نشریه حکومت اسلامی
سال نوزدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 72، تابستان 1393)

The theory of the guardianship of the Muslim jurist constitutes an important element in Imam Khomeini’s political thought in relation to the leadership of the Islamic community at the time of Occultation. In addition, Imam Khomeini is the only Muslim jurist who succeeded to form an Islamic government on the basis of this theory which can be said to be the first objective crystallization of a Muslim rule over the Islamic community. Some believe that, over time, Imam Khomeini’s thought on the subject in question has undergone some changes or has taken a developing course. The main question this article seeks to answer is that whether the theory of guardianship of the Muslim jurist has been a fixed or unchanging idea in the political thoughts of Imam Khomeini and that whether it has been a coherent and unified theory, not being evolved into a new discourse over time since it was developed by Imam Khomeini. To answer the above questions, the author, drawing upon the documentary-descriptive method, has looked at the two books Hokumat-e Islami [Islamic Government] and Kashf al-Asrar [Unveiling of the Mysteries], trying to show whether or not the theory of the guardianship of Muslim jurist has undergone changes or remained unchanged. The findings of this research work shows that as far as the theory of the guardianship of the Muslim jurist is concerned, there is no contradiction or discrepancy between these two books, though it seems that the way in which Imam Khomeini formulated the theory at issue in Kashf al-Asrar is not clear-cut, or rather, it is implicit, due to the circumstances of Iran in 1920s. That is why it is thought by some that Imam Khomeini has been in favor of the theory of the supervision, and not guardianship, of the Muslim jurist. This brings evidence to the fact that the theory at issue has been explained away and justified or interpreted differently under changing political circumstances. The same theory, however, has found its clear unambiguous expression in the book the Guardianship of the Muslim Jurist in 1348.

Justice in Islamic jurisprudence has not seriously been taken into consideration and the discussions raised on this subject mainly deals with individual justice. Among the Muslim jurists, Imam Khomeini as a Muslim jurist who has a different approach to justice in his practical conduct has dealt with both individual justice and social justice. There have been differing opinions as to the status of justice in Islamic fiqh. Some have taken justice as a “fiqhi principle” while others have considered customary justice as their bases for fiqhi inferences. This article, while dealing with the explanation of the ideas and opinion proposed in this regard, regards justice as the main objective of the Law (shariÝah). Having analyzed various ideas concerning justice, the article comes to a conclusion that justice is inevitable as a principle in fiqh. However, to identify the extensions(referents) of justice, outside the realm of fiqh, by having recourse to the common-sense judgment in cases where there is a conclusive judgment issued by the Law is not acceptable. Justice is aimed at by the Law and it is, in fact, the philosophy of the Islamic rulings and is not to be taken as a means of attaining particular legal rulings, but it is itself the aim and goal. It may be said that all rulings and fiqhi principles are means of reaching this goal.

Various theories have been developed by political thinkers on the way in which a political society can be run. In the meanwhile, the theory of the guardian of the Muslim jurist has gained great importance due its novelty in comparison with other political theories and its applicability in the framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many researches have been made to cast light on various aspects and dimensions of the theory at issue. Still further investigation is necessary to explore some other hidden aspects of the theory. To meet this end, the present research seeks to provide theoretical explanation for the efficiency and applicability of a system of government based on the theory. The research also aims at showing the advantages of the theory in question over other theories, and providing answers for the questions and doubts raised about its efficiency and applicability as well as its comprehensiveness and authenticity. In this connection, some components of the theory are as follows: its opposition to despotism of any form, approval of religious democracy, striving for the common good, and paving the ground for the active political participation of people. Reflection on various aspects of the theory of guardianship of the Muslim jurist shows that, in this theory, not only the abovementioned components but also the necessary mechanisms for their functions have been taken into serious consideration. It goes without saying that if the mentioned components, having theoretically explained, are taken into consideration and acted upon in practice, they will prove to be fully operative and applicable in Islamic society.

