The late Dr. Davood Farihi and Dr. Seyed Javad Tabatabai, two former professors at the Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, each claimed to have an idea about Iran that had taken the form of a kind of intellectual controversy in recent years. After years of theoretical discussion about the decline of Iran, Tabatabai finally looks at the issue of Iran's decline from the position of Iranshahri political thought. Dr. Davood Farihi reads the problem of Iran under the neglect of a change in political thought during the constitutional period that occurred in the Shia world, and that is constitutionalism with the narration of Mirza Naini.
The seeds of disagreement between Farihi and Tabatabai on the issue of the method were sown. Farihi's reading of political jurisprudence was influenced by his discourse understanding of the relationship between knowledge and power, which contrasted him with Tabatabai's linear and evolutionary view. Farihi sought to show how the political logic and knowledge relations that govern a particular region of the world, the Islamic world of Iran, differ from its Western counterpart, and it was evident that such a view, by Tabatabai's analysis of degeneration as a kind of backwardness Remaining in linear history was inconsistent with modernity.
In this regard, Farihi was strongly influenced by the tyranny and division of knowledge in Islamic civilization. Jaberi, following the discussion on the intellectual and cultural heritage of the Islamic world, divided knowledge in Islamic civilization into at least two eastern and western regions and tried to show that the logic governing knowledge in the East of Islamic civilization is different from the logic governing The West is the world of Islam.
Since each of these two respected professors looked at the Iranian problem from a different angle, in recent years, their intellectual tolerance has turned into an intellectual conflict, and each of them has directly criticized the other in his recent works. While examining this intellectual conflict, this article claims a kind of oneness between the critique of both masters; In fact, both professors accuse each other of single theoretical negligence. This article will examine the different aspects of this similar logic.