نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دکتری دانشگاه ادیان و مذاهب، رشته الهیات، گرایش قرآن و حدیث، دانشکده قرآن و حدیث، گروه علوم قرآنی
2 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه فقه و اصول، رشته فقه و معارف، جامعه المصطفی العالمیة(ص)، قم، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The question of the “role of the people in Qur’anic governance” constitutes one of the central issues in Islamic political thought and a major focus of critique within Orientalist discourse. Many Orientalists, interpreting the Qur’anic model of governance through the dichotomy of “absolute divine sovereignty” versus “human agency,” have portrayed it as inherently authoritarian, negating popular will. This study employs a descriptive–analytical approach and adopts an epistemological pathology method to examine the intellectual foundations and methodological assumptions underlying these Orientalist perspectives. The findings indicate that the primary source of these critiques lies not in the Qur’anic text itself, but in the imposition of modern Western epistemological and philosophical paradigms onto the conceptual framework of Islamic political thought. These theoretical shortcomings can be identified at three interrelated levels: first, at the epistemological level, through conflating Qur’anic text with historical Muslim practice and selective readings of the verses; second, at the theological–philosophical level, through the erroneous assumption of an inherent conflict between divine centrality and human agency; and third, at the political–legal level, through equating divine legitimacy with popular approval. The study concludes that the Qur’anic model of governance is based on a longitudinal, non-conflictual relationship between divine legitimacy and human participation. Many Orientalist judgments, in fact, critique a distorted representation of this model rather than the original Qur’anic theory itself.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)