نشریه فقه و اجتهاد
پیاپی 14 (پاییز و زمستان 1399)

Although in democracies the people are an essential element in determining the agents and decision-makings, but the type of their political participation in different political orders, in accordance with the principles and structure of that, takes a different form. While, presently, in the theory ascribed to the Sunnis (the Modern caliphate) elite participation is recognized, democratic institutions are embedded in the political system, and the limitation of the rulers' power is recognized as official, in the political order of the constitutional monarchy, many capacities accepted in modern societies regarding political participation, such as: freedom of choice, equality and parliament, have been used to reject tyranny. Meanwhile, in the order of religious democracy, not only many capacities of political participation have been accepted and applied, but also the participatory solutions accepted in this system have been documented by means of Shari'a and have taken on a local form. Explaining and describing the components of three types of political systems: the new caliphate, constitutional monarchy and religious democracy, this article examines and compares the position of the people and the capacities of each of these political systems regarding their political participation.

The Claim of legitimization through the people's vote in appointing political rulers is one of the most popular political theories in the field of political thought and philosophy in the modern West. This theory has been endorsed and emphasized for the age of occultation by some contemporary thinkers of jurisprudence. Proponents of this theory have tried to provide some evidence of jurisprudential heritage - including rational or narrative- to prove it. One of the narrative documents presented by the proponents of this theory is the reliance on the verses of the Caliphate. In other words, the Man’s caliphate for God indicates that in cases where the divine appointment has not been made regarding the ruler of the Islamic society, it is the people, as the caliph of God on earth, who appoint one of themselves as the political ruler of the community.The present study, with an Ijtihadi approach, has questioned the strength of the argument by means of the above verses. Accordingly, assessing the argument based on the verses of the Caliphate, it questions the implication of these verses as the legitimacy of the majority’s vote. And it emphasizes that although in the verses of the Caliphate, contrary to the prevailing view of the Sunni commentators, the reference of Caliphate is the Almighty God and the caliph is man himself; position can only be justified for the Prophets and messengers. Therefore, claiming the legitimacy of the people's vote on these verses will be an example of the negation of the argument in the absence of the subject.however it does not mean as the extent of the position of the caliphate, since this

Proponents of the idea of ​​the Principalness of peace, in order to prove their point of view, have criticized the Qur'anic arguments of the opponents (who believe in elementary jihad). Among the verses criticized by this group are verses 191-193, and 216 of Surah Al-Baqarah, and verse 5 of Surah Tawbah. According to this conflict, the questions of this research are: Who is the audience of the obligation of jihad in verse 216 of Surah, and is the notion of Muqatilah applied in Defense Jihad or not? In verses 191-193, what is meant by "polytheists"? What are the reference of "Fa in Intahaw" and also the meaning of "Fitnah" in these verses? In verse 5 of Surah Tawbah, is it meant "polytheists who violate the covenant" or absolute polytheists? The present article uses ijtihadi-exigetic method to investigate and answer these questions and doubts, focusing on the views of Ayatollah Fāḍil Lankarāni. The findings of the research are as follows: From the point of view of Ayatollah Fāḍil Lankarāni, verse 216 of Surah Al-Baqarah, first, according to the agreement of jurists and interpreters are among the initial verses implying the existence of primary Jihad and its audience are not just some disciples of the Prophet, rather it addresses all the Muslims; Second, the word "Qital" in most Qur'anic uses appears in the case of primary fighting. Also, this verse does not make the obligation of fighting conditioned to the confrontation of infidels and polytheists with Muslims, so that the position can only be justified for the Prophets and messengers. Therefore, claiming the legitimacy of the people's vote on these verses will be an example of the negation of the argument in the absence of the subject.

System of problems is one of the new topics in knowing the knowledge opening different angles of the raised, non-raised and should-be-raised research issues as well as new horizons before researchers. Since political jurisprudence could be considered as the software of the Islamic political system, it is necessary to address the various aspects of this approach, including the system of problems and its structure, which can play an important role in understanding the system of political jurisprudence and pave the way for up-to-date and non-repetitive researches in it. Based on descriptive-analytical and inductive methods, the article addresses this main question: what is the structure and system of political jurisprudence problems? In the hypothesis, it is emphasized that the structure and system of political jurisprudence problems can be examined in two major areas: the essence of political jurisprudence and its problems such as epistemological identity, principles, foundations, sources, history, ‌ methodology and schools of political jurisprudence. In first-grade problems of political jurisprudence, the four dimensions of sovereignty, government, citizens and border/territory are considered, each of which dealing with issues such as concepts and generalities, principles and rules and the problems of that field, an innovative issue that has received less attention so far from researchers.

The principle of retaliation and intelligent defense against alien aggression and looting has always been one of the principles and defense doctrine of the resistance axis. Does the axis of resistance enjoys any jurisprudential-Quranic basis for retaliation? There are several verses about retaliation some three of which are dealt in this article. The result of the research is that the traitor, aggressor and oppressor enemy must be confronted in order to defend the property, life and reputation of Muslims and the Islamic society. In response to the aggression of the others, defense is not to be done necessarily only in one's own land; rather, it may be right to invade the military and vital infrastructure of the enemy. Also, retaliation is always measured according to the action of the other side, and according to the action of the enemy, it is answered in the same way; unless it causes harm to civilians and neutrals. So the logic of Islam is peace; unless there is betrayal, attack or war against Muslims. This research seeks to examine the arguments of retaliation from the perspective of the Qur'an and jurisprudence by descriptive-analytical method and using rational and narrative sources to present its results in the jurisprudence of international relations.

Velayat-i-Faqih (Governance of the Jurist) is the main axis of Shiite political jurisprudence. It is normal to see lack of consensus over some aspects and details of this theory among jurists. Surveying the history of this problem and the course of its developments as well as knowing the pivotal ideas about it would play an important role in order to obtain a deep understanding of its contents. One of the turning points of the developments of this problem in seminary schools is the appearance of the subject of Velayat-e-Faqih in Sheikh Ansari’s book, Makasib. Considering that the theories of Sheikh Ansari (RA) and especially his book Makaseb are still one of the pillars of contemporary Shiite fundamental and jurisprudential thought, naturally his views and his method of discussion will have a great impact on the understanding of contemporary jurists of this theory. He did not formulate this discussion in the way like those jurists who discuss it under the title of "Jurisprudence of the state" or the "rules of the sultanate", rather, he chooses a special format and literature for this problem. This article seeks to prove the idea that the vague literature and unusual classification applied by Sheikh Ansari to deal this problem has caused a wide disagreement about his understanding of it. In addition, the acceptance of this category and framework for dealing this issue has caused a kind of confusion, simplicity and disorder in the presentation of political jurisprudence in the seminaries.