Inequality of Shiite Imamate with Hobbesian Authoritarianism; Critique of the idea of Islamic Leviathan

The comparison of the relationship between the principle of "Imamate" in Shiite political thought, meaning political leadership, and "authoritarianism" has been pursued by a range of Western and local writers. Some who consider the Shiite Imamate to be authoritarian use the combination of "Islamic Leviathan" to refer to it and refer to Hobbes' important work, "Leviathan", without providing a convincing scientific formulation. This article uses content analysis method to critique the similarity of Shiite Imamate with Hobbesian authoritarianism. Thus, after explaining the dominant position in Hobbes' political thought with the focus on rational and narrative reason, he proves its inaccuracy. The result is that due to the difference between Shiite political thought and Hobbes's view in: (1) the end of happiness and the context of power; (2) denial of unilateral employment in the natural state; (3) the importance of the people's vote before and after the establishment of the government; (4) the divinity of government; (5) the necessity of compiling religious and secular features; (6) doubling the rights of the ruler and the people; (7) The necessity of having special conditions, the idea of ​​"Islamic Leviathan" is rejected.