ʿallāmeh miṣbāh

Politics, like other human phenomena, is based on theoretical foundations. In its paradigm of faith, political theory is based on the obligation-centered principle. The current research is an attempt, based on the intellectual system of the contemporary political thinker, ʿAllāmeh Muhammad Taqi Miṣbāh Yazdi, to analyze the aforementioned principle after clarifying its concept and to illuminate its relationship with “consequentialism” in his thought. The findings of this descriptive-analytical research suggest that although, according to the theory of ‘necessity by analogy’ in the philosophy of values, consequentialism should be considered the correct theory in faithful politics, the consideration of the duality of outcomes and their non-exclusivity in material and superficial results, the inadequacy of mere activism of the political agent for achieving results, and limitations in human understanding of all outcomes, interests, and real benefits and harms, hint that there is no contradiction between consequentialism and obligation-centered principle. Therefore, it can be concluded that the statements of the two Grand Leaders of the Islamic revolution, Imam Khomeini, and Imam Khamenei, regarding duty-centred principle are not only compatible with the philosophical principle of consequentialism but are evaluated in line with this principle. Consequently, a faithful politician should first and foremst correctly identify duties, and, free from any pressure or political motives, pivot around the truth based on legal proof, and act according to obligation (duty) to promote real interests associated with it.

According to the correct religious traditions, the guardianship of the Islamic Ummah during the absence of the Imam of the Asr (the souls of the departed souls) is necessarily on the shoulders of the Islamic jurist, and the leadership of the Islamic community cannot be realized except with the guardianship of the jurist. An important question that is raised in this regard is, to what extent are the powers of the jurist, and is the velayat-efaqih in the Islamic society absolute or is it considered limited and bound? In this regard, there is a fundamental difference of opinion among religious elders, each of whom considers evidence and works for their claims. Despite the many similarities between the views of the Supreme Leader and the late Allameh Misbah Yazdi (may God have mercy on him) on the theory of velayat-e-faqih, the differences of opinions can be found in this regard as well as being natural. The current method of writing is descriptive and analytical using library sources, which finds eight results from the works of absolute jurisprudence according to the theory of Supreme Leader and Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi (may God bless him and grant him peace) and is expressed in three disagreements: disagreements such as: 1. Acceptability is a part of legitimacy from the point of view of leadership, unlike Allameh Misbah who thinks acceptability is a process to realize government. 2. According to Ayatollah Misbah, the vote and allegiance of the people is in line with the interests of the society, and in itself, a special Shariah position cannot be imagined for it; But the leadership gives legitimacy to votes and opinions. 3. According to Ayatollah Misbah (may God have mercy on him), giving role to the people does not . mean giving legitimacy to their vote in laws and governance.

After the glorious victory of Islamic Revolution of Iran, the attention of thinkers was focused on the question of the legitimacy and acceptability of the Islamic government. The primary motivation behind discussions raised by some thinkers on this issue was to explain the real nature of religious government. Others sought to give an arbitrary picture of the Islamic government. Still others interpret legitimacy of the Islamic government as identical to its acceptability. However, some others think of the legitimacy of the Islamic government as something distinct from its acceptability.
ʻAllāmah Misbāh, among others, felt a heavy responsibility to raise intense speculations as to the question of legitimacy and acceptability of the Islamic government, so he carried out extensive researches into the issue in question and provided those interested in this issue with his research findings.
In this article, the writer seeks to make clear ʻAllāmeh Misbāh’s view on this issue, trying to find an answer to the question why ʻAllāmeh Misbāh’s view of the legitimacy and acceptability of Islamic government has not fully understood or, rather, has misinterpreted by the critics and he thinks it necessary to give a clear answer to the questions and doubts raised by them.