Scientific delegation promoting the interaction of authority with the authority of Velayat-e Faqih was held at the Culture Hall of the Research Center of Qom.
The author of the discussion was Dr. Abdul Wahab Farati, a faculty member at the Institute for Policy Studies at the Research Institute.
Hajj al-Islam and Muslims Seyyed Sajjadizadeh, Mohsen Mohajernia, Mohammad Malekzadeh and Mr. Massoud Abdolhossein Pourfard, from the faculty members of the Institute for Policy Studies at the Institute of Research, criticized them.
The academic secretary of this meeting was Hojatoleslam Dr. Seyed Kazem Seyed Bagheri, director of the Institute’s Policy Department.
The content of this scientific service is presented below:
Hojatoleslam Sayed Bagheri: We hope that this discussion, which has an important place in the fundamental issues of the Islamic government and its type of relationship with the agents and institutions of the Islamic state, can be discussed and discussed well.
One of the challenging and questionable issues among the community is interaction and possibly the perplexity of authority with the government’s system of governance in the Islamic Republic. And for the discussion, since Mr. Farati’s efforts regarding the clergy were hard to come up with, it would be natural to be the most worthy person to do this They talked about the fact that he also had research in this field.
The fundamental question is: what are the issues between the authority and the authority of the Velayat-e faqih, and the alignment and adherence, and in what cases is the authority of its independence, and what interaction can there be between them?
Many argue that there is an inconsistency between authority and supreme jurisprudence, especially those who do not know the type of jurisprudence literature, but do not digest it easily, but what is the reality? This is a discussion that Dr. Fratti is currently addressing, and Dr Poiffard and Dr. Izadeh are reviewing it.
in the name of God
Thank you to the friends who have made it and would like to be bored to discuss this discussion; before I enter into the discussion, I will state one or two points; although the title of this seat is a religious authority with the authority of the Velayat-e faqih, but you know that the confusion of the Provinces in jurisprudence Between mujtahids and does not belong to religious authority, that is, in fact, the supreme leader who is a miutahid, is full of power, when he comes to power, with those who are mujtahids, they are confronted with conflicts in the provinces whether they are reference or not, which is why I tried in my research. I take note of the general level of this conflict, though in cases where the authority is different Interact more bumps.
The dispute between the authority of the Velayat-e faqih with the authority of authority
Second, when you discuss the relationship or the interaction of authority with the province, it is the institution of the authority and authority of the province, that is, the confrontation may persist between the supreme leader and the authorities from high to low levels, that is, a community imam in the provincial center with the head of the office of one The authorities in the province are confused, but the purpose of the meeting is at the high level of the relationship that is currently being addressed.
The third point is that this literature debate has not really been much discussed in the context of the midwifery, and in fact, in the mid-seventies, such a topic was proposed, and was later abandoned and ignored, with the exception of one or two papers in this regard. And what I did was, firstly, the aggregation of all the talks that have taken place so far, even though the ideas published by Mr. Azari Qomi have been published, but I felt that the discussions that he wanted to raise this ratio would be stuck in a strain and should There is a bit of debate going forward, so both past literature and the production of new literature.
The next point is that the interaction between the religious authority and the authority of the Velayat-e faqih is a detailed discussion that I refer to a more important part of these discussions and that the interaction of the authority and the mujtahids with Velayat-e faqih is one of the components of the theory of velayat-e faqih, in the sense that if Consider the theories of velayat-e faqih. According to each theory, a model of interaction is included in which the patterns are the instruments of that theory.
Feature of interactive patterns
In literature, for the sake of authenticity, a theory is based on literature and resources, for example, we say whether the doctrine of installing the doctrine is an argument within jurisprudence or not? Or is the doctrinal choice theory to be an internal religious argument? And I think that in the discussion of the patterns of interaction we should not be able to say that it can be documented or not? And it’s an error to cite the flow of citation for the correctness of a pattern.
In my table, I have considered a number of factors for the correctness of these patterns; first, is this model, which is presented as the internal means of A theory in relation to Velayat-e faqih, is appropriate to or is not relevant to the traditions? And is this template documented or not? Third, does the mujtahids pay attention to traditional authority? Does it restrict or restrict the authority of other mujtahids? And the fourth factor is whether it addresses competing theories?
Maybe you say I do not have rival ideas, but when you see, for example, when you see the late Khoi theory that does not yield the desired result to half of the areas of Najaf and Qom who are dominated by this jurisprudential theory or jurisprudence but ignore it. So I can not tell you to modify the Islamic Imams according to the theory of the Islamic Republic, and I do not have any legal schools.
