عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
The way Shii jurisprudents encounter the usurper governments, which are all in theory illegitimate, is one of the important issues in the study of the process of change in Shii political thinking and practice. However, certain principles and foundations can be found in the thinking and practice of several Shii jurisprudents who have believed in particularization of this general verdict or specific reservations for the sake of public expedience of the society. The category of security may be mentioned as one of such factors which has gained more importance and weight among a number of jurisprudents and has led them to issue religious verdicts to the effect that to support and obey the monarch is permitted and necessary.The author has described this situation as the necessity of security which was notably expounded by such famous jurisprudents as Kashef ol-Qeta’ and Mirzay-e Qomi in the Qajar era. To explain this idea and its practical consequences, the author first explores how a gap emerged between two images of government in Islamic society. In this way, he outlines the background of the appearance of such a discussion and continues to introduce the principle of necessity of security using two active and passive approaches drawing on Sheikh Kashef ol-Qeta’ and Mirzay-e Qomi’s thinking and deeds.