A Jurisprudential Look at the Composite Legitimacy of the Authority of Guardian Jurist in the Context of Divine Mediating Existence and Context of Popular Confirmation

The issue of the political authority of ‘ Muslim Guardian Jurist’ in the formation of Islamic government has traditionally been a topic for discussion among Imamiyyah (Twelver) jurists. They have explained the legitimacy of the rule and authority of the Muslim jurist on the basis of ‘appointment by the Infallible Imams’ (May God’s peace be upon them). After the Islamic Revolution of Iran gained victory, many new ideas and opinions have been put forward with the aim of analyzing the foundations of the legitimacy of the authority of Muslim guardian jurist. These views and ideas seek to bring public opinions into more effect in legitimizing the formation of a government by a Muslim guardian jurist. One of these views is the ‘composite view’ which claims that people’s role serves as a legitimizing condition in Islamic government. In other words, though Muslim jurists have been appointed by God to enforce rules and to establish government in the context of existence, the condition for putting these into effect in the context of confirmation rests upon public opinion. To establish its claim, this view has recourse to such things as superior syllogism from the absolute legal power of the owner (QÁÝdah al-TasliÔ), people’s pessimism about Islamic government and its inability to meet its aims in case there would be no public opinions and even seeks the support of some traditions in this regard. These arguments fail to stand up with the arguments for the ‘appointment thesis. In case of taking an ‘attitude of tolerance’ towards this and casting doubts as to the condition of public opinion poll for the unconditionality of the Muslim jurist’s obligation to form a government, jurisprudential arguments in the Science of Principles (Ýlm al-OsÙl), puts the principle of aquittance into practice for those who undertake (religious) obligation.