Factor V is the focus of national unity, that is, the pattern that is being extracted will lead to the strengthening of national sovereignty. Undermine national unity and national sovereignty and increase the flow of conflict against sovereignty.
The views of the Velayat-e faqih
With these factors in mind, we can think of four theories about the Velayat-e Faqih, which can be plotted:
The traditional theory of Velayat-e faqih, like the conditions before the Islamic Revolution, which each jurisprudent possessed a certain title of legitimacy and had some kind of authority and authority, and you actually see in the pre-revolutionary society that each mujtahid possessed the authority of the wisdom and dispersion, and For himself, he had organized an institution to regulate authority.
This situation was the same as in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam in 2003 in Iraq, when a trip to this country was taking place, the office of one of the authorities came to the airport and took you to a number of armed forces and delivered your next mujtahid office. Everyone had an institution and influence; one in the Ministry of Petroleum, another in the Ministry of Finance, and even in their neighborhoods, had large power plants, and they did not do urban power, and you saw that in the form of a mullah al-Tawawi in all parts of Najaf, each mujtahid or authority He had authority for himself.
Based on that table, I said that although the traditional theory of the jurisprudence is in line with the historical tradition of the Shiite community and is somehow documented in the jurisprudential argument, it takes into consideration the traditional authority of the other jurisprudents and contributes to competing theories, but the important problem is this pattern. Which breaks the authority of the national government and prevents the formation of a powerful Shiite government.
Attribution theory based on discovery; it is well-known that many of the current jurists after the revolution, such as the late Ayatullah Mu’min Qumi or Ayatullah Mesbah Yazdi, believe that the supreme leader has an appointed province, that is, when we discover the jurisprudence to which the province should be given to him. The theory of appointment has been discovered.
According to this theory, when the faghih is revealed, all authority is given to him, and the rest of the jurists and the authorities of the seminaries are in fact other than the authority or the province for teaching other things, and even the jurisprudents can confuse their seizure of religious matters and authority However, if you see that Imam Khomeini and the supreme leader of the revolution do not do this, they are for two reasons, or they have delegated some of their authority to the jurists or respect the braggins. However, with this theory, the rest of the jurists lack Are authority
This theory, if we want to assess the above model, naturally, is a documented doctrine of the evidence in the narrative, because we will explain later that, basically, you would not have been chosen if you were to look for a legitimate basis for the jurisprudence in the jurisprudence curriculum.
For this reason, Mr. Montazeri thought that the choice could be found within the jurisprudence, and therefore the doctrinal choice of jurisprudence was chosen, but its discovery was not documented in jurisprudence. While in the Islamic narrations, the phrase is “Farajo” rather than “Fakhshfo”. Therefore, the second part lacks a juridical documentary that breaks down the authority of other jurisprudents or seminary traditions and disqualifies rival theories and says that it does not matter what Mr. Has a good theory in the field? The end result of this theory is that gradually the jurisprudents and the rulers within the domain of disagreements with the ruling jurisprudents will rule and gradually move from the background of the current religious opposition, which is becoming a national unity.
The discovery-based appointment theory, radicalized after the adoption of the constitution in the year 58, is a fundamental problem, and it is impossible to challenge this theory by solving the interaction between the supreme leader and the jurisprudents.
The third theory is the theory of the late Ayatullah Montazeri, from which we refer to the theory of “choice” that we have explained a bit about; the problem of this theory is that essentially the choice is not in agreement with the seminal traditions, nor is it documented in the jurisprudential tradition and not Traditional jurisprudence takes into consideration the traditional authority of the jurists, and the rival ideas are not relevant, and the only positive point is that if we assume that the selection of a draft process in jurisprudence can be due to the choice of people, the jurisprudent will come to power, sovereignty will be realized objectively. Highly suppressing the traditional authority of the jurists and neglecting rival theories is no different from the theory of discovery. Even though the democratic capacity
The last theory that, in my opinion, is the theory of Imam Reza, is a theory that offers a better model than the other theories, from which I refer to “combined theory.” As the Imam believes in the appointment, he does not consider the appointment sufficient in the legitimacy of the Velayat-e faqih, but he considers the popularity and satisfaction of the people to be the pillars of the future, that is, the position of the jurisprudent is formed when two things happen, one is that the establishment takes place, and the second is the satisfaction of the people Along with it.
Therefore, the presence and satisfaction of the people are the elements of the precedent of the jurisprudent, not post office, and we do not have anything more in the name of acceptability in the literature of Imam (ra), and this acceptance and legitimacy is an interpretation that is out of the text of the Imam, and the error that Dr. Javad Larijani In the early 1970s, he miscalculated the field of literature and diverted space, and we thought that people are post-post elements and their role is only effective, while the interpretation we take of Imam’s thought is that the jurisprudent then legitimates his province Combine with people’s luck and satisfaction.
