mohammad edki

The occultation of the Infallible Imam (as) and the emergence of new events increased the Muslims’ need to know the legal (shar'ī) ruling regarding the newly-emerged cases. It made some Islamic scholars struggle to consider the Islamic worldview and to believe in an area free of legal ruling. In Imāmī jurisprudence, the contemporary jurist Martyr Sayed Mohammad Bāqir al-Sadr called it “Mantiqat al-Firāq” (Belt of Lacuna) and in Sunni jurisprudence, the Egyptian jurist Yusuf al-Qardāwī called it “Mantiqat al-‘Afw” (Belt of Permission). Based on the descriptive-analytical method, this research aims to compare the two theories to investigate and analyze their feature and ambiguities. These two theories have many differences and similarities with each other that can be examined. Examining these two theories, it may be concluded that both areas, which have been proposed with the aim of social justice and respect for the general interests of the society, and in its design, the universality and immortality of the Islamic Shari'a have been taken into consideration, are empty of legal required rulings. In order to fill this area, it is necessary to bring up specific criteria and standards to match them with the general principles and rules of Islam. In addition, both theories have shortcomings that must be amended and completed by their proponents or even critics in order to be applicable.

One of the most important theories of Shiʿa political jurisprudence – which stand in line with each other – is the concept of al-Wilāyat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Muslim Jurist). According to the theory of ‘Discretionary Sphere of the Law’, an Islamic ruler has the right to independently legislate and determine obligations and prohibitions which, in addition to their legal status, should be obeyed like divine commandments. Therefore, this right is not exclusive to infallible Imams, but also applicable to a fully qualified religious ruler in the absence of an infallible Imam during the Occultation Period. According to the theory of ‘Absolute Guardianship of a Muslim Jurist’, in the absence of an infallible Imam, a just Muslim jurist capable of establishing a government will have governmental authority equal to that of the Prophet and the Imams who successfully established governments. The joining point and the most important aspect of commonality between these two theories is the right to govern and the legitimacy of the Guardianship of the Muslim Jurist in the Occultation Period, with the most significant difference being the extent of their authorities. As far as the ‘Discretionary Sphere of Law’ is concerned, the ruler does not have the right to deviate from religious duties and legal obligations. However, in accordance to the theory of the “Absolute Guardianship of the Muslim Jurist”, the ruler, if deemed necessary, even has the right to temporarily suspend religious duties and violate laws in the interest of the Islamic system; for the Islamic government is regarded to be based on the primary ordinances of Islam.