This is a transcript of a series of lessons given by the prominent and renowned Iranian theologian, Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Subhani in 2023. Below are the first two sessions, given on February 12th and February 27th respectively. Translation of the subsequent lessons will be published when completed.

---

Introduction: Main Questions of These Series of Sessions

In these sessions, our discussion revolves around the following questions: What is our duty in the theoretical domain to support and deepen the elements of governance in the Islamic Republic? How should we engage with this significant phenomenon that has emerged after the modern era? How can the concept of religious governance be defined?

Examining Concepts

When we seek to examine the theology of governance, particularly in the context of Iran, we must first define certain concepts to clarify what exactly we are discussing:

1. Governance:

This is a seemingly new concept, but it is derived from ideas that have historical roots in human history and political experience. The process of how past concepts evolved into this new concept of “governance” with its associated elements is a complex issue that should be examined in its own context. However, what is important here is to provide a brief definition of governance.

In a simple and general sense, governance is defined as: A collection of institutions, tools, and mechanisms that are formed within a human group to achieve predetermined and expected goals and interests.

Therefore, governance is not limited to statecraft and macro-management but also applies to various sectors outside of the government.

In the context of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the organization has provided a definition of governance that includes three important components:

1. Rules
2. Legitimacy
3. Participation

Definitions are provided for each of these components. Based on these descriptions, we can somewhat clarify what is meant by governance, particularly in the context we are discussing. We are focused on a specific area of governance within Iran, more specifically, what has occurred within the Islamic Republic.

2. Theological Issues:

The field of governance intersects with various domains such as politics, economics, law, and management. It also interacts with areas of Islamic sciences, such as jurisprudence. However, what we are particularly interested in and what we are pursuing is another angle and dimension: the theology of governance.

The question is: Besides the legal and jurisprudential dimensions, with what other theoretical areas does governance intersect? Additionally, does religious governance in the contemporary era have a theological foundation or not?

Underlying Assumption

Behind this issue lies an important assumption: governance has overarching theoretical foundations that give it meaning, provide a framework and orientation, and grant legitimacy to its elements.

Why Challenges in Governance Occur

The fact that governance at the macro level is connected to theoretical foundations is significant. However, the claim being made here is that governance in Iran faces challenges because it has not been nourished by the necessary theoretical foundations and has not had a fundamental, theological, and theoretical origin. These challenges cannot be adequately addressed by jurisprudence, ethics, politics, or economics alone.

Governance in Iran, in addition to general challenges, carries a set of theoretical challenges. The foundational layers of governance, which are the most influential aspects, are so obscure and hidden in Iran that even political thinkers have paid little attention to these layers. And when attention has been given, it has often lacked a religious foundation.

Concrete Issues

It is important to note that the focus here is on concrete issues. From this perspective, we aim to demonstrate that the theoretical foundations of governance lack precise architecture and require reconstruction.

Definition of Theology

The theology in question refers to a body of theoretical knowledge concerning existence and human life, which is derived from and grounded in religion. On one hand, it is a network of rational knowledge, and on the other, it is based on religion. Based on these premises, a framework for theological issues in governance will be outlined.

Connections Between Governance and Theology

There are three layers of connection between governance and theology:

1. A set of fundamental concepts and propositions that, within an interconnected network, articulate the foundation of legitimacy and identity of governance. These propositions form the core identity and essence of governance. This formation is such that if these propositions are altered or their meaning changes, the entire concept of governance, along with its structure and fabric, will also change.

2. A set of behavioural rules governing conduct in governance that are influenced by theology. As mentioned earlier, a significant aspect of governance involves mechanisms and the exercise of human capacity to achieve objectives. Without such mechanisms, governance in its precise sense will not occur. These mechanisms are governed by a series of rules. These rules may even include ontological and anthropological principles, and the rules in question are those that govern behaviour.

Characteristics of these rules:

• • They are universal and shape human relations.
  • They completely define social and political relations.