If we discuss this, we will also propose a newer point that the pre-revolutionary theory of theories is the same, that is to say, respect the people and give legitimacy to them, and the rules of the Velayat-e faqih, which after the law Fundamental to the radicals is to reduce the role of people from legitimacy to acceptance. If we take Imam Khomeini’s theory, we must actually have a capture in the literature of this interaction, that is to say, instead of saying that the wilayat of the jurisprudents is either on the verge of or against the two, it consists of affairs and affairs. Velayat-e faqih is on two pillars, the non-divisive provinces and the pluralistic provinces.
For example, in Qom, there are 500 mujtahids in the seminary, but seven or ten in reference, and the eleventh can not say why I came to Mr A. and I have not been referred to, because we say that you are a mujtahid if the people have come to you. Reference But if you do not pay attention to this, then the people’s satisfaction with the jurisprudents in the unpowered provinces is compatible with the tradition of people in the province. On the other hand, we have pluralistic provinces, such as provinces in the province or provinces in the welfare of the people. And the provincial government on the affairs of the Hussein province and so on, there is no reason to limit the authority of the jurists or to stop working. Do not give
You might say that, for example, if we respect justice for all jurisprudents of the province, judicial proceedings in the country may be disturbed, this is another form that needs to be resolved; but now it is argued that even if one jurisprudent of the province is responsible , This jurisprudent can not break the authority of the jurists in the pluralist province and restrict them, since the traditional authority of the jurisprudents has been from the old and documented by the evidence in the narrative, and the ruling ruler must respect the province in the province of plurality. There is no reason why in the Islamic Republic there should be a judicial system based on jurisprudential opinions of Ayatollah Shabeeri.
In this situation, using the historical and political experience of Imam Khomeini, I have made a compilation to this pattern, and I say that in the unpopular provinces of which the political affairs, among them or only of them, are the jurisprudents to refer to him. This corresponds to the historic tradition of the domain regarding the authority, and is similar to this mechanism produced here, and the authority of other jurisprudents in the provinces is more desirable, but there is always the fact that the ruling jurisprudent, because the domination tools In his hands he may always use his authority to extend his power and always maintain the traditional authority of the jurists in the pluralistic provinces Restricted.
The strategy of a loyal imam in political authoritarianism
Imam Khomeini, occasionally, when his interaction with the field reached this point, lowered his political authority and reduced himself to adherents or mujtahids in the Qom area and, in order to get out of that period, to solve the problems of the country’s affairs with the field or reference Next, he did not allow it to be imagined that the entire status of the government depends solely on their jurisprudence, for example, on the dialects and indications that the Imam had in the writing of Al-Waslāh believed that it would not be possible to convert the Diat into extras and The judiciary had a problem with the execution and believed that we should have the limits like the burglar’s hands The status of the Imam did not allow the extent to become obstinate, and on the other hand, to recognize the accountability of the Shi’a ruler. Another problem was that the students who entered the judiciary at that time were not the subject of the Shi’a ruler because There were scholars who had read Razal and Makbas, and could not be regarded as
In order to solve this problem, the Imam’s service came to an end, he said: Look at Mr. Montazeri’s fatwa, which should be turned into incarnations in the absence of time. On the one hand, it was difficult for the parliamentary committee to receive the funds, which judges throughout the country are not religious rulers, and the commission The judiciary does not have the power to turn around, Mr Montazeri said that the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives would specify with me the permission, therefore, even based on the pattern of the Imam, if we want to establish the entire status of the state based on the theory of the ruler of the supreme leader gradually in the mind of the mujtahids And the authority within this area arises when they have no role in the rule They have no religion, and their jurisprudential efforts do not somehow reflect the structure of religious rule.
My last suggestion is that instead of the fact that six jurists of the Guardian Council are the chosen wali jurisprudent, they can be chosen by the religious authorities, for example, the living night, instead of being appointed by the supreme leader, is representative of Ayatollah Vahid in the council, and if However, the jurisprudent is in a position of political authority to come to this conclusion and to respect other jurisprudents of the area, as well as the imam and the leadership of this respect, and there are practical examples for this discussion.
We must go to the drawing of a pattern that does not merely seek to cite its own citations, but to recognize the authority of other jurisprudents, to respect competing theories, including the Ayatullah Khoyi, in the pluralistic provinces, in which case the late Mirza Javadi’s theory and Mithr al-Sadr’s views and installation theory are respected, and even the Ayatollah Montazeri’s theory of choice is respected in this system.
