Political participation in illegitimate government from the point of view of ahl al¬ bayt (AS) jurisprudence

غیر مشروع حکومت میں سیاسی مشارکت فقہِ اہلِ بیت عليہم السلام کے روشنی میں

Abstract

This article examines various theories and arguments concerning political participation in an illegitimate government. Political participation refers to those activities and measures of citizens whose aim is to gain influence in government, to support the political system, or to advance it further. This topic has been discussed in human societies since ancient times and is of special importance. In Islam’s political system as well, the maximum political participation of the people—regardless of legitimacy—is considered a necessary matter for the establishment, stability, and development of government. However, if, on the basis of Islamic principles, a government is deemed deprived of legitimacy (religious/legal authorization), then what is the ruling in the Fiqh of the Ahl al-Bayt regarding political participation in such a government? This is the central question of this article. In view of the fact that Islamic texts (the Qur’an and Sunnah), on the one hand, strictly prohibit cooperation with and service to tyrannical and oppressive rulers, and the Imams (a.s.) on most occasions prevented their followers from any kind of cooperation with or practical action in favor of the governmental system; but on the other hand, on some occasions some companions of the Imams, with the Imams’ permission, entered governmental institutions and, while holding various governmental positions, carried out political and social activities. During the time of the presence of the Imams (a.s.), the conduct of the Imams and their companions and the apparently twofold nature of the sirah created a difference of opinion among jurists on this issue: some adopted the view of permissibility on the basis of the primary ruling and regarded prohibition as temporary, while others held prohibition according to the primary ruling and considered permissibility to be a temporary and provisional ruling arising from secondary titles. After presenting different jurisprudential views, this writing finally adopts the second view: political participation in an illegitimate government is forbidden and prohibited by the primary ruling, and under secondary titles such as expediency, etc., permissibility is established on the basis of the secondary ruling.