عنوان مقاله [English]
In regard with political activities, prophets are of two types: first, those who run, or in some ways, were involved with a political system, like Solomon; second, those who did not lead a political system, like Jesus Christ. Some related the reason for such difference to divine providence and some others, especially sociologists of religion, believe this diversity is due to political and civilizational situations, considering every religion as an answer to vacuums of the related civilization. The Prophet of Islam is of the first type. Among the political activities of the Prophet are establishing a government in Medina, fighting various combats with the pagans, writing letters to rulers and kings, signing treaties, and judging. All Muslims, including the Shiites and Sunnites, agree on the necessity of establishing an Islamic government and their reason mostly was based on the political activities of the Prophet, not on the nature of Islam itself. The concepts of Imamate and caliphate both are based on the assumption that Islam is not separable from politics and that the establishment of a government is necessary after the demise of the Prophet. They assume that the realization of the Islamic Shari’a is impossible unless a government is established. On the other hand, some, like the Khawarij in the past and Abd al-Razzagh at present, deny such necessity. The paper evaluated the views of such thinkers, showing the strong and weak points of their arguments.