Crisis management, is a process by which a society, or an organization in that society, deals with a major event that threatens to harm it. The crisis which may be a major threat is a social crisis. That is why crisis management, especially that of social crises, is regarded as 0ne of the major concerns in the field of organization and management. Accordingly, to detect the way in which Imam Ali (p.b.u.h) succeeded to manage the “Jamal Event” as a social crisis can be a good guide for many organizations in dealing with social crises. This research aims at exploring the major elements contributing to the crisis of “Jamal” as well as the means by which Imam Ali (p.b.u.h.) succeeded to manage this crisis which had threatened the Muslim community. The major question raised here is “How did Imam Ali succeed to manage the ‘Jamal crisis?” To answer the question, the researcher, drawing upon library research method, proceeds to collect research data and deals with the data by employing analytical descriptive method. The management technique adopted by Imam Ali (p.b.u.h.) to control the crisis is dealt with in three phases: management before crisis, management during (in times of) crisis, management after crisis. Some measures taken by Imam Ali before the crisis were: being very careful in appointing people to positions, considering and controlling contributory factors to the crisis, and trying to negotiate with those provoking the crisis and advancing arguments with those actively participating in the crisis to persuade them to resolve it. The measures taken at times of the crisis include mobilizing resources and facilities, overcoming or easing the contributory factors to the crisis, making people aware of the forces behind the crisis, seeking help from God, and consulting the crisis management team. The measures taken by Imam Ali (p.b.u.h.) after the crisis included making people aware of the problems caused by the crisis, removing the remaining contributory agents to the crisis from Basra, maintaining peace and order and supporting those who were hit by the crisis.

Since the establishment of Islamic parliament in Iran, the explanation of the nature of ‘being a parliament representative’ is one of the most challenging issue in the legislature due to the fact that the Iranian society is a Muslim society, that there are many differing views on the nature of Islamic government, and that people have rights to participate in the elections, including the election of their own parliament representatives. To explain the nature of representation in the constitutional law of the Islamic Republic of Iran, one has to make analysis of each of the constituent elements of representation as far as the Islamic parliament is concerned. The analysis will cover such issues as ‘the guardianship of the Muslim jurist’, ‘those who are elected as representatives’, and ‘people’. Accordingly, the nature of parliamentary representation as stipulated in the constitution of the Islamic republic of Iran is a legal representation permitted by the Muslim guardian jurist. The Muslim jurist is, in a sense, appointed by God to take responsibility of running the social affairs of the Muslim community. However, according to the principle of public participation, the Muslim jurist delegates his responsibility of legislating and supervising, which is stipulated in the constitution and commonly accepted, to the legislators or the elected representatives of the people to act on his behalf. The representatives have been elected to pave the way for people to participate in running their own social affairs.

The executive expediency and its role in issuing government decrees by the Islamic ruling system has traditionally attracted the attention of the Muslim scholars concerned with political fiqh, political thought and political philosophy. As far as the Islamic government is concerned, the element ‘executive expediency’ plays a crucial role in legislation and law enforcement and the Islamic rule has to take notice of it.This article seeks to provide answers to the following questions: Does the executive expediency in the Islamic government have its roots in the Qur’an? In other words, does the holy Qur’an pay any attention to executive expediency and government decrees? And if the Qur’an has dealt with the governmental executive expediency, what are the Qur’anic texts and significations? In answering to the above questions, it should be noted that the executive expediency, though it has been designated as secondary in the political fiqh, political thought, and political philosophy in Islam, and the Quran has made no explicit mention of executive expediency, one can infer the authority of executive expediencies from the Qur’anic contexts. For the Qur’an in various verses has granted the leaders of Islamic society, who are appointed by God, permission to issue governmental decrees to the interests of the Islamic society.

Legal systems of the world, despite the title “absolute ruler or authority” whether used for a person elected as a leader or a president or for a person in a position of a king, each chooses the head of state in line with particular legal rules. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, with acknowledging the fact that the absolute ruler or authority is only God, the Almighty, and that the ruler or guardian jurist is actually appointed by mediate interference of God, according to the Article 107 of the constitution of Iran, the responsibility of appointing the Supreme leader is delegated to the Assembly of Experts of the Leadership. This article, as an introduction to the issue in question, deals with the following constituent elements as presuppositions: Is the office of leadership a contract or a unilateral obligation or allegiance of some sort? And in case it is a contract, is it binding or permissible? Is it a designated (taÝyini) office or a determined(taÝyyoni) one? The article deals with the question whether a leader is appointed or elected, and such issues as supervising the activities of the leader and his dismissal from his office, entrusting the office of guardianship to the guardian jurist in line with the theories that allows giving the office of guardianship to the Muslim jurist for concentrating authority; assigning(jaÝl) the office of guardianship and considering(insha’) the appointment of the guardian jurist; offering guidance and showing the right way; complementing and giving effect to the office of guardianship; giving the power of attorney to the jurist; having the position of a ruler as well as a judge; and finally considers the legal and juridical nature of assigning the Supreme leader in terms of the discovery of referents as based on expertise and clear evidence. The author raises some discussions on the theories advanced by some ShiÝÐ jurists (faqihs), including the great architect of the Islamic Revolution, Grand Ayatollah Khomeini.