Critique and Evaluation of the Imamate Discourse in the Confrontation between Ibn Taymiyyah and Allama Helli in Minhaj al-Sunnah and Minhaj al-Karama

The present study aims to analyze the discourse of Imamate in the political thought of Allameh Helli and Ibn Taymiyyah in order to guide a rational theory of Islam in terms of political legitimacy by highlighting their weaknesses and views based on reason, books, and tradition. Hence, with the method of Michel Foucault's discourse analysis in expressing the commonalities and differences of the two views, it was shown that Ibn Taymiyyah, due to confusion about the concept of Imamate, could not succeed in theorizing. His view has problems such as contradictory, involving the people in legitimizing, presenting unrealistic standards, secularizing society, and legitimizing corrupt and authoritarian governments. On the contrary, Allameh Helli, due to the correct use of reason and narration, has been able to logically base his view on political legitimacy, based on a correct Islamic worldview, as the result of the legislative will of the supreme, which can only be achieved through the divine.