چکیده:
The inclusion of the authority to all Islamic jurisprudential jurists creates a serious question if the acceptance of such inclusion (without restricting the realm of the activity of every Islamic jurist) does not cause the Islamic jurists to interfere in each other’s functions according to their recognition at the same time. Permissibility of such interferences which is called the interference of authorities follows doubt that it creates chaos and turmoil in the system. The Islamic jurists have presented different theories to respond this question. Some have not allowed the interference (tazahum) and stated some problems and some others have accepted the inclusion of such Velayat and have answered the Problematic issues. The final result relates to the bases of the principle of the guardianship of the jurist or velayat-e faqih. If the evidence of the guardianship of the jurist or velayat-e faqih is verbal reasons، the interference of authorities in the field of the major governmental issues is not permitted because of establishing chaos and turmoil and there is no reason to be prohibited in other cases. But if it is accepted from the point of Hisbiya Affairs (Al-Umur al-Hisbiya) and the stage of certainty، only chaos and turmoil is the spectrum of permissibility or impermissibility determines the interference (tazahum). Any interference which makes chaos and turmoil is prohibited and the other interferences are permissible. The requirement of practical principle where there are several Islamic jurisprudential jurists who have the stipulation of governance is the permissibility of the interference (tazahum) of faqihan.
خلاصه ماشینی:
1 However, regarding the second issue, some believe that fundamentally the possibility of "conflict of the guardianships of jurists" does not exist, and in explaining it, they have said: from the reasons for the guardianship of the jurist, it follows that the jurist—acting on behalf of the Imam—has guardianship over the essence of the act, not its preliminaries; and the essence of the act is not subject to conflict, because if two jurists perform the same act simultaneously, the impact of their work will be neutralized, and if one performs it earlier than the other, there remains no subject for the second person so that the discussion of conflict can arise (Gharavi Isfahani, 1418: 2/417; see also: Tabataba'i Hakim, 1404: 308).
Of course, regarding the statement of the late Irwani, it is worth noting: Firstly, even assuming that we accept the title 'jurist' is the successor of the Imam(, and not his specific person, the action of multiple jurists to perform a matter of guardianship is still considered interference in the eyes of custom (urf), and the fundamental question of our discussion is whether these interferences are permissible or not?
Critique and Review: We have stated in the past that this statement cannot be considered a suitable reason for the permissibility of conflict between guardianships; because first, even assuming that we accept the title of jurist is the successor of the Imam( and not His person, the action of multiple jurists to perform a matter of guardianship is still considered interference in the eyes of custom, and the fundamental question of our discussion is whether these interferences are permissible or not?
(
, 
, 
)
