چكيده لاتين
The question of imamate has long stood as one of the most fundamental and contested issues in Islamic theological and political thought, not only because it pertains to core religious doctrines but also due to its direct influence on the political and social structure of the Muslim community. Among the major Sunni theologians of the eighth century AH, Sa‘d al-Din al-Taftāzānī, in his influential work Sharh al-Maqāṣid fi ‘Ilm al-Kalām, offers a theory of political authority according to which “coercive domination” can serve as a valid basis for the establishment and binding force of the caliphate. In this view, if an individual gains control over society through military or political power and meets the minimal conditions of imamate, his rule becomes legitimate even without the consent or allegiance of the people. Despite its attempt to account for the historical and social realities following the Prophet’s death, this approach raises serious questions about the relationship between political legitimacy and religious, ethical, and philosophical criteria.
Drawing on the works and ideas of the philosopher-sage Ḥakīm Mullā Hādī Sabzavārī, the present study critiques Taftāzānī’s foundation of coercive domination. In Asrār al-Ḥikam, Sabzavārī explicitly rejects Taftāzānī’s premise, arguing that the reality of imamate is exclusively grounded in divine designation and explicit appointment by God and His Messenger. From his perspective, the Imam must embody comprehensive intellectual, ethical, and spiritual perfections, and it is the Imam’s inner connection to the source of revelation that safeguards the community’s faith and ensures the rectification of both theoretical and practical reason. Thus, the legitimacy of the Imam can never arise from allegiance or political conquest but must be rooted solely in sacred and divine criteria.
This research employs a descriptive-analytical method based on library sources. In the first four chapters, the theoretical foundations of Taftāzānī’s doctrine of imamate are explained, followed by a systematic examination of Sabzavārī’s critiques within the framework of transcendent theosophy. The comparative chapter identifies profound divergences between the two perspectives in terms of anthropology, philosophical-theological principles, teleology, and political epistemology. The fifth chapter expands the critique into extra-religious and secular domains, challenging the principle of coercive domination through modern political philosophy, fundamental rights, the rule of law, and democratic theories.
The central finding of this study is that Taftāzānī’s theory functions less as an account of the true nature of imamate and more as an attempt to justify the historical conditions of the caliphate after the Prophet’s passing. In contrast, Sabzavārī, by grounding imamate in transcendent theosophy and sacred philosophy, provides an alternative model that is defensible not only within Shi‘i theological frameworks but also through philosophical rationality. Furthermore, the extra-religious and secular critiques show that the theory of coercive domination lacks coherence and justification even within the standards of modern political rationality and global norms of legitimacy.
In conclusion, by integrating three levels of critique—intrareligious (Qur’anic and hadith-based), philosophical-theosophical, and extra-religious—the present dissertation demonstrates that Taftāzānī’s theory is indefensible across religious, ethical, and political evaluations, and that Sabzavārī’s thought offers a viable foundation for reconstructing Shi‘i political theory and articulating the true place of imamate in the contemporary world.
