نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار، گروه حقوق، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری، سبزوار، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is the outcome of a process called ijtihad, which passes through the stages of sources, foundations, and materials to result in a technical and systematic inference. Among the most significant and influential orientations of jurisprudence in the modern era is political jurisprudence. Within this orientation, there are three approaches—individual, social, and governmental. The adoption of any one of these approaches by a jurist leads to different jurisprudential outcomes in political fiqh. One of the main reasons for differences in fatwas lies in the varying foundations and approaches extracted from the sources, even though all jurists systematically strive to derive rulings from general principles. From the perspective of scholars who advocate the governmental approach, the sovereignty of jurisprudence and justice during the Occultation (ghayba; the absence of the last Shiite Imam) is endorsed by the Sharia. The political and social issues pursued by the jurist stem not from personal obligation but from the position or office granted to the jurist in the age of Occultation. The main question of this research is: What impact does the governmental approach in a jurist’s political jurisprudence have on other jurisprudential materials produced by their thought? Using library-based sources and a descriptive-analytical method with content-level analysis, the present study demonstrates that if a governmental approach is adopted in political jurisprudence—an approach currently manifest in the acceptance of the legitimacy of the government and Islamic state under a qualified jurist during the Occultation—not only will political jurisprudential issues be influenced, but all areas of jurisprudence will be affected by this foundation. Given the extent of this influence, it can be said that analyzing the approaches in political jurisprudence takes precedence over analyzing and presenting other foundations and approaches adopted by a jurist. To avoid confusion in jurisprudence and achieve consistency in the process of ijtihad, this approach must be applied across all branches and rulings of jurisprudence. The findings of the study indicate that in key and contested issues (such as qiṣāṣ [retribution], adjudication, anfāl, khums, zakat, jihad, and moon sighting), the divergence in political jurisprudential approaches is the underlying cause of the differences among jurists.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)