Then, once everyone reads this pattern, he realizes that each jurisprudent has reflected on his view in this pattern, although we can not find a standard model that everyone can act, but we must design a model that everyone feels Some of their views are either reflected or respected, otherwise the relationship will be such that the area will always collide with Velayat-e faqih.
You must, of course, imagine the debate in the context in which one person, such as Imam Khomeini and the Supreme Leader of the Revolution, who are knowledgeable, knowledgeable and democratic, are not at the forefront of power and, based on the theory of radical discovery, he wants to interact with the field in this area. You will not formulate this theory in the thick of a great man like a leader but for the authority of the Velayat-e faqih, which will not be theoretically affected in the future.
Dr. Pour Fard
in the name of God
We came up with this idea but in this discussion we have used the foundations that make it difficult. In this theory, Imam’s words about religious experience as well as in jurisprudence have been used to establish a relationship between theory and model while If we use the idea of Imam, we should say that unfortunately, our relics of secrecy are secular because the Imam repeatedly emphasized that a mujtahid should interfere in political affairs.
Do not interpret Imam’s ideas incorrectly!
Imam believed that if the mujtahid does not interfere in political affairs, then his ijtihad is in the form of a place, so if we take the place of the conflict in the field of individual issues, whether in pluralistic discussions or in non-integrable discussions with the foundations of Imam, then ultimately You can tell from the ideas of Imam Reza ultimately you used 15 or 20 percent and its ratio to Imam is not entirely correct.
Your theory does not sparkle on dark spots, if the construction of Imam is that the mujtahid should interfere in political and social issues, then where is your spotlight? If you mention the jurisprudent fatwas in the field of individual issues and say that women do not enter the stadiums and stadiums, for example, this is a decree that a jurisprudent has given fatwa, but where is the political and social issues of this conflict, where is the darkness there Turn on?
Your article conveys a discussion on the issues of the fatwas and personal issues that the Imam enters and uses the theory of individual problems of the jurisprudent, while this is not the case, and it is not at all an inalienable division, but it is just that we say ” Political affairs “that all jurisprudents are dealing with. Once the Imam is the supreme leader, the discussion is not an intolerable issue, but a division that is in the constitution, and this pattern must go to the point of reference to imitate its place Know and know where it is.
By your opinion, the jurists are secularized
According to the Imam, one jurisprudent must enter and criticize political issues, but with their theory they are secularized imams and they are not allowed to enter politics because you say that if there is a problem, we can conclude in their favor that this new So much scientific logic is not advanced to say that when a problem was found and Imam came short, then this is always the case, but we have to correct the logic and system and move on.
The second drawback is that you are an aversion to the discussions of political jurisprudence and sociology. In the discussion of political jurisprudence, if we set this pattern properly, we must now enter the jurisprudence, but you yourself say in the context of sociology. Politics and the view of political jurisprudence is needed to make this pattern true, the question is where is the political sociology that wants to establish a relationship between powers? And how do you want to make this correct? That the Mujtahid would interfere in political affairs, and at the same time, there would be no conflict or challenge.
Another point that can be seen in this pattern is that we make a peaceful and coercive peace between the religious authority and the supreme jurisprudent. What we need to impose, while we can create a logical and systemic peace with the Islamic Republic, that is to say, this is the basis, and these are the conditions of the supreme jurisprudent and these things.
Judgment is not government affairs
This template is another form based on the Imam, and also that in the discussion of your case you said that the judiciary in the view of Imam is pluralistic, while Imam took it in the field of jurisprudence, that he believed that the status of judgment from Shaun But it is the jurisprudent, and the other jurisprudents should not interfere, so there is no place to say that the Guardian Council is dependent on the authorities, in other words, if the basis of the Imam is the status of the judiciary from the state and jurisprudents of the society, it is not the source of imitation.
Also, in the discussion of the combination between installing and choosing a good proposition you have a good idea, but its basis and reasoning is difficult, if in the installation discussion you believe that we have to combine the theory of installation and selection, the installation theory has no place because people, as the thinkers have said, are decisive And if they did not confirm, they are ruling, but they are not open to the Eid, so this combination is difficult and can not be solved with the word of luck and satisfaction of the people. The fact that people vote and interest can not be the basis of legitimacy, because in the discussion of the authority that you have just mentioned, this issue in the government debate leads to disruption and disunity of the system, for example, by having a virtual media of 500,000 people We have come to the forefront of the jurisprudence, and we have 500,000 other people who do not appreciate it, which raises this concern.
