Abstract:
In the current research and thesis, at least two theories regarding religious democracy have been analyzed and compared their accordance with the principles of democracy.
The dissertation discusses both theories which stress that the establishment of a government is necessary and vital.
It is worthy to mention that the both theorists (Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Shams Uddin) acknowledge that the right of sovereignty belongs to God the Almighty and no one has the right to rule over others except with the divine permission.
God Almighty through his made clear that his messengers and infallibles have the sovereign right to establish systems based on divine rules.
But the point of difference of this theory is during the time of the absence of the immaculate Imam.
According to the theory of Velayat-e-Faqih (Jurist governance), the qualified jurist scholars have the truthful right to perform the duties during the infallible Imam’s absence period.
Shams al-Din, however, does not consider the arguments of the supporters of the theory of Velayat-e-Faqih to be completely sufficient. He cites the principle that no one has the right to sovereignty over others unless the religious reason binds this absolute rule and legitimizes the sovereignty of one person over another.
According to him, there is no doubt about the guardianship of the holy prophet due to the explicit text of the Qur'an and narrations. But since there are not enough reasons to prove the guardianship of the jurisprudent during age of absence of Infallible Imam. Shams al-Din proposes a theory to solve the problem and his theory stresses that by given the denial of secularism and the need for an Islamic system, and relying on the principle of the council, goes back to the opinion of the Muslim people.
And in the closing chapter, the degree of compatibility of each of these two views with some principles of democracy such as humanism, freedom, equality, etc. is examined.