نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و علوم سیاسی، گروه مطالعات انقلاب اسلامی و مسائل ایران، دانشگاه امام صادق علیهالسلام، تهران، ایران.
2 استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده فرهنگی و علوم اجتماعی، گروه مطالعات انقلاب اسلامی، دانشگاه امام حسین علیهالسلام، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction: One characteristic feature of human social life is the diversity of perspectives and methods among individuals, which often leads to dissent, protest, and, in some cases, social unrest. Different models of governance, shaped by distinct political philosophies and approaches to public policy-making, address the issue of political and social protests in unique ways. Accordingly, this research aims to answer the main question: "What are the limits and frameworks of protest within Islamic governance, and how should a religious government respond to protests?" To address this core question, this study utilizes library research, referencing existing resources, and operates within a foundationalist analytical framework. It first examines the issue of protest during the era of the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them), and subsequently addresses this issue during the period of Occultation, highlighting the differences compared to the time of the Infallible Imam's direct presence and rule.
Methods: This research is applied in nature and employs a descriptive-analytical approach, referencing historical documents. Concurrently, an effort has been made to clarify the foundational principles within a foundational analysis framework, thereby defining the relevant boundaries and frameworks. In this context, foundationalism is understood as a term related to epistemological theories, asserting that knowledge must ultimately rest upon justified beliefs or other certain, basic principles.
Results and discussion: The results of this research indicate that, unlike in the governance of the Infallible Imams, dissent and verbal criticism are permissible within a non-infallible government. This is contingent upon the criticism not escalating into actions such as disobedience, creating chaos, or attempting to overthrow the system. This limitation is grounded in two primary principles: maintaining the stability of the system and preventing the delegitimization of the Islamic community's leader. Furthermore, it is established that the primary principle in dealing with verbal criticisms is one of tolerance and endurance. However, in situations where dissent leads to social division and disrupts communal cohesion, the government is authorized to respond to these dissenting voices using non-violent measures. Therefore, there is not an automatic or universal obligation to tolerate all forms of criticism. The study also reveals that mere suspicion, doubt, or conjecture cannot justify negative or security-based actions against individuals or groups. Conversely, the interpretation that a violent movement must first commence before the government can take violent action against rioters is also considered incorrect.
Conclusions: The research concludes that in the government of the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them), various forms of opposition—including open expression of internal dissent, planning conspiracies, civil disobedience, and actively working to overthrow the system—are deemed illegitimate, with the exception of questioning and raising inquiries. In contrast, during the period of Occultation and within the framework of the Guardianship of the Jurist (Velayat-e Faqih) government, internal dissent, questioning, criticism, and even the expression of opposition are permitted, provided they adhere to specific conditions and regulations. However, planning and preparing for conspiracies, civil disobedience, and subversive actions aimed at the system's downfall remain strictly impermissible.
کلیدواژهها [English]
منابع
References
)