تغلب

Statesmanship has always been formed based on either domination, or testaments, or consensus. The purpose of the present study is to assess the proportion between each of the above principles and the principle of justice. The issue under study is: which method has state legitimacy based on the principle of divine justice? By using descriptive analysis and searching through epistemic data in Islamic Kalām, and also recognizing aspects and features of domination, testaments, and consensus based on historic, political, and legal ideas and reports, it can be asserted that domination by any means can give legitimacy to a government just in case kingdom from God as the divine destiny is accepted and that admittance of that is the result of faith and obedience to God. State legitimacy based on testament relies on the hypothesis that statesmanship is regarded as the transferable right of a prince. The principle of justice considers any cruel command invalid and illegitimate. Imposing a state and a leader on people based on domination or inheritance is great tyranny due to independent reasons. Therefore, the necessity of establishing a state based on people's votes results from the principle of divine justice and that ignoring public opinion and imposing a state by either force or deceit violates the principle of justice.

"Political legitimacy" is the most important issue of political theology. The theory of "violence and domination" is one of the views of legitimacy in the political theology of the Ash'arites and Hadithists; According to this view, if a person gains power through coercion and domination over others, his Imamate and rule will have legitimacy. The present article deals with the historical explanation of the view of the Ash'arite theologians on violence and domination, as well as the expression of their arguments in proving this view and criticizing it. Accordingly, the basic research questions are what is meant by the perspective of violence and domination? What are the Ash'arite and Hadithists arguments for proving legitimacy through coercion and domination, and how are they evaluated? This article analyzes the above issues with a descriptive-analytical approach and using valid theological, hadith and historical sources of the Sunnis and Jama'at and has come to the conclusion that the main point of view and their arguments are with basic problems such as the authority of the Companions, lack of distinction between legitimacy. The politics and duty of the people, the discovery of violence and overcoming divine pleasure, the paradoxical nature of violence and domination, as well as verses and hadiths that indicate the need to confront the oppressive ruler.

Legitimacy of caliph is one of the controversial issues between al-Qaeda and ISIS. Considering the importance and influence of these two groups over other radical and jihadist movements, this study seeks to examine the foundations of legitimacy of the caliph according to al-Qaeda and ISIS or ISIL. It is inferred from the arguments and reasons presented by both groups that they have four principles with the regards to legitimacy of the caliph. First, the caliph should be eligible for caliphate. Second, the caliph takes the caliphate through legal ways. Third, the caliph should command what has been revealed by God. Fourth, the caliph should be opposed to any form of Taghut (tyranny and sin).  These four principles are acceptable to both al-Qaeda and ISIS. However, the discrepancy between al-Qaeda and ISIS is in the application of the first and second principles to the ISIS's caliph. As for the third and fourth principle, these two groups' explanation contradicts the well-known explanation given by Sunnis and Salafists.  They make use of these two principles to reject and excommunicate the rulers of Muslim countries. The present article has reached this conclusion using a descriptive analytical method.

Appointment of Imam by God- the Exalted- and issuance of a stipulation for it by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is one of the challenging and controversial issues among Muslims. After explaining the verbal and technical meanings of stipulation (nas), the present article goes to explain and describe place of stipulation in appointment of Imam and validity or invalidity of other ways according to Islamic sects. Mu’tazalis have accepted the opinion of people of “dissolution and agreement” in appointment of Imam and stipulation made by the previous Imam (other than the Holy Prophet (PBUH)) to appoint new Imam. In addition to ways accepted by Mu’tazalis, people of hadith and Ash’aris have mentioned “force and constraint” as a way to appoint Imam. Imamis are of the opinion that the only legitimate way to appoint Imam is stipulation; and, to prove their opinion they appeal to rational and transmitted arguments.