3. Concrete categories that are directly related to the behaviour of members of a human group and are considered the main topics of governance. For example, when discussing the concept of freedom in governance, this is a concrete concept that takes on a theological dimension. If the theological concept of freedom is not clarified, challenges arise in the realm of political practice and the interpretation of legal-jurisprudential rulings on freedom. Another example is the concept of independence, which appears to be a political issue but, upon deeper examination, is entirely theological. Even concepts like family have theological aspects.

Governance in Iran developed within specific contexts and frameworks, which have led to the challenges we face today.

The Issue of Governance in Islamic History

In Islamic history, the Shia and Sunni branches took separate paths concerning governance. In the Sunni tradition, governance was accepted under the name of the Caliphate, presenting a particular image that reduced the broad theoretical mission to merely its practical aspect. In this view, governance was explicitly regarded as secular and focused on everyday behaviour. Therefore, if religion was to have any influence, it was minimal and superficial.

This approach first created a historical experience known as the Caliphate, and secondly, this experience took shape within the framework of political jurisprudence.

On the other hand, the Shia tradition did not manifest Imamate in its apparent form after the event of Saqifah because governance is associated with power and authority, and due to the lack of such power, there was no manifestation of governance, whether during the presence of the Imams (a) or during the period of occultation, except in limited and necessary forms.

Shi’i Islam viewed governance and Imamate as theological and theoretical concepts, and Imamate remained in that form. The knowledge related to the broader issues of governance remained in its raw form and did not undergo theoretical analysis.

Unlike the Sunnis, who linked governance to jurisprudence, the Shia tradition did not develop this connection because Shia jurisprudence focused on everyday needs and practical issues, and political jurisprudence was not emphasized within the Shia context due to the absence of such need. As a result, these topics were not addressed in Shia jurisprudence.

Thus, we were unable to define Imamate and its extension into governance within theological discourse, and due to the lack of historical and social experiences, we also did not develop a clear and extensive political jurisprudence.

A new event that affected the Islamic world and Shi’ism was the emergence of the modern world. In this new era, concepts and categories changed, and one of the areas that underwent transformation was governance and politics. The lack of attention to these changes impacted the understanding of governance and led to various problems.

Gaps in the Discussion of Governance

Thus, three gaps existed:

1. Theoretical Gap within Shi’ism Regarding Governance: There was a lack of comprehensive theoretical development concerning governance within the Shia tradition.
2. Gap in Attention to the Paradigm Shift Resulting from the Modern Era: There was insufficient attention to the significant paradigm changes brought about by modernity.
3. Gap in the Practical Experience in Political by the Elites of Society: Another gap was the lack of lived experience among the elites of society in the realm of political practice. If we look at the political experiences that Shi’ism has had, they have mostly been outside the sphere of the elites of our community.

In such a context, where both theoretical and practical experiences were lacking, a new idea of governance was proposed in Iran, known as the theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist), accompanied by various modifications to this theory.

Despite all these efforts and considerations, the three gaps mentioned earlier are still felt.

The fundamental point is that the theoretical deficiencies in these layers have led to challenges in practice today, challenges that cannot be addressed solely within the domains of politics, jurisprudence, economics, or ethics.

So far what we have discussed is that if governance is viewed from a theological perspective, three layers of discussion can be proposed:

1. Discussions that address concepts and theoretical foundations.
2. Discussions that refer to the behavioural rules governing governance.
3. The area that deals with the subject of governance and its context.

Each of these three layers can be examined separately, or they can be viewed collectively as an integrated set.

The Concept of Islamic Government

The primary topic for initiating the discussion on political governance, which itself encompasses significant theological issues, is the concept of Islamic government. This concept has a history of nearly a hundred years, with scholars from both Sunni and Shia traditions discussing the idea of an Islamic government. This concept became central to the political discourse of the last century and can be considered the central tenet of contemporary Islamic scholars.

