نشریه حکومت اسلامی
سال هفدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 63، بهار 1391)

The present article is concerned with some of the questions relating to the divine obligation of enjoining good and forbidding evil in order to explain and revise this issue and show whether or not the term “enjoining good and forbidding evil” includes such things like guiding the ignorant, taking preventive actions in cultural and non-cultural affairs, judgement, exercising divine punishments and jihad (holy war).The article also investigates how the duty will be in case of necessity or unlawfulness, about which faqihs have different opinions, and discusses the duty of the faithful in this regard in the period when they have no political power in contrast with their duty in the time when the affairs is run by an Islamic government, by taking into consideration the different stages and levels of this divine duty.

Shi‘ah fiqh has some characteristics, the like of which cannot be found in most disciplines.We can refer to three of these characteristics, which help to reveal some aspects of this discipline such as everlastingness of fiqh, comprehesiveness of fiqh and flexibility of fiqh which are of special importance.An exposition of the mentioned characteristics urges free thinkers to ask this important question: What is the secret behind the efficiency and ability of fiqh to meet man’s boundless needs and what is its mechanism?Mentioning the basic principles of the subject in question, this article tries to explain the reasons and factors of the high position which fiqh has in man’s social life and to clear up some misgivings about this issue.

Jurisdictions are necessary for running the affairs of Islamic society. One of these jurisdictions is the making of governmental judgements.The key question which arises about the Islamic system is: What are the rules and regulations for making governmental judgements?Govermental judgements, often termed Walā’i judgements, are separate from Shar‘i injunctions in as far as the side or authority which issues them is concerned, but in as far as their contents are concerned, different relationships are detectable between them.Governmental or Walā’i judgements, like Shar‘i injunctions, are of two types. Some fall in the province of obligatory judgements and some fall in the province of positive obligations.This article is concerned with the rules and regulations for making obligatory governmental judgements by a ruler. Making a distinction between “common rules” and “the rules for urgent judgements”, the author observes that six components are connected to common judgements and three rules are connected to urgent judgements

The theory of separation of powers has changed into one of the most famous theories in the field of political thought during the last few decades to such an extent that, as some writers and translators words and speeches indicate, it has taken a sacred hue and is considered as a criterion for evaluating political systems. However, this theory has many theoretical contradictions and deficiencies, regardless of the functional challenges facing it and inspite of the efforts made to complete and disseminate it.The present research begins with commenting on the separatists’ misconception about power and man, and then discusses the historical mistake which Montesquieu has committed in the modeling of this theory. Finally, the author investigates the inefficiency of separation of powers in order to achieve the theorists’ desired objectives, and to prove that it is necessary to advance an alternative theory based on indigenous thoughts and compatible with the requirements of modern human socities.

The ‘authority of law’ is one of the most important principles which all the constitutions of the world consider acceptable. According to this principle, authority is represented in the laws of a country, which consider all citicizens equal before law. Identifying the duties and jurisdiction of officials and considering them equal with other citizens as well as predicting various types of supervising the work of the statesmen, the constitution of the Islamic Repulic of Iran officially recognizes the principle of the authority of law.In Islamic law, a Muslim ruler has the right to directly make decisions in accordance with the interests of Islam and Muslims. These decisions are known as “governmental judgements”, which as stated in the principles 5, 110 and 112 of the constitution of the Islamic Republice of Iran, have to be obeyed, as in the case of primary and secondary judgements.Among the questions which are raised in the field of public law is: Are governmental judgements in contradiction with the principle of authority of law? The author sees that governmental judgements are symbolic of the principle of the anthority of law. Fiqhi and legal evidence indicates that law, which includes the codified law and governmental judgements as well as the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran endorse this view. This research uses a descriptiveanalytical method and cites evidence from fiqhi and legal resources to support its argument.

The Islamic Revolution is a revolution founded on Islamic tradition. Unlike the notion of tradition prevailing in the West which is taken as part of the western world, traditionin the view of Islamincludes the Muslim world and is not reduced to part of the Muslim world. Dr. Seyyed Jawad Tabātabā’i, one of the contemporary writers, who has analysed all the changes in the Iranian thoughts for the period between the early Islam and today on the basis of Islamic tradition, thinks that, due to the distance between tradition and reason _ in its Greek sense _ and falling into the trap of the exterior aspect of Islamic law along with the historical changes which occurred after the Mongol attacks on Iran, etc., Islamic tradition suffered from decay, decline, rigidity and deadlock, and problems of this kind reoccurred and what has been inherited from it was too little for one to understand the relations of modern time. Although he rarely talks about the Islamic Revolution explicitly and directly, the same pessimistic description of Islamic tradition which exists has to be considered true of the Islamic Revolution. In an attempt to criticize Dr. Tabatabā’i’s theory, the article delves into the topic of Islamic tradition as the foundation of the Islamic Revolution.

The present essay is centered on criticizing E. Rosenthal’s view about political philosophy in Islam. Rosenthal’s main concern is to understand and explain the relationship between Islamic political philosophy and Greek and Islamic doctrines. Rosenthal sees that although Islamic political philosophy is influenced by both Greek and Islamic doctrines, there is no agreement and harmany between Greek doctrines and Islamic doctrines at all and so a Muslim political philosopher cannot be influenced by the doctrines which are not in harmony with religious principles because of his being a devout Muslim. Therefore, the main problem of Rosenthal’s way of thinking is that his understanding of Greek doctrines is wider than his understanding of Islam and Islamic doctrines. Influenced by modern western approaches, he introduces a picture of Muslim and Greek political philosophers that does not correspond with their original texts and doctrines.