Therefore, if we combine the theory of selection and appointment, we should bring the installation according to the arguments of political jurisprudence and make selection from the point of view of sociology; also, you did not refer to the jurisprudential justification, while it is incidental to the flow of the Prophet Amir. That people gather to choose them as caliphs.
I have come to my mind the basic problems of this pattern are that if it is true, then it will be a good argument, so the points that we are not guessing at all or the basis of our Imam is not, or if it is 15 to 20 percent may be acceptable to us, but when you emphasize the Imam’s base You will encounter these problems that you can not take the jurisprudence in the field of individual issues and bring the jurisprudent in political affairs and make the name of one as indivisible and the other multiplicative.
Hojjat al-Islam and the Muslim religion:
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim; a good question seems to me, but this model does not solve the problem, because it seems to me that Mr. Fratti entered a work with a sociological approach and said that, finally, there should be an efficient space and Controversially and inwardly, the ruler ruled that the authority of the people would be reduced and peace and calm dominated, but it would seem to me that Mr Fratti had read the fateha of the regime from this point of view.
We do not want to compare, but the problem is that the Prophet asked Abdullah ibn Massoud to consult with him, but he went on to say: “If I say, you have to accept, the late Imam quotes that some of them have told them to visit the men of the jurists Imam Ali (AS) When Talha and Zubayar ask why they do not advise us, Imam says: “I have taken the answer from the book and the Sunnah,” Imam said. “I do not need, and I know the question.
The letter of the supreme leader should be decisive
To say that there is a share of the system that is no longer a system, but the ruler must place somewhere to express his opinion, as Imam also did it; the outsourcing is two stages after the legitimacy and validity, and that we are basically working Let’s not consider the system at all; the system is a category based on a series of foundations and theories. The referral of the late Imam to the late Montazeri and other jurisprudents in their own time, differing in the nature of your remarks.
We have a question what is the law of the Islamic system? Based on fatwa but ruling? Or a famous comment or Guardian Council? The second argument is that the process of transforming the Shari’a into a necessary law for alabama is for everyone? Imam says: With this verdict I will not be working in the bank or music, or the circles, as they referred to the Guardian Council in the discussion of the bank, but it is not a matter of the Imam’s general solution, but of the government that he or he has delegated Or that the mechanism of turning the sentence into another is a process of law.
What happens, of course, is the Guardian Council saying our position is to hear the words of the Imam and the leader and say? Are We Subject? This is the same as the question of how the rule of law turns to law and does not relate to the juggling conflict with the supreme theologian, and if we are to enter into the pluralistic and non-pluralistic basis, we will not come to a conclusion.
Despite the supreme leader, we do not have the rule of law on the part of the jurists
We have a political system in which two elements can not be ruled out as two rulers in it because of the chaos becoming intense. It is everywhere that the source of imitation of personal affairs and personalities and of the supreme leader follow up on affairs and government affairs. And if the jurisprudent does not interfere in any kind of affairs, it is not required that the reference authority should say that the war is forbidden, while the supreme leader has given orders to jihad because otherwise it will not be rocks on the stone.
In the affairs of some kind of imitation, it does not speak at all and it has no place; it is that if we think of any theory in its context and say that this traditional theory, for example, is where? Yes, sometimes in the Iraqi government of 2003 we do not have a central government, and everyone has a province for himself, but can we extend this discussion to a centralized government of the state? Certainly we can not.
Sometimes you say that this is the general rule, and you can imagine the abstract words in five words that are not controversial, but the discussion is not your readings, but you deduce that the logical consequence is that instead of the Guardian Council The supreme leader is the representative of Mr. Safi and Vahid. This is contrary to the assumption that our hypothesis is based on a settled society and the ruling is based on the rule of the ruler, and if he wants to make a ruling, he must enforce because he can not put six people in his place. Otherwise, the system does not mean a coherent public order, because it has a purpose-oriented system and is based on foundations and loopholes. They say that if someone orders a government, the rest should obey, and therefore it should be understood in its context.
In reference to my felayim it is also not in the discussions of sovereignty, but this point is important in solving the problem that the Supreme Leader has said. When we talk about authority, it is important in the sense of authority, because it is the science of scientific authority He will find a religious order, but in Leadership and Providence, Science is ranked second and ranked first in terms of leadership, guidance and guidance of the community of the jurisprudents, not from mere jurists; as you balance the doctor to cure the disease. First, you go to the chief of the hospital for the head of the hospital, although you do not go to the engineer.
The fact that the constitution passed the declaration and it is enough that the leader is the same as the mujtahid is enough, his philosophy is the same. Therefore, the late Imam says: I was against the issue of authority in the province; there is a point in the discussion of acceptability The Imam does not believe in the validity of the province and accepts it in the text itself. Therefore, I do not know where the Imam’s doctrine was documented, and I have never heard of the speech of Javad Larijani from the whole field.