The various interpretations of this concept by individuals such as Abul A’la Maududi, movements like Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood, and even within Shia circles, formed the core of contemporary political governance. This concept later entered the discourse of the Islamic Republic through the framework of Wilayat al-Faqih.

The essential question is: Where did this concept originate, what were its epistemological foundations and historical precedents, how did it evolve, and what are the components of what was formalized as Islamic government in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic?

The concept of Islamic government, over the past century, has undergone significant conceptual changes or, in other words, has experienced a rigid semantic reconfiguration, which ultimately led to the formation of the Islamic state. This concept has found tangible and external realization in various parts of the world, such as Pakistan, Egypt, and especially Iran.

Key Intellectual Developments Shaping the New Concept of Islamic Government

The concept of Islamic government in the modern era can be seen as the product of two major intellectual developments in contemporary political literature:

• Conceptual Reduction: We observe a historical and conceptual reduction from the key Quranic concepts concerning Imamate to the modern Islamic government.
• Paradigm Shift: Change in framework

Conceptual Reduction:

In this part, we encounter three or four layers of reduction in the concept of government.

1. Conceptual Reduction from the Elevated Quranic Concept of Imamate to the Theological Imamate and Wilayah:

This shift occurred more fundamentally within Shi’ism. From the fourth century onwards, a shared theological discourse between Shia and Sunni scholars emerged concerning Imamate, focusing on the notion of riyasat amma (general leadership) over both religion and worldly affairs. According to this understanding, the concept of Imamate was transformed from its elevated meaning into the idea of leadership and governance, encompassing both religious and worldly matters, and was considered a continuation of the prophetic mission.

By riyasat, it was meant the practical and tangible implementation of the elements of prophethood within society. This understanding of leadership was shared between Shia and Sunni scholars. However, each sect developed its own interpretation concerning the relationship between religion and worldly affairs. Sunnis understood dunya (world) as referring to apparent governance, with religion intervening in matters of Shariah law. In contrast, the Shia interpretation extended the scope of both these categories.

Here, we encounter a conceptual reduction where the Quranic Imamate, which is concerned with guiding humanity and overseeing various aspects of human life, is reduced to a level where it primarily ensures the implementation of religious rulings and governs the worldly affairs of Muslims based on those principles.

2. The Second Reduction: From Theology to Jurisprudence

Gradually, the theological perspectives on the concept of Imamate and governance, which were initially influenced by Sunni literature on governance, began to form a common discourse between Shia and Sunni scholars. Initially, the discussion of Imamate was addressed by Sunnis within jurisprudence and by Shia within theology. However, over time (starting from the 5th century), Sunnis began to engage with the concept of Imamate in theology as well, partly to create a dialogue with the Shia. Conversely, within Shia thought, with the onset of the occultation, the discourse on Imamate gradually shifted away from theology and became more aligned with the Sunni perspective within jurisprudence.

Important Note: Shia jurisprudence is inherently a jurisprudence that acknowledges the presence of a guardian (wali) and ruler in various aspects of law. However, governance was never fully theorized within Shia jurisprudence, in contrast to Sunni jurisprudence, where the concept of governance was thoroughly conceptualized, its functions defined, and its place in jurisprudence established. In Shi’i thought, this did not occur until after the medieval period.

Therefore, the second reduction was the transition from theology to the domain of jurisprudence. Over time, jurists began to incorporate the literature on Imamate into the discussion of Wilayah within jurisprudence. Thus, the issue of Imamate was reduced from a fundamental principle of religion—leadership—to a jurisprudential issue concerning guardianship and the management of executive affairs.

3. The Third Reduction: When Jurisprudential Guardianship Did Not Find a Place in the System of Jurisprudential Chapters

Sunni scholars gave Wilayah a formal title within their jurisprudence and dedicated a chapter to it, thereby institutionalizing it and giving it a certain primacy. However, in Shia jurisprudence, Wilayah did not receive a formal title within the chapters of jurisprudence; rather, it was treated as a specific issue.

