The Possibility of Extending the Quranic Expression ‘Those Vested with Authority’ to Include ‘the Guardianship of a Muslim Jurist’ in the Period of Occultation
MOHAMMAD
ASADI
هیأت علمی
author
text
article
2020
per
The Shi’a scholars have offered ample religious and Quranic evidence to substantiate the question of ‘the guardianship of Muslim jurist’, one of which is the verse no. 59 of Sura al-Nisa’ (4:59) worthy of being independently studied because of its importance in the issue of Islamic government. Apart from the exegetical views and opinions of the Sunni exegetes or interpreters who tend to regard the theme of the verse as including judgements on rulers in general, the view agreed upon by the majority of the ShiÝa exegetes is that the explicit implication of the verse in question is only the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them). However, some of the latest scholars have spoken of the verse in such a way that it extends to include the authority or guardianship of just Muslim jurists in the period of Occultation, a subject which can be discussed methodically from exegetical point of view. In this article, from a methodical point of view, this extension by signification is seen to be defensible on the basis of the method of equivocation in the Qur’anic interpretation. Based on this exegetical method, which is, in fact, a form of hermeneutic interpretation or interpretation by extension, the mentioned interpretation of the verse has been shown to be in line with the view agreed upon by the majority of ShiÝa exegetes and with the traditions transmitted from the household of the Prophet. The article is done through discourse analysis and data-collection is based on library method.
Islamic Government
مدیرمسئول |
سید ابراهیم رئیسی |
سردبیر |
سید هاشم حسینی بوشهری |
دبیر تحریریه |
محمدعلی لیالی |
هیات تحریریه |
صادق آملی لاریجانی |
محسن اراکی |
سیدهاشم حسینی بوشهری |
عسگر دیرباز |
سیدابراهیم رئیسی |
محسن قمی |
عباس کعبی |
محمدعلی لیالی |
|
1561-008X
25
v.
2
no.
2020
5
26
https://mag.rcipt.ir/article_122441_f623b3de1f44a76b960adadada24cdb6.pdf
The Study and Evaluation of Legitimacy of Election from the Perspective of the Verses on ‘Consel’ or ‘Shūrā’
mohammad
ghasemi
qom
author
text
article
2020
per
The theory of public election is a popular theory in the field of political legitimacy. This theory has been the object of considerable attention among certain Shi’a scholars and writers in the last century though it is rooted in Western and Sunni thoughts. These thinkers and writers hold the view that it is impossible to reject altogether the idea of popular legitimacy in the period of Occultation and that the people’s vote and will at least carry part of legitimacy with them. Among the most important evidence cited by the advocates of the theory pf popular election one can refer to the verse no. 38 of al-ShÙrÁ (and their affairs are by counsel among themselves) and the verse no. 159 of Sūrat ÞĀli ‘ImrÁn (and consult them in the affairs). The emphasis on the element ‘counsel’ in these verses and their extensions which include the appointment of a ruler is regarded by the advocates of the theory of popular election as something which gives legitimacy to the people’s vote in an election.The present research puts the extension by signification of these verses into question and, by adopting a jurisprudence-individual reasoning based approach, studies the readings of the verses in question. Accordingly, while explaining the weakness of the arguments cited by the advocates of the popular election, the research seeks to show that the aforementioned verses are not concerned with the idea of legitimacy in the period of Occultation or of the presence of the Imams. The verse no. 38 of the Sūrat al-ShÙra implies desirability or preference of counsel in daily affairs and the verse no. 159 of Sūrat ÞĀli ‘ImrÁn merely signifies the absolute necessity of the legal guardian’s holding counsel with other people in such matters as governmental administrative affairs – and not the principle of government and the appointment of a ruler.
Islamic Government
مدیرمسئول |
سید ابراهیم رئیسی |
سردبیر |
سید هاشم حسینی بوشهری |
دبیر تحریریه |
محمدعلی لیالی |
هیات تحریریه |
صادق آملی لاریجانی |
محسن اراکی |
سیدهاشم حسینی بوشهری |
عسگر دیرباز |
سیدابراهیم رئیسی |
محسن قمی |
عباس کعبی |
محمدعلی لیالی |
|
1561-008X
25
v.
2
no.
2020
27
50
https://mag.rcipt.ir/article_122442_4b706808cb6ec7a53636d4c8b4852a8e.pdf
The Explanation of Basing the Efficiency of the Political System of Islam on Monotheism in Legal Lordliness and Deity
sayyed abolqasem
kazemi
The Imam Khomeini Institute
author
Mahmūd
Fatḥ‛ali
دانش آموخته حوزه علمیه قم و عضو هیأت علمی مؤسسه آموزشی و پژوهشی امام خمینی
author
text
article
2020
per
The efficiency of the Islamic political system is one of the most important issues in the present-day Islamic, or rather human society. Regarding the fact that the political system of Islam has come under attack, the explanation of monotheistic foundations and its politico-social capacities is deemed necessary in the realm of research and investigation. The aim of this research is to provide an answer to the question, “What effect does the belief in the Unity of Legal Lordliness and Unity of the Deity have on the efficiency of the political system of Islam? Drawing upon the library-analytic method, the article seeks to cast light on the effect the Unity of the Legal Lordliness and Unity of Deity may have on the efficiency of the Islamic political system. To have a belief in these two forms of unity or monotheism in certain respects such as increase in piety, morality, and spirituality, securing sufficient livelihood, accountability-based freedom, all-embracing justice and independence – which are taken to be the standards of the efficiency of the political system -- pave the way to make the political system efficient. Nonbelief in and noncommitment to these two forms of unity as mentioned above reduces the efficiency of the political system to some considerable extent, though one may have a belief in other grades of monotheism (unity) such as Unity of the Divine Essence and Attributes.
