Research Article / Original Article
Mohsen Amin
Abstract
The Qom Seminary experienced special conditions during the second Pahlavi era. During this period, Ayatollah Boroujerdi, on the one hand, was responsible for preserving and developing the heritage of the newly established seminary, and on the other hand, he saw himself as responsible for the consequences ...
Read More
The Qom Seminary experienced special conditions during the second Pahlavi era. During this period, Ayatollah Boroujerdi, on the one hand, was responsible for preserving and developing the heritage of the newly established seminary, and on the other hand, he saw himself as responsible for the consequences of the non-religious or anti-religious policies of the Pahlavi state and some of its allies and even opponents.While applying the method of Historical Sociology, we attempt to explain the approach of the Shi'i authority in relation to the policies, actions, and positions of other forces by describing the Ayatollah's speech and behavior in the context of the socio-political developments.Based on the data, it becomes clear that Boroujerdi's actions, in a situation where the state, leftist intellectuals, and Baha'is were trying to remove Shi'i elements from the core of the Iranian national identity structure and replace them with their own elements, were able to adopt a policy of "reminding and negotiating" with the state, firstly, to enhance his position as a representative of the religious institution among other forces. Secondly, through the strategy of Ummatism, he was able to both consolidate the position of Shiites among the Islamic Ummah and strengthen his power domestically through establishing transnational relations. The analysis also shows that Boroujerdi's set of national and transnational actions countered the two grand plans of other forces, namely "Iran without Islam" and "Iranian Islam," and was able to provide the conditions for greater convergence of Iranians around the Islamic pillar of national identity.
Research Article / Original Article
Hossein Ebrahimi; Abbas Keshavarz Shokri
Abstract
عرفان، بهعنوان یک مکتب و جریان معنوی عمیق در فرهنگ ایران، نقشی کلیدی در تحولات سیاسی و اجتماعی این سرزمین ایفا کرده است.انقلاب اسلامی ایران،نه تنها یک تحول سیاسی،بلکه ...
Read More
عرفان، بهعنوان یک مکتب و جریان معنوی عمیق در فرهنگ ایران، نقشی کلیدی در تحولات سیاسی و اجتماعی این سرزمین ایفا کرده است.انقلاب اسلامی ایران،نه تنها یک تحول سیاسی،بلکه یک بیداری معنوی وتحول درونی بود که در آن روح عرفانی و فلسفی متجلی شد.از این رو درک ارتباط عرفان و انقلاب اسلامی میتواند منجر به شناختی جامع از ابعاد مختلف انقلاب و تأثیرات آن بر جامعه شیعی و ایران گردد.سید مرتضی آوینی، به عنوان یکی از نخبگان فکری این دوره، با نگاهی عمیق و عارفانه به این پدیده پرداخته است. هدف این مقاله،بررسی رویکردآوینی به انقلاب اسلامی از منظر عرفان و دینمداری است،تا نشان دهدچگونه این رویکرد میتواند به فهم عمیقتری از انقلاب و پیامهای آن منجر شود.چارچوب نظری این تحقیق بر مبنای اندیشههای عرفانی شکل گرفته است.آوینی بر این باور است که انقلاب اسلامی،تجلی عشق الهی وجستجوی حقیقت است که در آن،مردم با فطرت خویش به سمت خداوند بازگشته و در پی تحقق ارزشهای الهی برآمدهاند.روش کار این مقاله،تحلیلی و توصیفی است و ابزارهای جمعآوری داده ها،فیش برداری از سه اثر شهید آوینی،آغازی بر یک پایان ،حلزون های خانه به دوش و حکومت فرزانگان است.برای درک بهتر از مفاهیم عرفانی درآثار آوینی از تفسیر متون استفاده شده که این امر به شناسایی پیوندهای میان اندیشههای عرفانی و انقلاب کمک کردهاند.نتایج این پژوهش نشان میدهد که رویکرد عرفانی آوینی نه تنها انقلاب اسلامی را متفاوت از سایر انقلاب های رخ داده در جهان می داند، بلکه با تاکید بر عناصر رویکرد عرفانی خود شامل:تحول درونی،توحید،تقابل عشق و عقل و لقاء الله به ما یادآوری میکند که انقلاب،فراتراز یک تغییر سیاسی،یک سفر معنوی وعرفانی است.آوینی با اشاره مراحل سیروسلوک عرفانی در سیاست:خودآگاهی،هجرت،جهاد و ولایت به ما میآموزد که انقلاب اسلامی فرصتی برای بازگشت به خویشتن و درک عمیقتر از معنا و هدف زندگی است.
Research Article / Original Article
Faezeh Hajihosseini; Mustafa Zali
Abstract
In Farabi’s philosophical framework, theoretical virtue is regarded as the cornerstone of the four cardinal virtues, among which moral virtue holds a significant place. However, the acquisition of moral virtues is contingent upon human agency, such that Farabi considers acts of goodness performed ...
