State theories in Shiite jurisprudence (book): Difference between revisions
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
According to the author, appointment theories, apart from the theory of legitimate monarchy, have several principles in common: | According to the author, appointment theories, apart from the theory of legitimate monarchy, have several principles in common: | ||
* | * Guardianship (Wilayah): This principle explains the type of state relationship between the people and the ruler,(p. 80) the position given to the jurists by the infallible, (p. 81-82) its domain in the public affairs of the society, the king’s affairs and political issues (p. 82) . Therefore, people have no involvement in the dismissal and installation of the jurist. (p. 84 and 100) | ||
* Appointment: According to this principle of the relationship between the ruler and the legislator, the appointment to the | * Appointment: According to this principle of the relationship between the ruler and the legislator, the appointment to the Guardianship (Wilayah) is for all qualified people (p. 87) and in this appointment, it is not possible to rely on the people's choice. (p. 90 and 99-100) | ||
* Jurisprudence: In these theories, conditions are set for the ruler, among them jurisprudence and jurisdiction. | * Jurisprudence: In these theories, conditions are set for the ruler, among them jurisprudence and jurisdiction. | ||
* The scope of the | * The scope of the Guardianship (Wilayah): In these theories, the scope of the Guardianship (Wilayah) 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 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 | 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 Guardianship (Wilayah) 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 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). | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
=== 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 jurist (wali al-faqih) of the jurist and national sovereignty. (p. 141). In Derasat fi | 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 Guardianship (Wilayah) 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) | ||