Islamic Government
مدیرمسئول |
سید ابراهیم رئیسی |
سردبیر |
سید هاشم حسینی بوشهری |
دبیر تحریریه |
محمدعلی لیالی |
هیات تحریریه |
صادق آملی لاریجانی |
محسن اراکی |
سیدهاشم حسینی بوشهری |
عسگر دیرباز |
سیدابراهیم رئیسی |
محسن قمی |
عباس کعبی |
محمدعلی لیالی |
|
1561-008X
25
v.
2
no.
2020
51
76
https://mag.rcipt.ir/article_122444_43e5353ceefb8b1c702212e0fcdf41a1.pdf
The Jurisprudential Principles of the Preference of Public Interests over Individual Interest by Referring to the Opinions of Imam Khomeini and Sheikh Tūsi
MOHAMMAD
KAKAVAND
Education, Humanities, Malayer, University of Malayer
author
sajad
turkashevand
PhD student of Law, Islamic Azad University, Mahalat Branch
author
text
article
2020
per
Since the preference of public interests over personal or individual interests is very useful in social discussions, it is deemed necessary to conduct a research which helps to explain and analyze the positions taken by Sheikh TÙsi and Imam Khomeini on the issues mentioned above. As many of the judicial decrees issued by contemporary Muslim jurists are rooted in the jurisprudential principles of Sheikh al-TÁÞifah and no one has raised discussions on this issue as deeply and insightfully as Imam Khomeini has, the present article has made a comparative study on the jurisprudential principles of these two great Muslim scholars. According to the opinions of the ShiÝa (Twelver’s) jurisprudence, especially Sheikh Tusi, and Imam Khomeini, judgements are subject to interests and this is a definite and certain matter in the ShiÝa jurisprudence. These two scholars maintain the belief that whenever there is a conflict between the public interests and personal or individual interests, according to the Quranic verses, traditions, and the rule “more important instances exclude the important ones”, the public interests takes precedence over the individual interests and the person who undertakes to make a distinction between these two kinds of interests is an Islamic judge. Of course, it should be noted that Imam Khomeini considers not only the ruler but also the common sense (usage), and the assumption of the wise people as valid in making a distinction between the public interest and individual interests and their preference of the former over the latter.
Islamic Government
مدیرمسئول |
سید ابراهیم رئیسی |
سردبیر |
سید هاشم حسینی بوشهری |
دبیر تحریریه |
محمدعلی لیالی |
هیات تحریریه |
صادق آملی لاریجانی |
محسن اراکی |
سیدهاشم حسینی بوشهری |
عسگر دیرباز |
سیدابراهیم رئیسی |
محسن قمی |
عباس کعبی |
محمدعلی لیالی |
|
1561-008X
25
v.
2
no.
2020
77
100
https://mag.rcipt.ir/article_122445_58c878c7d61ee8e013f9204b9fbef1c7.pdf
The Jurisprudential Foundations of ‘Dignity’, ‘Wisdom’, and ‘Expediency’ in the International Interactions
Mahdi
Dargāhi
دانش آموخته سطح چهار حوزه علمیه قم و عضو هیأت علمی جامعة المصطفی العالمیة
author
text
article
2020
per
Of discussions raised in the political jurisprudence is the obligatory triangle of dignity, wisdom, and expediency as the framework and the policy governing the international interactions of the Islamic state, and despite great emphasis on it, the jurisprudential foundations of these yardsticks and the explanation of the relations between them are not so clear. Since no extensive and integrated research into this subject has been carried out, inquiries about the jurisprudential foundations of the international interactions of the Islamic state is the subject which needs to be explored to the extent that appropriate answers are provided for the unanswered questions. Reliance on the analysis based on the rational judgement and the revealed doctrines, the aforementioned standards as the most fundamental principles and rules in the realm of international interactions together with their theoretical and epistemological principles, are established. The significance and status of the principle of dignity signifies its position at the top of hierarchy as it is based on the principles of wisdom and expediency. The present research has been conducted to cast light on the boundaries of the arguments and on the explanation and analysis of the jurisprudential foundations of dignity, wisdom and expediency and their extensions by signification. This aim can be achieved in light of the description and analysis of the jurisprudential statements through collecting library data which result in the analysis of the jurisprudential documentations of the abovementioned yardsticks and in the explanation of the relation each yardstick has with another one
Islamic Government
مدیرمسئول |
سید ابراهیم رئیسی |
سردبیر |
سید هاشم حسینی بوشهری |
دبیر تحریریه |
محمدعلی لیالی |
هیات تحریریه |
صادق آملی لاریجانی |
محسن اراکی |
سیدهاشم حسینی بوشهری |
عسگر دیرباز |
سیدابراهیم رئیسی |
محسن قمی |
عباس کعبی |
محمدعلی لیالی |
|
1561-008X
25
v.
