عنوان مقاله [English]
A significant question about Imam Khomeini’s theory of the guardianship of the jurist (wilāyat al-faqīh) revolves around the scholarly prerequisites for the ruling jurist. Should the ruling jurist be an absolute mujtahid? Must the ruling jurist have deduced all jurisprudential rulings before assuming the guardianship position? Is it necessary for the ruling jurist to surpass his contemporary jurists in knowledge? If the answer to the latter question is affirmative, should this knowledge superiority be in jurisprudential inferences or in political management and administration? This study does not delve into arguments supporting the doctrine of the guardianship of the jurist as presented by prominent jurists. Instead, it employs the analytical method and draws upon library resources, particularly Imam Khomeini's jurisprudential works, to address these questions. According to the research findings, Imam Khomeini mandates the potential for absolute ijtihad in the guardian jurist, signifying the ability to make jurisprudential inferences in a significant number of sharia rulings. Furthermore, he stipulates the actual inference of a substantial number of sharia rulings for the ruling jurist, requiring that the majority of jurisprudential rulings be inferred before assuming the position. Moreover, based on caution, Imam Khomeini requires that the ruling jurist be the most knowledgeable jurist in the land of his reign concerning the inference of jurisprudential rulings and the management of public affairs. When Imam Khomeini's views are juxtaposed to his practice, it becomes evident that in the absence of a jurist meeting all the conditions, certain conditions can be compromised in favor of others.