نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach and employing qualitative content analysis, this study compares the functions of the Islamic state within two contemporary discourses: Shi‘i thought, with particular emphasis on Imam Khomeini’s views, and Sunni thought, with a focus on Hasan al-Banna’s ideas. It examines the legitimacy of the political system, the locus of decision-making, the exercise of power, the scope of state intervention, and the people’s right to exercise oversight and voice criticism. The findings indicate that, in the theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), governmental legitimacy derives from divine appointment, while the people help bring government into practical existence and sustain it through political participation. By contrast, in the thought of the Muslim Brotherhood, legitimacy rests on the social contract and shura (consultation). Under the Wilayat al-Faqih system, decision-making authority lies with the Supreme Leader and the three branches of government, with the latter operating under the Leader’s supervision. In
al-Banna’s thought, however, the consultative assembly (Majlis Shura) serves as the principal decision-making body. Using a comparative table, the study systematically identifies similarities and differences between the two discourses. It demonstrates that, despite substantial common ground in their overarching objectives—including the implementation of Islamic law (Shari‘a), the establishment of Islamic government, and opposition to Western influence—fundamental differences remain in the foundations of political legitimacy, the role of the people, and the locus of decision-making.
کلیدواژهها English
