The forbidden monarchy, rereading the theory of legitimate monarchy

The presence and interaction of jurists with the sultans of their time has led to the emergence of a new reading called the legitimacy of the monarchy, which means the legitimacy of the king's rule by some contemporary writers. Examining the evidence shows that the traditions of praising and obeying the sultans have a weak document and a taqiyyah direction of issuance and have a meaning other than the legitimacy of the monarchy. Just as predestination, reducing the authority of the jurist in limited matters and social necessity does not imply the legitimacy of the royal monarchy, no evidence was found for this issue either. Allameh Majlisi, Mirzai Qomi, Seyyed Kashfi, Sheikh Fazlullah Nouri and Haeri Yazdi emphasized on the authority of the jurist, taking into account the necessities of the context and the time, they dealt with the actions of the authority as much as possible, and they based their interaction with the kings on the basis of expediency in commanding good and forbidding. Just as this theory does not have internal coherence in Islam, it is not compatible with Islamic political principles and foundations.The claim of consensus on the validity of the jurisprudence throughout the history of Shia jurisprudence shows the invalidity of legitimate monarchy, while the contradiction of political principles in Shia jurisprudence has prevented this formalization, the pillars of legitimate monarchy and internal ambiguities and inconsistencies. An important part of the interaction of jurists with the rulers of the time, if not out of necessity and piety, is based on the expediency of enjoining good and forbidding evil and has nothing to do with the officialization of the royal institution. .