عنوان مقاله [English]
The quiddity of government and the way of interaction with it has constantly changed into one of the scientific disputes in our jurisprudential tradition, for instance, what is the quiddity of government in the absence of infallible imam? and what is the believers’ obligation particularly the religious scholars in this regard?
These are two important questions having been regarded by the jurisprudents during the occultation era. These issues discussed under two titles of “Wilayat for the tyrant”, and “lending hand to the tyrants” tries to give a jurisprudential answer by taking or non taking of a responsibility in the oppressor governments and assisting them. Answering these two questions led to the development of an extended plan of jurisprudential issues considering them for us who live in a religious government is of the highest significance. Following the foundation of “Islamic republic based on Wilayat e- Faqih” in Iran after the revolution in 1357, what changed into an important issue was that: if injustice means the foundation of government without asking the permission of infallible Imam, now that a qualified jurisprudent like Omar Ibn e- Hanzaleh was responsible to develop a religious government due to numerous reasons, which government is it denoting?
And how should the scholars interact with it? And on the basis of which model should they make relationship with this government? So far, these important questions have been vaguely answered. The outcome of communication within our jurisprudence demonstrates that the patterns of clergymen interacting with the Islamic government, based on the present theories are innumerable, however, they all put emphasis on the theoretical or applied legitimacy of jurisprudent’s government and they are willing to make it systematic.