فصلنامه شیعه شناسی
پیاپی 66 (تابستان 1398)

In twentieth century, we see ‘considering justice as fairness’ as a moral theory with foundations of contractualism. In this regard, we have identified the theory of justice as fairness through the method of discourse analysis from Khwaja Nasir’s thoughts. In his view, the universe and the social life have formed on the basis of divine justice (i.e. divine laws in the system of genesis and legislation), and its lasting is due to affection. However, when innate affection is lacking, the need to constructing justice as fairness for doing people’s interactions by Imam becomes necessary so that the foundationalist (religious) morality may be created. Khwaja Nasir’s discourse of justice as fairness has been articulated as the Shiite’s moral discourse. And the central denotation of the discourse, i.e. the ‘divine justice’, serves as the origin of the laws and contracts, which give meaning to ‘religious morality’ by attracting the floating denotations of ‘innate affection’ and ‘man-made artificial justice and morality’ (Imam or the prime head of Medina) from the sphere of discourse-likeness. It seeks to make the discourse of ‘justice as fairness’ hegemonic in his utopia.

Ibn Abil-Hadid and Ibn Meytham have written two of the best-known expositions of Nahj al-Balagha in the seventh century. They are two writers who – regardless of their different religious leanings – were religiously tolerant persons. Here, we investigate and analyze the views of those two expositors regarding one of the most important and the most sensitive sermons of Nahj al-Balagha using descriptive-analytical method. According to the findings of this study, both writers were seeking to create sympathy and attachment between various Islamic denominations, avoiding divisive things. The practical manifestation of this purified thought and sense in the two expositions was different; that is, Ibn Meytham Bahrani avoids reporting many traditions and historical reports which they regard divisive to achieve that goal, and uses a peaceful language. Ibn Abil-Hadid, however, has brought more historical reports in his expositions, and has – of course – observed the religious feelings of both the Shiites and the Sunnites in his investigation and analysis of the historical reports. He has previously mentioned what has led to reprehending the caliphs by Imam Ali, but seeks to justify the caliphs’ actions.

The inscriptions and the themes on the Iranian coins underwent changes in content with the rise and fall of the governments. The Iranian rulers – especially from the fall of Safawiya to the early years of Qajar period – prepared the ground for those changes due to various reasons. Examples of those themes are found on the coins of Afghan Azad Khan. The subject of this study is the Sunnite Azad Khan’s incentive and his purpose for using Imam Mahdi’s name on his coins. The findings of the study show that the themes and slogans inscribed on the coins suggest the worldview and religious, moral and political convictions of a society wherein those coins were used. Thus, although the mintage and inscription of the coins and their inscriptions were at the hands of Azad Khan Ghalzaie, he would respect the Shiite beliefs of his followers out of expediency and minted coins with the name of Imam Mahdi to gain their satisfaction. This study uses library sources and a descriptive-analytical method to gather data from the first-hand sources to first investigate the importance of the science of minting coins and then the Azad Khan’s seizing power after the murder of Nader Shah. It continues with a short investigation of the evolution of rites inscribed on the coins in Safawid period and the recess period, and inscribing the Shiite themes in Ghazaie Afghans period and under Nader Shah. Finally, it analyses and explains minting coins in the name of Imam Mahdi by Azad Khan.

Under the Ayyubids, due to the extinction of the Shiite government of Fatimids and the state’s suppressive anti-Shiite policy, the ground was prepared for the emergence of sectarian leanings of the Sunnite historiographers in Egypt and Syria that could reveal their real positions towards Shiism and its manifestations. Those historians’ approach to Shiism and its ideas is the subject of the present inquiry. This inquiry deals with the following two topics: (1) the true instance of Shiism for the historians; and (2) the Shiite doctrinal themes such as Ahl al-Bayt (or Itrat), superiority of Ahl al-Bayt, Karbala incident, Mahdawiyyat, and the like. To do so, the prominent historical works from some Sunnite historiographers of that time were investigated and compared in two general groups: dogmatic historians such as Imaduddin Isfahani, Abu Shama, and Ibn Wasel; and the fair historians such as Ibn Adim, Ibn Khallikan, and Sebt ibn Jowzi. The findings of this study show that Twelver Shiism was the instance of official Shiism for those historians, and rest of the sects were conceived as the deviated ramifications of it. The positions of most of those historians regarding the Shiite doctrinal themes are mainly close, with some minor differences, to Imamiya’s views. Thus, those historians’ cursing found sometimes on the Shiites was directed to Ismailiyya and its branches, not to Imamiya.

Ibn Taymiya’s unprecedented views in the seventh century have shown a prejudiced figure and stereotypical reading of Islam, causing a surge of oppositions from both Sunnite and Shiite scholars, especially the scholars of the four denominations of Sunnism. This was to the extent that by consensus, he was renounced and sentenced to a long imprisonment. One of his views was an objection to Imam Ali’s battles of Jamal and Seffin. He maintains that those battles were illegitimate and instances of rebellion, and that the opponents – i.e. people of Jamal and Mu’awiya along with his companions – were not rebellious people. The subject of this study is the extent to which these claims conform to religious sources and the dominant view among the Sunnites. The important finding of this study, conducted as a descriptive-analytical one using the Sunnite authentic sources, was the nonconformity of his view with important religious sources and the Sunnite dominant view. It concludes that his view was completely wrong and in opposition to the thoughts of other Sunnites.

Since long ago, the jurists (faqihs) have discussed about the qualifications and latitude of Islamic ruler more or less. A group of jurists has held that the government and management of the society’s affairs in the Occultation Period is the jurists’ right, regarding others as not qualified for administering the society’s affairs. Emphasizing on legal reasoning as the basic condition for legitimacy of political regime in the Occultation Period and the political authority of the jurists has led to two practical

a)      Insistence on non-permission of delivering the government to others and preserving the immediate political authority of the jurist regarding the affairs of the state as the only instance of the just ruler in the Occultation Period
b)       Permission of delegating the government to non-jurist and the emergence of permitted and legitimate ruler
On the contrary, a group of jurists has separated legal affairs and conventional affairs, regarding legal affairs such as judgment and enforcing legal limits as well as benevolent action (umur hasbiya) as the jurists’ duties and conventional affairs such as politics and security as the just ruler’s duty. Among them, the great jurist, Ayatollah Abdul-Karim Ha’eri, has accepted the dual view of ‘sultanate of the grand sultan in conventional affairs and the qualified jurist in legal affairs’. The present article seeks to explain the views presented by Ayatollah Ha’eri and review them.