A Critique of the Theory of “Negation of Correlation between Sustaining Political System and its Religious Legitimacy” from the View of Political Jurisprudence

The Theory of “negation of correlation between sustaining a political system and its religious legitimacy” claims that there is no correlation between the necessity to maintain a political system and the religious legitimacy of that system. In other words, the necessity of sustaining a political system is an absolute issue and this necessity is not dependent on whether it has religious legitimacy or not. The purpose of the present study is to review the relationship between this theory and arguments and foundations in political jurisprudence. Accordingly, the following question is raised: “From the view of political jurisprudence, what is the order about sustaining political systems with no religious legitimacy?” In order to answer this question in the present research, in addition to religious documents, the principles of Imam Khomeyni and the Supreme Leader were also emphasized. The method of study is descriptive-analytic and the results showed that religious implications and generalities as well as the perspectives of political jurists not only disapprove the necessity of sustaining political systems that have no religious legitimacy but also emphasize on the necessity of uprising against them. Furthermore, the theory of “negation of correlation between sustaining a political system and its religious legitimacy” relies on 4 basic pillars that the analysis of those foundations can shed light on the relationship between this theory and the arguments in political jurisprudence.