چکیده:
One of the important topics in the field of political thought is tracing the roots of the issue of political commitment and justifying commitment to the ruler's orders, despite man's enjoyment of primary freedom. Western authors have based their theories on the necessity of commitment to contracts and commitment to shared obligations. These theories have not been able to provide a comprehensive solution for the conflict and collision of obligations within a political society and between political societies and systems. Based on the principles of Imami jurisprudence, God is the source of all obligations, and political commitment—which is commitment to legitimate rulers, whether through divine appointment or via a contract that man enters into with the ruler in the form of allegiance (Bay'ah) or elections—is realized. In Imami jurisprudence, the existence of specific criteria in all obligations that guide them toward commitment to divine commands provides the means to resolve the conflict and collision of obligations; and it makes obedience to the orders of a just ruler justifiable as it occurs within the framework of divine obedience. In this article, using a descriptive-analytical method, we aim to explain the source of political commitment, the aspect of harmony between political commitment and other obligations, and the solution of Imami jurisprudence for managing the collision and conflict of obligations and preventing the violation of obligations.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Based on the foundations of Imami jurisprudence, God is the source of all obligations, and political obligation, which is the obligation towards legitimate rulers, is realized either by divine appointment or through a contract that a human enters into with the ruler in the form of bay'ah (allegiance) or elections.
Studying the theories of Western authors in the field of political obligation leads us to the conclusion that theories based on reason and the consensus of rational people, in cases such as obligation towards contracts, are compatible with the foundations of jurisprudence and Islamic Sharia; however, due to the lack of benefit from revelatory teachings which are based on the complete knowledge of man and society, they cannot provide a complete theory for explaining human relations in the sphere of individual and society, or individual and government; nor can they provide an appropriate solution for the collision and conflict of obligations, which becomes the source of national and international conflicts, because these theories do not take into account God's management over the universe and the unity of actions (Tawhid al-Af'al).
The necessity of conditions such as ijtihad and justice is the primary criterion for the legitimacy of obligation towards their commands and is the guarantor of its fairness and being within the framework of Sharia; and according to the statement of Shahid Sadr, obedience to the Wali al-Amr should not conflict with divine obedience and general rulings.
«ايا أيها الذين آمنوا أطيعوا الله و أطيعوا الرسول و أولي الأمر منکم ...
(
, 
, 
)
