نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Among Muslim scholars in the field of political thought, there are numerous differences of opinion regarding the form of government. The root of some of these differences goes back to the existence or non-existence of a necessary connection (talāzum) between Sharia and government. According to the view that establishes such a connection, the ruler of the government is always the same as the trustee of religion. In other words, government is considered one of the functions of guardianship (wilāyah) and acquires a pyramidal structural power. Therefore, with a change in the interpretation and understanding of these social rulings, that necessary connection will also change. One of the most important of these social rulings, whose interpretation is debatable and determines the establishment or non-establishment of a connection, is the ruling of enjoining good and forbidding evil (Amr bil Ma'rūf wa Nahy anil Munkar). According to the interpretation of the first group, this ruling, due to possessing a practical stage (marḥalah 'amalī) and the need for government to comply with that stage, acts as a bridge, establishing a close connection between Sharia and government. In contrast, the second viewpoint does not consider enjoining good as having a practical stage and believes that due to this ruling, no connection is established between Sharia and government. The present paper, by examining the evidence for the practical stage of enjoining good and forbidding evil, seeks to investigate the challenge of the existence or non-existence of a necessary connection. Ultimately, through a jurisprudential analysis of the evidence, it concludes that the existence of a practical stage for enjoining good and forbidding evil is incompatible with the literal meaning (dalālah) of the words "command" (amr) and "prohibition" (nahy). Furthermore, the existence of such a stage contradicts the purpose of religion, and even the principle of grace (bāb al-imtinān) cannot resolve this incompatibility and contradiction. Finally, the traditions (riwāyāt) cited to prove the practical stage are insufficient in terms of chain of transmission (sanad) and textual evidence (dalālah) to establish it. Therefore, according to the present paper, the ruling of enjoining good and forbidding evil does not imply a necessary connection between Sharia and religious government.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)