عنوان مقاله [English]
Theory of “Consultative Guardianship” in Shiite political jurisprudence has been agreed and disagreed by two groups who have solidified their traditional, rational and intellectual reasons. Among the other things, those who agree to consultative guardianship proceed on issue of council of leadership as to analysis of what some ulema have said about a need to arbitration and giving decree while those who disagree have responded to what they have said and raised reasons to reject them. Although the conspicuous religion of Islam eloquently underlines Shura and consultation, such emphases cannot be regarded as reason behind manner of consultative guardianship. The present article by separating terminological concepts: Shura, verdict, judgment and ruling and elucidation of their combination in narrations and ideas has dealt with grounds and roots of idea of consultative guardianship. This study shows that the possibility of Shura in giving verdict, judgment and leadership is different interpretations of Sunna and thinking of ulemas, but in return, evidence and ideas make such understanding doubtful and revoked. This research using analytic-descriptive methodology responds to this question that “can a community be led through consultative guardianship?” The response of this paper to this question is negative.