Imam’s art in the gathering between the absolute rule of jurisprudence and democracy
The problem of the late Imam in the traditional literature is that these are the proofs of ours, and the late Imam subsequently said the divine authority on this basis; and only the art they had was that they gathered it with people’s vote and democracy, which does not mean that Which have taken it into the concept of the province. Ultimately, you can convey this theory to Mr. Montazeri, who made him legitimate in the form of legitimacy, and insisted that his rule would come into force when a complete jurisprudent came to power and people voted for him.
The important point is that we are in a system that is in line with the views of the supreme leader, for example, Mr. Makarem, that smoking is a haram, which is usually arbitrary, but it means that the tobacco office is, for example, illegitimate, or that the bank has an Ayat Allahu Javadi Amoli stated that he is rabbi and should be Islamic, it is not related to our discussion because this is the law that has been approved; is there also a difference between the ruling and the ruling? If there is a conflict that conflicts with each other and there is a difference in the fatwa that is not a matter of controversy, and each one is convincing, then the discussion must be plotted to create antagonism; what is the mistake that has been made in the present when one says yes And the other one would say no, and we would prioritize Metz? You certainly do not believe in conflicts, but you must know that in the context of our conflict, we have two things that are not obstructing, but they do not have the ability to execute at the same time, but if we suppose that it is in the context of the Islamic state and you
Suppose if you can implement the conflict solution, can you give a reference to the supreme leader? In this case, the stone does not rest on the stone; with these arrangements, the proposed model does not remain an imitation of the impediment between the source. So the principle of the problem has been removed and entered into a purely abstract discussion that “we intend to accept the law and we are committed to it” and that the confusion between the judiciary and the government is not correct and that what you say is mainly in the implementation that even if the debate In law and in law, you accept in law and in practice that the ruler is the forefront.
The discussion must be viewed in such a way that we want to create more coherence and bring more coordination to heading and orientation; otherwise, the discussion will be problematic and not the main problem of the country; hence, it must be a unifying view. And there is no controversy because the Supreme Leader of the Revolution said that during the visit I had with the authorities, all the authorities had declared their unconditional support to the system, and that was the case during the Imam period.
In our opinion, it is neither divisive sovereignty nor separation of the jurisprudential duties, the dignity of the Prophet, the infallible Imam and the supreme leader are firstly the presidency and the government, and the other is the judiciary and the third is the explanation of the religious issues, and there is no reason to distinguish them, We have a problem that needs to be solved.
The first of the revolution was, for some reason, a very deliberate discussion of the council that the Imam stated that it should be different and we should not compare the issues of authority with the ordinary powers that compete, the references are equally scholars who are the representative of the supreme leader, and the words They say that they all work to promote Islam, they are not in the opposite direction, and the war on power is not.
Scientific secretary: What would happen if the collision occurred?
Hojatoleslam Literacy: If the conflict came about, Imam Khomeini did not accept it, as when a reference came from Iraq to Iran and he contributed to Imam and said that I want to be in power in your area, he refused. At the lower levels, there were such oppositions.
Regarding the issue of legitimacy and legitimacy, it should also be said that Imam (peace be upon him) in a lecture in Ashura before the revolution said that I had demolished all the members of parliament, that is enough of my legitimacy and did not require acceptance, and that’s the same We are also witnessing Mirza Shirazi.
Hajjtalsalam Dr. Mohajeraniya: Thank you to Mr. Fratti, who raised the discussion with a sociological approach, because it is basically a blow to a sociological approach, has also been considered in the jurisprudence itself because it is a discussion of external problems between the two jurisprudents There is actually no way that both sides can act, and it is somewhat difficult for the gentlemen to say that such a thing is the ulama of the ulama, but if it happened, such as the problem of abduction by Ayatullah Javadi and Makarem Shirazi, and sometimes even say that the rights of all employees Banks are forbidden. On the other hand, the leadership is silent to confirm this system because they are ultimately governed.
One of the audience: Guardian Council of the Imam’s time, approved the system, the lawsuit is against the Guardian Council, but it does not mean agreement, but Jerry Ali al-Qanoon.
Hojatoleslam Mohajerania: Yes, this is assumed. Jerry Ali al-Qanoon also accepts the law itself, which is the same law, which is why they are not religious. For this reason, Mr. Fratti must have some discussion on the cases in which the discussion is clear; Mr. Izadeh Ali al-Sabna They talked about the words of the Ali Faqih, the dominant ruler, which is not distorted, and the sound of the matter is erased, but what is supposed to do with this quarrel when it comes? In the external reality of the world, it is a disturbing place.
