Examining the opinions of Colin Turner, Heinz Halm, and Joseph Eliash about the legitimacy of the formation of the government during the absence

The issue of the status of scholars during the period of occultation and the formation of religious government is one of the issues that has always been the focus of Muslim and non-Muslim researchers due to its key and influential characteristics. Observing the changes and developments in the field of duties of Shia scholars and their entry into social political arenas and raising issues such as the theory of jurisprudence and administration of government by Shia jurists, and especially observing the example of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, prompted Orientalists to investigate in a special way and criticize this issue. Orientalists such as Colin Turner, Heinz Halm and Joseph Eliash have tried to distort the foundations of the legitimacy of the establishment of the government during the time of the occultation, while focusing on Shia narrative sources, as well as expressing historical propositions from the early centuries to the contemporary era. In the following article, in the first stage, the arguments and viewpoints of these orientalists have been stated, and in the following, the problems and criticisms against them have been discussed.