<![CDATA[Contemporary analyses of Wilāyat al-Faqīh predominantly utilize security studies or political realism frameworks, effectively reducing the doctrine to an instrument of state hegemony. This externalist approach, however, creates an epistemic blind spot regarding the internal normative constraints that bind the jurist-ruler. This article bridges this gap by reconstructing the doctrine’s genealogy through a qualitative doctrinal analysis of primary Shiʿi jurisprudence, tracing the trajectory from the Safavid-era works of Al-Karakī, through the Qajar-era synthesis of Narāqī and the restrictionist critique of Anṣārī, to the revolutionary treatises of Khomeini. The study demonstrates that the transition from restricted agency (wikālah) to general vicegerency (wilāya ʿāmma) was not a rupture but a dialectical expansion of "collective obligation" (farḍ kifāyah) intended to prevent the suspension of divine law. Results indicate that the jurist’s authority is legally conceptualized as "trusteeship" (amānah), a functional construct (iʿtibārī) designed to negate arbitrary tyranny (ṭāghūt) via institutional checks. Consequently, the institution operates as a form of "Theological Constitutionalism," where the ruler’s legitimacy is continuously contingent upon adherence to justice (ʿadāla) and constitutional procedure. These findings challenge the "Theocratic Absolutism" thesis, suggesting that the system’s internal logic is closer to a rule-of-law mechanism than a charismatic dictatorship. ]]>
Copyrights © 2025