The discussion of Wilayat al-Faqih within jurisprudence emerged under the topic of individuals who lacked the capacity for self-guardianship. Here, the discussion of guardianship arose out of necessity and as a supplementary topic. Fundamentally, according to jurisprudential principles, a jurist cannot resolve the issue of guardianship in certain matters. To prevent the suspension of certain rulings, the concept of guardianship was borrowed from the Quranic and theological discussions of Imamate and was introduced at this level. The origin of Wilayat al-Faqih lies in the Umur Hisbiyyah (public duties), which some jurists later expanded upon.

The third reduction occurred when Imamate was transformed from a political-jurisprudential institution into a collection of jurisprudential issues, reducing it to a mere jurisprudential challenge.

4. A fourth stage of reduction can also be considered, where the issue of the general guardianship of the jurist is framed in a jurisprudential manner that is more theoretical than practical. When Wilayah in Umur Hisbiyah is discussed, its various aspects are examined, but in the case of general Wilayah, it remains largely theoretical and does not delve into the practical and executive implications, particularly those that require practical implementation. The extent to which the meaning of absolute (Mutlaqah) guardianship in Wilayat al-Faqih is defined is also unclear.

This could be seen as another reduction—reducing the concept to the level of a mere theory.

The Contradiction Between the Principle of Absence of Wilayah and the Necessity of Imamate and Governance

A fundamental principle that all jurists discuss is the principle of non-authority (Asl ‘Adam al-Wilayah), which means that, initially, no person has authority, governance, or control over another. The question arises here: what is the meaning of this Wilayah discussed in this principle?

This question emerges because, in theology, there is a consensus among all Islamic sects that governance and Imamate are necessary—whether this necessity is religious for those who do not accept the rational basis of moral judgments (Husn and Qubh Aqli), or rational for those who do. Now, what is the relationship between this necessity and the principle of non-authority?

This conflict and discrepancy serve as a measure to demonstrate the stages of reduction in the concept of Wilaya and Imamate that have been described. Here, two discourses are emerging: one theological and one jurisprudential. In theology, Imamate is viewed as an institution, leading to the ruling of the social necessity of this institution. On the other hand, in jurisprudence, with the reduction that occurs, the principle of non-authority is emphasized.

This reflects a series of changes in the concept of Islamic governance that have taken place within Shia jurisprudence.

Paradigm Shift (Framework Change):

Another significant occurrence in the modern era is the paradigm shift. This differs from conceptual reduction and changes in the realm of concepts. The concept of Imamate, as discussed in theology and jurisprudence, existed within the framework of religious thought, with its core focus on prophethood and apostleship. However, in the modern era, thinkers became acquainted with and engaged with the concept of the state and nation.

The Position of the Nation-State Concept

This concept of the state and nation gradually evolved from being a theoretical notion in the West to becoming operational models, which then entered Islamic thought. Efforts were made to redefine this concept and model within the context of religious knowledge.

This is an entirely new concept. Essentially, in the modern era, the concept of the nation-state emerged in opposition to religious governance, asserting that in the modern age, governance no longer holds a religious meaning. The concept of the state was developed by stripping governance of its religious connotations.

Here, a civilizational shift is taking place, moving from a sacred view of governance to a different type of interaction between state officials and the people. The focus shifts from a community of believers to a nation.

Confusion Among Contemporary Islamists

In the discourse of contemporary Islamists who pursue the project of political Islam, two main confusions have occurred:

1. They conceived governance in the realm of Sharia implementation.

By implementation, they meant the execution of a series of commands and rulings. In other words, they adopted a legalistic and jurisprudential view of governance, which resulted in the reduction of the lofty Quranic concept—intended to elevate humanity—to a specific, jurisprudential concept focused on individual legal matters.

2. They sought to fill the theoretical void of implementation models through the concept of the modern state.

Here, a merging of two domains, each belonging to independent paradigms, took place.

The fundamental question is whether an Islamic government, with its lofty teachings on Imamate, can be realized within the framework of a modern state.