Read More
In Farabi’s philosophical framework, theoretical virtue is regarded as the cornerstone of the four cardinal virtues, among which moral virtue holds a significant place. However, the acquisition of moral virtues is contingent upon human agency, such that Farabi considers acts of goodness performed unintentionally to be devoid of virtue. Concurrently, within Farabi’s system of thought, the acquisition of primary intellectual principles—essential for theoretical virtue—is not within the realm of choice for all individuals. Consequently, the attainment of virtue appears inaccessible to everyone. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, this study examines the various types of virtue in Farabi’s philosophy, elucidates the foundational role of theoretical virtue, and investigates whether the possibility of acquiring moral virtue persists despite its dependence on theoretical virtue and the non-volitional nature of acquiring the principles of theoretical virtue. This inquiry is pursued by analyzing the roles of innate disposition (fitra) and the Active Intellect as two fundamental obstacles to the universal attainment of virtue. Acknowledging the natural differences among individuals in terms of innate disposition and their varying capacities to engage with the Active Intellect, it becomes evident that not all individuals can achieve virtue solely through personal agency and capabilities. Ultimately, by proposing a political interpretation of ethical concepts such as virtue and happiness, and by referencing the role of governance in education, upbringing, and legislation grounded in theoretical and practical reason, a resolution is offered. The natural impediments to virtue acquisition are overcome through the establishment of civic order within the virtuous city.
Research Article / Original Article
Alireza Kowsarnia; Hosein Haj Mohamadi
Abstract
The relationship between culture and social structure has long been a contested issue in sociology: Are social conditions the origin of culture, or does culture itself play a transformative role in structural change? Some regard culture as the outcome of structure, while others see it as the driver of ...
Read More
The relationship between culture and social structure has long been a contested issue in sociology: Are social conditions the origin of culture, or does culture itself play a transformative role in structural change? Some regard culture as the outcome of structure, while others see it as the driver of social transformation. Robert Wuthnow, with an objective approach to culture, treats it not as a subjective phenomenon but as a tangible and observable product. Within a theoretical framework, he explains the connection between ideology and structure. Although Wuthnow’s theory includes the role of human agency and the concept of “moral order,” structural factors generally take precedence. In contrast, Dr. Ali Shariati conceives the relationship between culture and structure as reciprocal and dialectical. He argues that structure affects culture, but culture also has the capacity to reshape structure. This article analyzes Wuthnow’s cultural theory and critiques it from the viewpoint of Shariati’s dialectical thought, demonstrating that despite Wuthnow’s effort to go beyond reductionist approaches, his theory ultimately leans toward a one-sided view. By contrast, Shariati offers a more comprehensive interpretation of the interaction between culture and structure.Keywords: Robert Wuthnow; Ali Shariati; Culture; Social Structure; Dialectic of Mind and Reality; Human Agency
Research Article / Original Article
Fatemeh Nazari; Majid Zamani Alavijeh; Ahmad Fazeli
Abstract
This article explores the civilizational thought of Malek Bennabi and demonstrates how his critique of the foundational assumptions of Western civilization lays the groundwork for Islamic civilizational renewal.Bennabi contends that Western civilization presupposes a universal truth and views the civilization ...
Read More
This article explores the civilizational thought of Malek Bennabi and demonstrates how his critique of the foundational assumptions of Western civilization lays the groundwork for Islamic civilizational renewal.Bennabi contends that Western civilization presupposes a universal truth and views the civilization it has built as the ultimate manifestation of that truth. In contrast, he argues that truth is situated and communitarian—each ummah is endowed with a truth specific to its collective capacity, and no group may claim exclusive access to absolute truth. These communal truths are context-bound and contingent. Bennabi identifies various factors that condition and delimit truth, pointing in particular to the prevailing spirit of a people and the culture that permeates them as the primary constituents of civilizational truth.This study adopts a comparative-analytical approach to examine Bennabi’s civilizational ethics and political thought. The research is based on library-based sources and uses thematic content analysis to extract key conceptual patterns from Bennabi’s writings.The findings suggest that Bennabi’s civilizational framework imposes upon Muslims the responsibility to build a unique civilization aligned with their own talents and dispositions. His ethical schema leads to a form of “communitarian deontology” in which moral obligation is assigned by the ummah to the moral agent. Within this paradigm, war is valorized over peace, as every civilization must engage in unceasing struggle to preserve its identity. Moreover, Bennabi’s model necessitates the fusion of religion and politics, rendering ethics subservient to religion and undermining the normative authority of Western human rights. Each ummah, in this view, is entitled to construct a legal system consistent with its civilizational ethos.
