نشریه سیاست متعالیه
پیاپی 12 (بهار 1395)

Although conflict and opposition among humans and societies is a natural phenomenon, but non-functional conflict should be avoided because extension of these types of conflicts has destructive outcomes, causes collapsing of the deserved understanding, comity and cooperation for the humans and will result in deficiency of human societies. In this paper, we have dealt with explaining “Supreme Strategy in Conflict Resolution Management” from the viewpoint of Imams (especially the seventh Imam) to free from this major problem and finding a way to solve non-functional conflicts. The result of this review study is seeking help from the fourteen recommendations of Quranic guides to escape from the pest of non-functional conflicts.

In different juridical domains, the necessity of maintaining the general discipline of the public, borders of the Islamic states and Political government were always emphasized on and in contrast, sanctioning the “Disorder of the Government” has been always insisted. Although from the viewpoint of Imam Khomeini, “the necessity of maintaining of the government” – which can be considered as a general verdict or an important juridical principle – has been numerated among the “absolute necessities”, but the questions “what is government?” and “Is the necessity of maintaining it, specially maintaining the political government, absolute or conditioned?” are to be discussed in this paper by referring to Imam Khomeini’s viewpoints. This research has been done based on data collection, description and data analysis, adapting the viewpoints and sometimes critique and analysis. The presupposition of the researcher is that if Imam Khomeini’s intention by “Government” was “Islamic Government”, maintaining it is absolutely necessary but if his intention was “political government”, maintaining it would be conditionally necessary. Also, from Imam Khomeini’s point of view, maintaining the Islamic Republic government, conditioned to loyalty to its aims and targets which are based on religious bases and didactics, will be considered as equal to maintaining Islam.

Imam Khomeini and Mohammad Rashid-Reza were two prominent Muslim thinkers who thought about and presented the suitable solution after observing the crises of the Islamic world. By relying on Shia way of thinking, Imam Khomeini founded the theory of Vilayat-e Faqih (governance of the jurist) and after success of the Islamic revolution, accepted the leadership of the Islamic republic of Iran. Rashid-Reza who was after the Sunnah way of thinking, also, aimed at revival of the position of Khilafah (governorship) via proposing “Shora” (community) but couldn’t operationalize it. With library method and by descriptive-comparative approach, this study is after proving the hypothesis that these two thinkers believed in the efficiency of Islamic government by rejecting the separation of religion and politics, and really believed in the power of political Islam to manage the society. The main problem of the present research is explanation of the points of similarity and difference, and attention to the noticeable features of these two great Islamic thinkers. So, comparison of these two views about the Islamic government would clarify the points of similarity and difference in these two theories and the emphasized points within them.

The basic question of the present paper is: how can we define the national sovereignty in relation to the next generations after the establishment and how can they perform this right in selection of the political discipline? Especially, if the basic laws have not accepted holding referendum on the essence of the political discipline or its principles-orientation. In analysis of this question with legal method, while total accepting the national sovereignty principle, legal explanations on impossibility of reconsideration of some key principles of political discipline in Islamic Republic of Iran have been presented. This legal limitation is, in the first place, the result of the basic law being the document of managing and preservation of the political discipline. Henceforth, prohibition from reconsideration of those principles of the basic law whose alterations mean alteration of the nature of the political discipline is total protection of the national sovereignty right. Secondly, accepting that would be in contradiction with the other important right which is the right of having stability and advancement. Also thirdly, rationality of political thought would stop prescribing destruction of the political discipline raised from it. Furthermore, the discipline of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been based on public persuasion about the illegitimacy of the previous discipline and legitimacy of the replaced discipline is not an exception from these three logical reasons. The outcomes of this paper can be the starting point for the legitimacy discourse in the legal literature and liberal seats in scientific and academic gatherings.

The right of Freedom is one of the basic rights of human which has been noticed in all ethical and legal schools. The practical outcome of freedom is that no one is allowed to force any opinion on another person. This right has been emphasized in some verses of Quran including (áÇǘÑÇå Ýی ÇáÏیä / there is no force in religion). However, some believe that the verdict of Irtidad contradicts the Freedom of Thought right. In this paper, in addition to numerating verses focused on the right of Freedom of Thought and emphasizing that Irtidad has extensive reflection in Christianity and Jewishness, and with emphasis on the necessity of acceptingthe necessities of belief in Islam and conditionality of penalizing Irtidad to spreading that, the writer has criticized the doubt on contradiction of right of Freedom and Irtidad.

In a general explanation, the difference of intellectual schools of thoughts can be traced to differences in their “Anthropology”. In other words, intellectual bases and confrontations of an intellectual world with the real world can be due to understanding of that thought, of the concept of “human”. Hence, one of the best ways of analysis to understand the difference of schools of thought is comparative analysis of their “anthropology” and definitions they give for “human”. In this paper, it is tried to re-read the differences and oppositions in definition of “human” in three distinct thoughts of “Ancient Greece”, “Secular Thought”, and “Supreme (Mote’alieh) Hikmah” but due to the extensiveness of these three scopes, in addition to reducing the analysis to “anthropological” differences, one particular representative has been also introduced for each of the three aforementioned intellectual disciplines including: Plato and his philosophy in the domain of ancient Greece, Secularism as the dominant discourse of modern western thought, and viewpoints of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli concerning the supreme (Mote’alieh) Hikmah. Accordingly, this paper deals with comparing the philosophy of anthropology in view of Plato, Secularism Discourse and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli.

Some researchers have considered the two notions of “Terrorism” and “Istishhadi (Martyrdom) operations as equal and considered Istishhadi operation a type of Terrorism; hence, the question rises “what is the relationship between Terrorism and Istishhadi operations?”. This paper tries to explain the indices and structural bases of Terrorism and Istishhadi operations and differentiate Terrorism and Istishhadi operation with reference to the above questions and by using descriptive-analytical method. In most cases, terrorists target innocent individuals to send their message to their opponent and the public opinion. Those who die in terrorist attacks didn’t do any crime and were invaded unintentionally. So, Terrorist attack is an aggressive attack and is not compatible with divine and humane laws. Any operation which is done under such situations, even under the name of “religion”, is considered Terrorism. Whereas, due to religious and ethical indices, Istishhadi operation lacks any similarity with Terrorism and is not considered a terrorist attack, but a defensive and religious action which emphasizes Islamic texts and the one in which Islamic and ethical dignities are observed.