It seems to me that the poetic and a priori talk is good, and I especially liked Mr. Larijani’s point, for it was also the case when his book was written that day, we had a vacuum of literature, and there was not a great deal of Hezbollah’s children, when he read this book and The efficiency of the system was introduced by them in our literature, and in the end, we must say that Mr. Fratti’s work was very good.
Hojjatoleslam Pouramiini: I have a question. The last point of Dr. Fratti was a model that he suggested to the Guardian Council, which here, naturally, authorizes the Wali Faqih, including his authority, to assume here that the jurists are their own opinion And it is not based on references that if we accept this, the practical effect does not mean it, even if it is appointed by Qom’s authorities or that we say that there are six jurisprudents based on six domains or references that are different in terms of governance. It is that we must always form a widespread and long-range assembly, and we must convey the discussion to the assembly and put it This is a problem we have to solve a few problems add.
Hojatoleslam Melikkadeh: What is good is to point out about the same result that Mr. Pour Amini and Eidadi have pointed out. Do you think that the authority should enter into the realm of exercising and exercising power? To say that the leadership has given up its authority and proceeds in the same way and the constitution continues to dominate, and if there are differences between the six, then the majority vote will rule?
And most importantly, you raise the confrontation between the ruler and authority while the rulers and the jurists themselves have ruled that the ruling is valid and prioritized. How do you react specifically in this area? Hence, there is the issue of legitimacy and legitimacy that we look at all right when Imam Khomeini believed that the Velayat-e Faqih was appointed and that the people did not play any role in the legitimacy of the supreme leader. If you believe that the presence of the people and the consent of the people is important, What is a matrix? That he had a selective view and believed that people legitimized?
The beginning of controversy among the audience
Hojatoleslam Izadeh: It is necessary to remind me, among other things, that Khatami Yazdi, Tuszali, Abai Khorasani, Kashmiri, and Qazi Asgar, representatives of Imam Khomeini in the central secretariat of the Friday Imams, wrote in a letter to Imam Khomeini: “… In which case is the Islamic jurisprudent of the province able to have full control? “Imam Khomeini replied:” There is a province in all its forms, but the affairs of the Muslims and the formation of the government depend on the votes of the majority of the Muslims mentioned in the constitution and in The early days of Islam were interpreted as allegiance to Muslim wives. “
Dr. Fratti: The purpose of the province is to be a citizen.
Hojatoleslam Isadayi: No, this is a transcript, because it seems to be the Wali Faqih of the province but its production and its validity depends on the people’s opinions, such as when Imam Ali (PBUH) had authority but had no possibility of government and its actual aftermath The third caliph and the general public have taken place.
Dr. Fratti: There is, in my opinion, the mistake that the domain literature has in thinking that it is necessary to seek a legal and legal solution, while it may well explain the jurisprudential reflections of the problem, but never provide a satisfactory solution. Because essentially the split between the jurists and the supreme leader during these forty years, as Mr. Mohajer Nia said, he has a completely political nature.
If you collect a list of scholars who disagreed with Imam, you see that everyone has been on political issues and breaking their traditional and historical authority, for example, you suppose that the Supreme Leader was now saying that you should go to Syria and fight if Mr. Bashir Najafi said in Iran that it was unlawful, there were many issues in Syria, so I do not think it is necessary to seek refuge in such a way as to formulate a pattern. For example, if you go back to jurisprudential analysis, such as Mr. Momen’s theory, Highly rising.
Hajjt al-Islam Islam: I do not understand this when you say that you are confused, that is, you say that there are two legitimate and non-penetrating acts; you say that in a state there are two people simultaneously, both of which are right and They differ in action and are in opposition, if this is not the case and if one of the opposite words fails, it is confronted with the leadership; this does not mean confusion because everyone may have an opinion, you In the middle, if you do not explain the validity, it’s not at all antagonistic, but merely an opposition.
Eparchy: Antagonists have been based on jurisprudential evidence, for example, on the worship of the public for all jurisprudents. Why has the supreme leader been given the Islamic Republic?
Riddles: Because we are now centralized, we did not have that before.
Erati: In the jurisprudential justification, focusing on the government does not mean that the authority of the jurists should be overthrown.
Definition: The authority of the jurists exists when there is a conflict between the supreme leader and the religious ruler in every city, and there are conflicts here, but our discussion is concentrated in the government and the formation of an Islamic state.
Erati: You see, you explain your mentality: Mr. Seyyed Abdullah Shirazi, who was the first in the revolution in Mashhad, when he told Imam that you are now interfering in the affairs of affairs, while the affairs are commonly the domain of the acquisition of all the jurisprudents and The seizure of these matters is without permission the rest of usurpation.