Research Article / Original Article
Akbar Shahbazi
Abstract
This study examines the love-justice theory of Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi and its applications in social control. Using the qualitative content analysis method of Khwaja Nasir's works and related sources, the findings show that he has presented a comprehensive model for regulating social relations by intelligently ...
Read More
This study examines the love-justice theory of Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi and its applications in social control. Using the qualitative content analysis method of Khwaja Nasir's works and related sources, the findings show that he has presented a comprehensive model for regulating social relations by intelligently combining love as an internal mechanism of control and justice as an external mechanism. Khwaja's love-justice theory not only ensures order and stability, but also helps to create a balanced and harmonious society by reducing reliance on coercion and emphasizing human bonds. In other words, love as an internal mechanism of control is a spontaneous force that achieves social solidarity through emotional relationships and in an organic way, while justice as an external mechanism guarantees the structural order of society. Given the simultaneous emphasis on the emotional and structural dimensions of social control as well as cultural flexibility, this theory can be used as a native framework for analyzing and designing social control systems in Islamic societies. The present study shows that this theory has a high potential to respond to contemporary challenges of social control, and its practical application can be examined and used in social issues such as reducing deviance, strengthening social capital, and managing conflicts.
Research Article / Original Article
elahe marandi; Zahrasadat Hejazi
Abstract
The endeavor to ascertain the cause and origin of sovereignty is among the issues that have engaged political philosophers. Allamah Tabataba’i and Thomas Hobbes offer similar interpretations of humanity and social life, and the origin of sovereignty is derived from their theories. In this research, ...
Read More
The endeavor to ascertain the cause and origin of sovereignty is among the issues that have engaged political philosophers. Allamah Tabataba’i and Thomas Hobbes offer similar interpretations of humanity and social life, and the origin of sovereignty is derived from their theories. In this research, employing an exploratory-descriptive methodology, the question of "What is the origin of sovereignty from the perspectives of Allamah Tabataba’i and Hobbes?" has been investigated .The research findings indicate that Hobbes, emphasizing the natural and equal rights of humans, seeks to formulate a theory concerning right, power, and the connection between right and power. He locates the origin in the social contract and the necessity of absolute security. The Hobbesian human is one devoid of social bonds, dominated by instinctive and irrational forces, existing in a savage state (state of nature) from which there is no escape except through a conditional social contract in favor of a third party (the Sovereign), entailing the surrender of all rights and authorities. From Allamah Tabataba’i’s perspective, humans are inevitably bound to social life, which is founded upon a practical contract—namely, the contract of mutual employment and social justice. In his view, early humans were under the influence of natural forces, and the dominion of these natural forces encompassed even reason. However, through social progression, reason attains perfection, is reinforced by revelation and prophethood, and comes to govern the natural forces. The findings reveal that the fundamental difference in the anthropology and legal philosophy of these two thinkers leads to two distinct analyses of politics and government. The results of this research can contribute to the development of a comparative understanding of Islamic and Western political philosophy.
Research Article / Original Article
Hadi Salehi
Abstract
The concept of alienation, despite the coherent and shared semantic framework employed by various thinkers in its explication, exhibits significant ontological diversity and plurality, with disagreements persisting regarding its "essence." Nevertheless, these thinkers utilize this concept to critique ...
Read More
The concept of alienation, despite the coherent and shared semantic framework employed by various thinkers in its explication, exhibits significant ontological diversity and plurality, with disagreements persisting regarding its "essence." Nevertheless, these thinkers utilize this concept to critique the existing state of affairs and articulate an ideal condition. Whether the criticized condition arises from a materialist contradiction between two classes or groups or remains confined to a discursive framework determines the idealist or materialist foundation of alienation.In a broad classification, Søren Kierkegaard, Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Max Stirner—alongside nihilist thinkers (such as Nietzsche and Stirner) and existentialists (like Sartre)—can be considered among those who have approached alienation from an idealist perspective. In contrast, Marx and Frantz Fanon have employed the concept within a materialist framework. Among revolutionary thinkers, Shariati extensively utilized the concept of alienation. However, the present author argues that Shariati’s thought incorporates both materialist and idealist dimensions in defining alienation. This, at times, coupled with Shariati’s methodological ambiguities, has led to a misunderstanding of the concept or, at the very least, a lack of theoretical coherence in his definitions.The materialist dimension of alienation in Shariati’s thought pertains to cultural alienation and the issue of assimilation into a foreign culture. A probable reason for this is the conspicuous boundaries of material antagonism between indigenous and foreign cultures. The dominance of dependency and self-sufficiency discourses—and, in their Iranian iteration, the theme of "return to the self"—serves as an indication of these clearly demarcated boundaries. In contrast, the lines of class and material antagonism within Iranian society remain ambiguous due to the underdeveloped class structure and civil society in Shariati’s contemporary Iran. It is in this dimension that Shariati’s views on alienation assume an idealist form.
)
