عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the controversial issues among the jurisprudence of religions is the legitimacy of representation in acts of worship, this issue becomes more challenging when this representation is done by a living person. Among the acts of worship, i'tikaaf, which is a set of several acts of worship, that is, it also includes fasting as a condition for its validity, has been discussed on behalf of others. The assumption that the worship of i'tikaaf is obligatory in the case of vows has caused most jurists to have a skeptical view in the discussion of representing the living in i'tikaaf. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate why famous jurists resort to the illegitimacy of proxies in such acts as i'tikaaf. The key question in this study is whether evidence can be found to legitimize such representation. Also, the views of the four religions are examined in this research and through this, their arguments are presented. It seems that due to the mustahab of the principle of i'tikaaf, and the obligation of fasting to follow it, even if the vow has been made, from the point of view of Imami jurisprudence, this act can be considered unrepresentative by the living.