نشریه حکومت اسلامی
سال بیست و نهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 112، تابستان 1403)

The relationship between “government” and “guardianship” is one of the most vital political discussions in Islam, without which the mission of religion to perfect humanity cannot be realized. In the writings and speeches of many religious scholars, “guardianship” is seen as separate from “government,” and the semantic relationship between the two is overlooked. However, in the political-Qur’anic perspective of the Supreme Leader, the connection between “government” and “guardianship” is an undeniable truth. Drawing upon a descriptive-analytical method, this article seeks to answer the question of how the “relationship between government and “guardianship” is analyzed and proved in the Qur’anic thought of Ayatollah Khameneī. The conclusion drawn from the research is that, according to the leader of the Islamic Revolution, the realization of guardianship necessitates being under Islamic government, and the connection between the two is established based on three principles: “monotheism,” “religious human-centeredness,” and “human perfection-seeking.” The avoidance of polytheism and the rule of tyrants to realize the true dignity of humanity and to actualize all its potentials for the attainment of divine proximity is only possible within a divine society. Furthermore, the reasons why one believes in the theory of separation of government and guardianship are not defensible and contradict the content of the verses and religious foundations.

The quantity and quality of “weapons” in warfare are among the most important strategic factors for achieving military objectives. Power, speed, and destructive capacity are key characteristics of the quantity and quality of weapons. The use of poison as a weapon can embody all of these characteristics. The dissemination of various poisons in the geographical space of the target leads to rapid outbreaks and has lasting harmful effects. The target of chemical weapons is indiscriminate, affecting military personnel, civilians, animals, and plants, and depending on the type of toxic gas and its impact on human and animal physiology and plant tissues, it can cause painful, lethal, and often untreatable effects. Although the perspective of warlords on the use of chemical weapons is positive, the reaction of experts in various fields, especially in law, is negative. The viewpoint of Shiʿa jurisprudence, as a legal thought based on Islamic Law regarding the use of chemical weapons, is noteworthy and significant; some Shiʿa jurisconsults consider it absolutely forbidden, some conditionally forbidden, and others regard it as merely disliked. The Statute of the International Criminal Court has taken a stance on the use of chemical weapons and has established various provisions regarding this matter. This research, drawing upon on a descriptive-analytical method, presents the existing viewpoints on the current issue and, while citing evidence, critiques and examines each of the arguments through a method of dialectical reasoning. The conducted research leads to the ruling of absolute prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

The greater Jihad (holy war) and the lesser Jihad have been of interest to Muslim jurists and thinkers throughout the history of Islam; however, the greater Jihad, which is one of the Qur’anic terms, has received less attention. The main question of this research is: What is the greater Jihad and what foundations support it? This study has been conducted to answer the above questions. In this research, the necessary information has been gathered through library methods and processed drawing upon a descriptive-analytical approach, resulting in the following findings The greater Jihad is the very non-military and soft warfare that is realized through two means: non-compliance with the enemy (negative aspect) and fulfilling the mission of elucidating the values of Islam and repelling the enemy's doubts (positive aspect). The greater Jihad is based on Qur’anic foundations and is relevant in political, economic, cultural, and scientific domains.

Kāshif al-Ghitāʾ is among the Muslim jurisconsults who have established and elaborated on political rules within his jurisprudential system. Given the fact that he presented the valuable book Kashf al-Ghitāʾ, which contains many political rules, to the Qajar king, he played a significant role in the expansion of governmental jurisprudence and the application of jurisprudential rules to emerging political phenomena. The act of presenting the book Kashf al- Ghitāʾ to the Qajar king carries the essential point that this book and the rules it contains served as guidance for governance, enabling the ruler to act in various governmental arenas, including political decision-making, legislation, and detailed policies based on it. The most important political rules from Kāshif al-Ghitaʾ's perspective include the negation of domination on the faithful by the infidels  [referring to the Quranic verse (4:141): “...and Allah will never provide the faithless any way [to prevail] over the faithful.”], justice, benevolence, legitimate defense, the prohibition of assisting in oppression, and the absence of guardianship. These rules can be processed in Kāshif al-Ghitāʾ’s jurisprudence through the following propositions: the dignity and honor of Muslims is an absolute principle; adherence to contracts, including peace treaties, is obligatory for the Islamic state. Considering human dignity and their equality in creation, no one has the right to dominate another; however, permission from the legislator is the only exception to this principle. Justice, in its social and political context, is a fundamental principle, and guardianship and leadership during the Major Occultation Era belong to the just Imam, and the hands of oppressors are cut off from this esteemed position. If people are deprived from the direct authority of a just jurisconsult, his appointee has legitimacy, but the legitimacy of a government authorized by a jurist is contingent.

Human social life is an unavoidable necessity, and among its mechanisms, one of the key aspects is the exchange of opinions and ideas among individuals. Islam, as a complete religion that fully addresses the innate needs of humanity, places special importance on consultation for the advancement of human social life. Since in an Islamic society, the affairs of the community are managed through an Islamic government, this study analyzes and examines the views of two prominent contemporary Qur’anic interpreters of the Islamic world regarding whether the outcome of the council is binding for the government. According to the findings, Rashid Riḍā considers adherence to the majority opinion and the outcome of the council to be obligatory for the Islamic ruler and government. However, in ʿAllāmeh Ṭabāṭabāī’s view, following the opinion derived from the council or the majority opinion is not obligatory, and the final decision, after consultation and consideration of the opinions of experts, rests with the Islamic ruler. This does not diminish the value and importance of the consultative role of the people.

Muslim thinkers have proposed various criteria for Abode of Islam (Dār al-Islām). Given the importance of convergence in the Islamic world and the orientation of existing political systems towards union-based approaches, a comparative examination of this concept has gained new significance in order to achieve a shared discoursive reading. The main question of the research is: What is the concept of Dār al-Islām from the perspective of Shiʿa and Sunni thinkers, and how is it possible to reconcile the various and differing criteria they have offered in this regard? 
Drawing upon a descriptive-analytical method, along with a comparative approach and the use of library tools for data collection, this research first presents the views of prominent Shiʿa and Sunni thinkers who have discussed Dār al-Islām and goes on to offer a new interpretation of the concept of Dār al-Islām and considers the possibility of reconciling various criteria around a common axis.

The existence of legislative needs and necessities is an undeniable reality that, according to Article 71 of the Constitution, the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) is responsible for addressing and fulfilling. In such a case, the jurisdiction to enact laws by the Assembly is not optional but mandatory; because the prevention of significant harm resulting from legal vacuums can only be achieved through the exclusive channel of the legislative power. Based on the constitutional law system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the exercise of the legislative jurisdiction of the mentioned power can be evaluated in four exclusive domains: the preparation of legislative proposals, the approval of bills or drafts, the amendment, completion, and repeal of existing laws, and the revision or insistence after approval and objections from the Guardian Council. Assuming a genuine necessity for legislation, the obligatory jurisdiction of the Islamic Consultative Assembly in the aforementioned four domains, due to the presumption of public interest, will not face the three limitations of non-contradiction with the primary ordinances of the Law (Sharia), the Constitution, and the general policies of the Islamic system. This research draws upon a descriptive-analytical method to elaborate on these discussions.