MARIFAT SIASI
Year:2012 | Volume:4 | Issue:1 (7)|Papers Count:6

“The principle of no harm” is one of the several legal principles which has many applications in political jurisprudence. The present paper tries to analyze the traditions related to this principle, determine the content of its proofs, and most importantly elaborate on its consequencies. It deals with the important consequencies (requirements) of this principle through analyzing three existing views, that is, governmental judgment, secondary judgment, and intellectual judgment. The researcher believes that the two first views–governmental judgment and secondary judgment- cannot explain the content of the principle of no harm, due to their limitation while the view of intellectual judgment can well explain the consequencies of this principle by combining governmental and secondary judgment.

According to Shiite beliefs, one of the Holy Prophet's responsibilities was the management of Islamic society, a responsibility which his successors, i.e. infallible Imams undertake after him. Therefore, the necessity of establishing a just government by infallible Imams and supporting it is among the most fundamental Shiite beliefs. This notion has stimulated Shi’ah faqihs to elaborate on such questions about management of society like Jihad, enjoining good and prohibiting evil, observing divine limits and the like. The present paper seeks to expound the historical development of the discussions on governmental issues in Shia fiqh (jurisprudence) generated by jurists of the early centuries until Muhaqqiq Hilli's time. Some great jurists like Sheikh Saduq initiated such discussions and some like Sheikh Mufid expanded them. This paper also refers to the views of a number of great jurists like Seyyed Murtaza, Abu Salah Halabi, Sheikh Tusi, Salar, Ibn Barraj and Ibn Idris.

Governmental fiqh (jurisprudence), one of the main issues of philosophy of fiqh (jurisprudence) is a holistic approach which is based on the maximal view on religion. Governmental jurisprudence is considered as a method and approach vis-à-vis individualistic fiqh (jurisprudence) and a general description governing all types of jurisprudence. That is, when jurist wants to infer religious injunctions, he considers the act of enforcing rules in the context of an Islamic governmental system which represents an institution to manage the society. The present paper mainly deals with the "quiddity, reason and manner" of governmental fiqh (jurisprudence). When discussing quiddity, it elaborates on the nature of governmental jurisprudence, when discussing reason it expounds its necessity and when manner is in question, the method and process to achieve it are discussed. Using an analytical approach, this paper tries to reanalyze and elaborate on the aspects of this extremely important issue in Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence) by referring to the views of such great jurists like Imam Khomeini (May God’s mercy be on him) who has revived the theoretical dimension of governmental jurisprudence and established the Islamic Republic in modern century on the basis of the practical dimension of governmental fiqh.

The tradition of the Noble Writ by Imam Mahdi, on which the history Shi’ah relies for establishing the guardianship of jurist is mainly examined to see whether or not this tradition testifies to the principle of theocratic guardianship during occultation period, but the question of establishing the other aspects of theocratic guardianship has not been given due attention. The present paper tries to study the scope within which Noble Writ falls in relation to the questions propounded in the area of guardianship of Shia jurists to confirm the role which guardian jurists play in sociopolitical affairs. Accordingly, in addition to the typology of theories on guardianship of jurist the fact that this tradition establishes the theory of guardianship of jurist and his appointment, has been proved. The role of people in religious government is referred to by rejecting the leading council. Then, the condition that the jurist has to be most knowledgeable in as far as political guardianship is concerned is dealt with. The final part of discussion is centred on the jurisdiction of the ruling guardian jurist.

Bringing hearts together, which has its root in the Holy Quran, is derived from a secondary fiqhi principle about those who deserve Zakat (alms). It is used to appease some polytheists, hypocrites or even certain groups of Muslims for the purpose of attracting individuals and trends to cooperate politically with Islamic system and Islamic nation or to repel plots and threats.Contrary to the reductionist view that the shares of those whose heart are brought together have been abrogated or it is impossible to apply this rule during the occultation period, the present paper emphasizes that most Sunni and Shia jurists believe that this fiqhi issue has continued to be valid after the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and its application is possible during the occultation period. Bringing hearts together is in harmony with Islam's political aims and has close and influential relation with statesmanship and diplomacy in Islam. Furthermore, it is possible to verify and implement the relation between Islamic policy and "bringing hearts together" in "domestic policy" and "foreign policy" at all times.

One of the clear instances of political crime is revolting against an Islamic ruler and Islamic government and a group of Muslims' revolt against a just Imam, which is referred to in fiqh as baqy (rebellion). The definition and verdicts relating to this crime to which jurists have pointed in their books of fiqh are less than what can be deduced from Quranic verses and traditions. Many scholars have dealt only with the mentioned verdicts and conditions in their books and articles, whereas this crime has a wider range. On the other hand, since, according to the books of punishment in Islam, the holy principle of repentance for some crimes has been affirmed and it is considered as a way of avoiding being held accountable for a crime is it appropriate to examine the views about it and evidence supporting the view, and then minutely elaborate on the question of baghi, its conditions, verdicts, and role of a rebel's repentance in mitigating or remitting the severity his/her penalty.