2
no.
2020
101
120
https://mag.rcipt.ir/article_122446_b7ed0783dbe828fbc9bfc6cc3f7d14f2.pdf
'The Study and Criticism of Political Rivalry in Liberal Democracy
Davood
Taghiloo
دانشجوی گروه علوم سیاسی دانشگاه باقرالعلوم ع
author
text
article
2020
per
Political rivalry as a peaceful strategy of shift of power in modern politics is an established fact. This concept in liberalism has been formulated on certain principles and grounds. The present article, while studying the principles and grounds of political rivalry in liberal democracy, tries to level criticism at them in order to challenge the political rivalry which emerge from these principles and grounds. Drawing upon an analytic-inferential method, the findings from the library data have come to this conclusion that as liberal democracy has degraded from the requisites of teleological reason into the carnal desires in its task of explaining rights and values, it carries with it certain consequences the most important of which in the realm of political rivalry is that the political rivalries are not regarded as dependent on the ápriori values and they are independent of the wills and desires of the individuals and this independency brings about evil consequences for liberal democracy.
Key words
liberalism, principles of democracy, liberal democracy, political rivalry.
'The Study and Criticism of Political Rivalry in Liberal Democracy
:by Dāwūd Taqilū
Political rivalry as a peaceful strategy of shift of power in modern politics is an established fact. This concept in liberalism has been formulated on certain principles and grounds. The present article, while studying the principles and grounds of political rivalry in liberal democracy, tries to level criticism at them in order to challenge the political rivalry which emerge from these principles and grounds. Drawing upon an analytic-inferential method, the findings from the library data have come to this conclusion that as liberal democracy has degraded from the requisites of teleological reason into the carnal desires in its task of explaining rights and values, it carries with it certain consequences the most important of which in the realm of political rivalry is that the political rivalries are not regarded as dependent on the ápriori values and they are independent of the wills and desires of the individuals and this independency brings about evil consequences for liberal democracy
Islamic Government
مدیرمسئول |
سید ابراهیم رئیسی |
سردبیر |
سید هاشم حسینی بوشهری |
دبیر تحریریه |
محمدعلی لیالی |
هیات تحریریه |
صادق آملی لاریجانی |
محسن اراکی |
سیدهاشم حسینی بوشهری |
عسگر دیرباز |
سیدابراهیم رئیسی |
محسن قمی |
عباس کعبی |
محمدعلی لیالی |
|
1561-008X
25
v.
2
no.
2020
121
140
https://mag.rcipt.ir/article_122448_d0278e1f5b26a060c66591d44dbb77e9.pdf
Civil Liability of the State for the Government’s Harmful Behaviour
Husein
Hūshmand
دانش آموخته حوزه علمیه و عضو هیأت علمی پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه (قم)
author
Husein
Jāwer
استادیار دانشگاه تهران، پردیس فارابی
author
taha
zargaryan
phd of Jurisprudence and Criminal Law, Kharazmi University
author
text
article
2020
per
The actions of various governmental departments may, in practice, inflict some harms to the civilians in general. Ordinarily, the question arises as to what extent and in what cases the state is responsible for its harmful acts (measures). The well-known answer including the one which is substantiated by the article no.11 of the Civil Liability law and which has answered the question is that the government’s actions are immune from compensating loss and the responsibility of the state, in its general sense, is restricted to the cases where the loss is caused by acts of omissions of government’s poor administration. Having studied the existing literature on the doctrine, rules and regulations, the present article seeks to establish that the government’s exemption from assuming responsibility for the acts of government is in contradiction with the long-standing and established jurisprudential rules and those of the civil liability, including the principle of the compensation for loss on the one hand and the total infliction of loss and damage on persons (subjected to loss) to secure the interests of the government and other people has no convincing logic on the other. Available evidence shows that after the Islamic Revolution, the legislator has changed his mind about his previous opinions, especially in the fields of administration and legislature. Fundamental rules and principles such as ‘respect’, ‘no harm’, ‘qui sentit commomum sentire debet et onus’ together with the necessity of distribution of loss caused by the actions of government on the basis of public interests are among the factors which cause the legislator to renege on his opinions.
Islamic Government
مدیرمسئول |
سید ابراهیم رئیسی |
سردبیر |
سید هاشم حسینی بوشهری |
دبیر تحریریه |
محمدعلی لیالی |
هیات تحریریه |
صادق آملی لاریجانی |
محسن اراکی |
سیدهاشم حسینی بوشهری |
عسگر دیرباز |
سیدابراهیم رئیسی |
محسن قمی |
عباس کعبی |
محمدعلی لیالی |
|
1561-008X
25
v.
2
no.
2020
141
169
https://mag.rcipt.ir/article_122451_e9aede463983ce795aef4b66feac155d.pdf