship of the Islamic Jurist]] alongside the elective guardianship of the Islamic Jurist in non-litigious matters (al-omour al-hesbiah) and the jurist (wali al-faqih) of the Muslims of having splendor in conversion customs (19). | ||
The encounter of Shiite jurists with concepts_ such as [[People's rights|people's rights]], [[Freedom|freedom]], justice, separation of powers, [[Law|law]], [[Equality|equality]] and [[Tyranny|tyranny]] in the constitutional era, and from the author's point of view _made us aware of two different jurisprudential approaches. One approach emphasized on the previous course and the dual theory of the appointment of jurists and the | The encounter of Shiite jurists with concepts_ such as [[People's rights|people's rights]], [[Freedom|freedom]], justice, separation of powers, [[Law|law]], [[Equality|equality]] and [[Tyranny|tyranny]] in the constitutional era, and from the author's point of view _made us aware of two different jurisprudential approaches. One approach emphasized on the previous course and the dual theory of the appointment of jurists and the jurist (wali al-faqih) of Muslims with the title of legitimate state, and on the other hand, the reformist approach presented the theory of the constitutional state, following the compatibility of the two categories of tradition and modernity (pp. 19-21). The code of Shiite political thought during the period of the Islamic Republic moved towards the formation of the state with the thoughts of [[Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini|Imam Khomeini]] and the founders of the Islamic Republic. This course has been introduced by the author as the most fruitful stages of political jurisprudence in terms of theory and practice. (pp. 21-28) | ||
== Appointment theories == | == Appointment theories == | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
* The scope of the velayat: In these theories, the scope of the velayat is considered to be related to the interests of the society and is never limited to the matters of discretion. | * The scope of the velayat: In these theories, the scope of the velayat is considered to be related to the interests of the society and is never limited to the matters of discretion. | ||
=== The difference of appointment theories === | === The difference of appointment theories === | ||
According to the author, in addition to having commonalities in the foundations and principles, the theories of appointment also have some specific features for themselves. Among other things, in the theory of the appointment of public jurists, the ruler has no | According to the author, in addition to having commonalities in the foundations and principles, the theories of appointment also have some specific features for themselves. Among other things, in the theory of the appointment of public jurists, the ruler has no jurist (wali al-faqih) beyond the Sharia rulings. Accordingly, the ruler is not bound by the probate affairs and the primary and secondary recommendations of God and the laws of human affairs. On the other hand, this velayat is bound by the interest of the Islamic society, public affairs, state and politics. (pp. 107-108). This is a new theory which represents jurisprudence, some of its features include paying attention to the expedients of the state and society in jurisprudence, paying attention to the role of time and place in ijtihad and the ability to solve the political, and, finally, economic and cultural problems of society. (p. 109) | ||
The difference between the theory of public appointing | 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 decree 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 | 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 decree 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). | ||
== Selection theories == | == Selection theories == | ||
[[The constitutional-legitimate state]], [[The caliphate of the people under the supervision of the authority|the caliphate of the people under the supervision of the | [[The constitutional-legitimate state]], [[The caliphate of the people under the supervision of the authority|the caliphate of the people under the supervision of the jurist (wali al-faqih)]], [[The elected governorship of the jurist|the elected Guardianship (Wilayah) of the jurist]], [[The Islamic elected state|the Islamic elected state]] and [[The representation of the common private owners|the representation of the common private owners]] are the five theories that Mohsen Kadivar examined under the tile of selection theories. According to him, the theories of choice have several common features, the most important of which is increasing the role of the people in the state and reducing the powers of the jurists. Of course, each of the five theories has a special feature that is referred to. | ||
=== Limitation of power under the theory of constitutional state === | === Limitation of power under the theory of constitutional state === | ||
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 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). | ||
=== People's guardianship over each other in the theory of people's caliphate with the supervision of | === 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 | 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 possibility of benefiting from human experiences in the theory of the selective guardianship of constrained jurist === | === The possibility of benefiting from human experiences in the theory of the selective guardianship of constrained jurist === | ||
The author of the book considers the theory of the selective guardianship of the jurist as the first attempt of the jurists of the Qom seminary regarding the state based on divine-popular legitimacy and is a combination of the traditional theory of the | The author of the book considers the theory of the selective guardianship of the jurist as the first attempt of the jurists of the Qom seminary regarding the state based on divine-popular legitimacy and is a combination of the traditional theory of the jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurist and national sovereignty. (p. 141). In Derasat fi Velayat al-Faqih by Hossein Ali Montazeri the following issues have been discussed: (a) the jurisprudence of the Islamic ruler; (b) electing the ruler by the people; and (c) restricting the powers of the ruler to the constitution. (pp. 148-149) | ||
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 | === 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 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 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 === | ||