Isaday: Sayyid’Abdallah Shirazi, who had been enthusiastic about Imam, was actually intrusive in the area of government? Yes, everyone may say that this does not mean confusion, as Mr. Khansari, who was in Tehran, said that in my opinion, war is not allowed, but because we are listening to the supreme leader, everyone can have a theory against all men, suppose those who Did they disagree with Amir? You want to bring the jurisprudents in the sociological space, and this is when you graduated from the loyalty.
Ferrites: I also want to say that it does not resolve the mere focus on the validity of the problem, or, for example, you suppose that Dr. Sadegh Tabatabai says that one day, Sayyid Ahmad Khomeini (the true sister’s husband) rang our home and said that Imam says: to your father (Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Bagher Soltani Tabatabaee Boroujerdi) Tell me what I am doing in the affairs. If you do not admit that my possessions are illegitimate, Mr. Tabatabai said that you should tell Imam what this humility you are, then he said if he was not really compliant I will give permission.
Definition: It’s like Mr. Hashemi’s dreams, it’s a strange thing while the first Imam of the government says I appoint Mr. Bazargan based on a province that I am from God.
Erati: It’s not a word, but the Imam is concerned that in the domain that he conquers, because the jurists are entitled to the title of the title, it is the domain of the capture of all, there is no problem; why does it seize? Why did people succumb to the fact that the Imam could capture only the areas that he had been led to, why do they break the authority of other jurisprudents in pluralistic areas? We have no reason.
This is to say to Mr. Pourfrud that in this case, the secular area will not be due to the fact that the Imam himself prepares in the field of non-divisive provinces or politics, which has a standard of reference, because we refer to this mujtahid from among hundreds of people. The other is not referring to the fact that the Imam actually believes that political affairs are not multiplicable and that a council can not be governed and, on the other hand, as close to modern sovereignty, must have unity in sovereignty in politics. This, of course, does not mean that authority is based on the view Mr. Izadi will be a person or a scientist, here the mujtahids will have political sayings and political views.
In my opinion, the fundamental problem between the jurisprudents and the supreme jurisprudent in the Islamic state is that these references based on a historical tradition that had been established in the history of Sheikh Tusi until now, but the supreme leader breaking all of us, albeit on the basis of the installation; The argument is that the historical tradition should not be ignored and that the sphere of political will be non-indivisible, its unity will not be broken, that is to say, we try to find a way if, in the conditions of the weak jurisprudent of the province and the jurisprudents of prestige and the world in the field, this relationship is not shaken. .
Immigration: To say that it is not just a breakdown of historical authority, this does not have a basis, so you can focus on the many things your job is still unclear, such as khums, which is a view that must be delivered to the ruler and the opposite is strong. ; This is not something about the assignment of the assignment, and your theory is struggling to do this according to these four theories? But where there is no multidimensional.
EARTH: If you take the unpopular things under the ayatollah believer’s theory, the fights will be futile, and then it will happen that the responsibility of the supreme jurisprudent is so much that it takes the jurists out of place in the religious government.
Immigration: When among the 100 jurisprudents were one of the rulers of the Faqih, the rest are like a mass of people and they are citizens and they have no place in the sovereignty; then they can only be experts and advisers, and they have no provincial authority, and in the non-diverse political system of the province But there is debate about things that have not been determined.
Definition: This discussion then resembles the determination of the controversy between Talha and Zubayr and Imam Amir, that is, if you do not solve the problem of authority, the person instead of the opposing is the opposite which must be fought against him but the owner of the blame is the proof.
Erati: Based on the principles of the late Ayatullah Tabrizi, the supreme leader can only perform the Provincial Law in the secondary laws and can not be in the initial acts, and if the jurisprudent is ruler and like Hazrat Imam Hajj is closed by a vote of Tabriz which is a great reference. does not?
Definition: Who says this? He says that the velayat-e faqih is in a sense and the meaning of the state is not at all the second, and if you have, you have narrowed the scope of the velayat-e faqih and you have given the right to others; the conflict is when you gave 20 to the non-ruler and the authority But if he does not prove he can not say anything and if he has the right to say so because the supreme leader has given him the right; you said that there is no possibility of dichotomy in pluralistic affairs, and because there is no pluralism, it is a valid one for one person, and your argument It is not true that unless you say that consultation with the jurists is binding, that is another word.
Scientific secretary: It seems that the discussion has reached the point that we should reach, and we hope that these kinds of discussions will be discussed and discussed in the field of thought and that such views will be further discussed in the scientific seminars.