A Pathological Analysis of the Jurisprudential Marginalization of Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil with Emphasis on the Transformation of the Foundations of Authority in Imam Khomeini’s Thought

Abstract

Despite its foundational status in Islamic teachings, the obligation of enjoining good and forbidding evil has, in the course of jurisprudential developments, been subject to a form of structural marginalization and individualistic readings. The present study aims to provide a jurisprudential pathology of this obligation, with a particular focus on the views of Imam Khomeini, seeking to answer the question of which factors have led to the restriction of this religious duty at the level of implementation and what solutions may enable its revival. The findings of the study, developed through a descriptive–analytical method, indicate that “instability in the theoretical foundations of the authority of the non-infallible jurist during the Occultation” and “ambiguity regarding the nature of governmental rulings” constitute two of the most significant challenges confronting the practical (manual) and executive level of this obligation. Moreover, situating this discussion within the jurisprudential chapters of jihad and hudud in Imami jurisprudence has tied its applicability to the expansion of the jurist’s authority, leading in certain historical periods to its effective eclipse. In contrast, Imam Khomeini, through redefining the foundations of the absolute authority of the jurist (wilayat al-faqih al-mutlaqa) and emphasizing the non-requirement of the “probability of effectiveness” when confronting innovations and large-scale social harms, elevated this obligation from a fragile, discretionary duty to a governmental and institutional necessity, thereby facilitating the revival of its socio-political dimensions.