Critiques of the Guardian Council in the Process of Shari’a Supervision over Laws and Regulations

The practice of the Guardian Council in reviewing the enactments of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) with respect to Shari’a is as follows: all articles or provisions of bills are examined individually in light of jurisprudential principles, and any provisions found to be in conflict with Shari’a are returned to the Parliament for amendment. Accordingly, the purpose of the present study is to examine the critiques raised against the Guardian Council in the process of Shari’a supervision over laws and regulations. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources. The analysis revealed that opponents of Shari’a supervision have developed their arguments on the basis of Imami theological principles in two entirely distinct and separate ways. Some critics maintain that the institution of supervision is in direct contradiction with the foundations of legitimacy and governance in Islam, arguing that popular control is incompatible with the philosophy of Imamate, particularly the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). The other group does not reject the principle of supervision in the structure of a religious government but rather argues that the Guardian Council’s supervision is inconsistent with religious elements. In general, it can be stated that the critique directed at the supervision of jurists (the Hayʾat-e Ṭarāz) over the enacted laws of the Parliament lies in the fact that no reliable Islamic source confirms that in customary, political, or governmental matters, five jurists must examine whether there is any contradiction with Shari’a rulings. Furthermore, neither the Constitution nor other laws foresee that authorities or individuals can request the Guardian Council to examine and issue an opinion on the conformity or non-conformity of an enacted law with the Constitution or with Shari’a principles. Likewise, such authority has not been explicitly granted to the Guardian Council itself.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.lsda.199
Primary Topic
Legal Studies and Policies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Critiques of the Guardian Council in the Process of Shari’a Supervision over Laws and Regulations

Tayebeh Balvardi, Iraj Ahmadi, Moien Sabahi Goraghani
Legal Studies and Policies
article

Critiques of the Guardian Council in the Process of Shari’a Supervision over Laws and Regulations

Tayebeh Balvardi, Iraj Ahmadi, Moien Sabahi Goraghani
article en

Abstract

The practice of the Guardian Council in reviewing the enactments of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) with respect to Shari’a is as follows: all articles or provisions of bills are examined individually in light of jurisprudential principles, and any provisions found to be in conflict with Shari’a are returned to the Parliament for amendment. Accordingly, the purpose of the present study is to examine the critiques raised against the Guardian Council in the process of Shari’a supervision over laws and regulations. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources. The analysis revealed that opponents of Shari’a supervision have developed their arguments on the basis of Imami theological principles in two entirely distinct and separate ways. Some critics maintain that the institution of supervision is in direct contradiction with the foundations of legitimacy and governance in Islam, arguing that popular control is incompatible with the philosophy of Imamate, particularly the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). The other group does not reject the principle of supervision in the structure of a religious government but rather argues that the Guardian Council’s supervision is inconsistent with religious elements. In general, it can be stated that the critique directed at the supervision of jurists (the Hayʾat-e Ṭarāz) over the enacted laws of the Parliament lies in the fact that no reliable Islamic source confirms that in customary, political, or governmental matters, five jurists must examine whether there is any contradiction with Shari’a rulings. Furthermore, neither the Constitution nor other laws foresee that authorities or individuals can request the Guardian Council to examine and issue an opinion on the conformity or non-conformity of an enacted law with the Constitution or with Shari’a principles. Likewise, such authority has not been explicitly granted to the Guardian Council itself.

Vol. 4(3)
Islamic Azad University, Sirjan Branch (IR), Islamic Azad University Kerman (IR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Legal Studies and Policies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Critiques of the Guardian Council in the Process of Shari’a Supervision over Laws and Regulations — Tayebeh Balvardi, Iraj Ahmadi, et al. · (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS