فهرست مطالب مهدی حسین زاده یزدی

The discourse of good governance has been raised by international organizations and institutions and some Western thinkers and theorists since several decades ago. According to the initial design of this topic in the West and based on the previous ideas of thinkers such as: Seyyed Javad Tabatabai based on the decline and decay of philosophy and political thought in Iran after Ibn Sina and Seyyed Ahmad Tabatabai indicating the conflict between international documents and Islamic concepts, this theory has been published, Considering the decline and conflict of philosophy and political thought in Iran, in order to study and research in the field of good governance, Iranian and Islamic sources should be looked at with suspicion and the issue should be addressed by referring to the published western literature. In this research, with the aim of validating the mentioned theories by taking library records and using the descriptive and analytical method, referring to the opinions of the founders of philosophy and political thought in post-Islamic Iran, Farabi and the position of Supreme Leader (Madazleh) in the position of the leader of the revolution. Islamic Iran, we are looking for an answer to this question that Considering the western elements and features, has there been a discussion about good governance in the opinion of Farabi and the Supreme Leader? With the conducted studies, we came to the proposition that the two-dimensional epistemological, ontological and anthropological foundations of philosophy and political thought in Iran are not only western, including the one-dimensional theories of today, but philosophy and political thought in Iran have not gone through the decline curve and are contradictory. It doesn't have either, and it's from the western one-dimensional theories.

Poverty is a pervasive problem that impacts various aspects of human life and is caused by a range of factors. To address this issue effectively, a practical and scientifically-sound approach is necessary. However, in Iran, a homegrown theory for tackling poverty is lacking, which some experts attribute to the ineffective nature of social research in the country. We believe that one of the main reasons for this non-scientific approach is the absence of a coherent paradigmatic framework in these studies. By critically examining the methodological and paradigmatic frameworks of poverty studies, we can identify their shortcomings and gradually move towards a more scientific and effective approach. In this study, we focus on social studies of poverty in Iran, which have primarily relied on a positivist framework. Through a methodological and paradigmatic analysis, we aim to demonstrate that these studies have certain limitations, such as pre-determined results and a lack of value neutrality, which are fundamental attributes of positivist research. Our findings can help move social research in Iran closer to the goal of achieving more scientific and effective outcomes.

Undoubtedly, Fethullah Gulen is one of the Muslim intellectuals and social leaders whose thoughts have received attention in the last few decades. He introduces a new version of Islam, which is known as moderate Islam or social Islam among Western thinkers. Gülen interprets Islam by a Turkish reading, in which Islam finds a special link with Turkish identity. His innovative reading of Islam, while emphasizing individual morality and spirituality pays special attention to interpretation, tolerance and dialogue with other religions and supports the establishment of a comprehensive pluralist. By revising and redefining the words and terms of Sufism, he places service as a faith-inspired concept at the center of his work, which leads to the form of modern Sufism. Modern Sufism is the expansion of the concept of individual Sufism to the community and the promotion of social participation in today's modern world.In order to understand Gülen's reading of Islam, we first explain his interpretation of Turkish or Anatolian Islam by his intended concepts. In the meantime, we examine the concept of Jihad in more detail due to Gulen's new interpretation of that. Finally, we discuss the causes of the backwardness of Muslims from Gulen's point of view and in the framework of his understanding of Turkish Islam.It can be said that Gülen's social Islam is a type of secular Islam that is known as Rahmani Islam among Muslim thinkers. His Rahmani Islam, by displaying a gentle and non-violent face of Islam to the world and linking that with modernity, has five major features: selective and minimal view of Islam, distortion and conversion of the concepts of political Islam such as Jihad, ethics based on Universal and secular values, emphasis on tolerance, accepting the theory of religious pluralism and establishing a pluralistic society by support of Western democracy.

Rationality plays an irreplaceable role in the construction and continuity of any civilization; Therefore, the relationship between rationality and civilization is considered as one of the fundamental issues in social sciences; To the extent that sociologists such as Weber consider the rationality as a prominent feature of modern civilization. Muslim Intellectuals has also been worried about the relationship between rationality and civilization. Mohammad bagher Sadr who is known as an innovative thinker has also addressed this issue. In his point of view, the fundamental "problem" that has plagued the mind of contemporary man is this question: What is the ideal system that will bring the society to prosperity?  The answer to this question divides into four schools: liberalism, socialism, communism and Islam. Under this question, he considers the ratio of rationality and civilization. In this research, we formulate Mohammad bagher Sadr's view on the relationship between rationality and civilization using a qualitative documentary method. One of the untangling analytical tools that he has chosen to analyze many topics is the model of infrastructure and superstructure. According to him, the Islamic philosophical vision, which is influenced by theoretical rationality, is the foundation (infrastructure) and the school of Islam is its superstructure. He considers the condition for the realization of this infrastructure and superstructure to be the flow of Islamic morals in the Islamic Ummah (Islamic nation). Accordingly, the first step to achieve Islamic civilization is to explain the ontological and epistemological dimensions and the second step is to establish the school of Islam based on this foundation and the fundamental keyword "general human caliphate".  Furthermore, it is necessary to implement educational programs to excellence of tendencies and temperament of the Ummah (nation).

Relationalism is at the opposite point of substantialism, and instead of studying objects separated from each other, it starts to study the objective relations that determine them. The Marburg school is one of the most important exponents of this idea. The explanation provided by the Marburg school of relationalism was to solve the crisis of science in the 20th century. In other words, this school sought to provide an answer to the paradox of the progress of science at the same time as revolutionary changes occurred in it without losing scientific objectivity. The idea of the Marburg school was that if these changes could be explained based on an objective method or law, the credibility of science would be preserved. This objective method is the transcendental method that was reformulated inspired by Kant's transcendental logic. In this approach, the relationship between concept and reality has been revised, the reality is completely conceptual and at the same time dynamic, and it is explained how the object of scientific theories is continuously reproduced as a cultural component.

Akhbārīsm as a jurisprudential school within Imami scholarship came into existence in the 11thAH/17thAD century and caused many long-standing changes in the history of Imami ijtihad. Accordingly, the majority of research projects into Iran’s history include a chapter concerned with the Usūli-Akhbārī conflict. Akhbari studies is a field wherein many researchers from various academic backgrounds have contributions who, despite differences in perspectives and projects, share some themes amongst which anti-rationality is the most important and the most re-producing one. A group of researchers treat Akhbārīs as opponents not only to usūl al-fiqh but also philosophy, theology, and theoretical mysticism and at a higher level to every genre of argumentation and reasoning while in some cases they step forward to basically opposing thinking of any kind.  A group of researchers attribute some essentialities to the school and put it in the same line with sedentary style of thinking while others suggest that Akhbārī thought was good enough to suppress popular movements.  A group of researchers compare this school, in epistemology and methodology, with Salafism, Scripturalism, and Literalism. Anti-rational theme is extensively repeated across different research projects to the extent that it has now become a cliché preventing researchers from a descent observation. In this way the constructive role of the Akhbārī thought and the necessary function performed by Akhbārī ulama in the history of Shi’ite jurisprudence is being neglected.    Putting anti-rational theme at the centre of the study and in order to open up a new horizon for Akhbārī literature, this paper is devoted to an evaluation of the works of eight scholars who actively took part in the formation of Akhbārī literature. In doing so, the article attempts to challenge the existing style of interpretation dominant over studies concerned with Akhbārīsm.

Research projects into Akhbārīsm seem to be taking for granted that Akhbārī doctrines imply any refutation of socio-political role for the religious scholars. Not only studies concerned with the establishing period of the school but also those devoted to the decline period of the school treat Akhbārīsm as an apolitical fraction in Shi’ite scholarship. This is what might be called secularist notion of the Akhbārī theory. However, the main Akhbārī texts do not leave a room for such an interpretation and moreover the social roles and state functions performed by Akhbārī ulama are strong negations to this understanding. 

In order to evaluate the secularist notion of the Akhbārī Theory and thus to criticise it, this article makes use of a textual analysis method to examine the ideas and the discussions generated by the most prominent scholars in the field and then focuses on two particular academic researches whose theoretical framework takes root in the existing Akhbārī literature.  

The contesters who evaluate the role and the function of the Akhbārīsm negatively, believe that Akhbārī ulama failed to play a socio-political role in decisive episodes of the history because Akhbārīsm lacked a political theory while on the other hand their Uṣūlī counterpart were capable, in theory and practice, to lead the society in fatal events. During the second phase of Perso-Russian war, for instance, Uṣūlī mujtahids issued fatwas urging Muslims to defend their homeland. Tobacco fatwa by which Shi’ite Muslims were prohibited from smoking tobacco is another occasion declaring the role and importance of Uṣūlī doctrines. Additionally, Iranian Constitutionalism is a significant event for the glorification of the Uṣūlī School. During victorious Constitutional Revolution the importance of theory of ijtihad and the role of Uṣūlī agenda is far beyond denial. Reportedly, Akhbārī ulama did play no role. Supposedly, they are all scenes wherein Akhbārī ulama were absent.Similarly, the appreciators depict an apolitical portrait of the Akhbārī ulama who, historically, did their best to preserve the social integrity and to oppose the unlimited power of the mujtahids. They suggest that Akhbārī ulama believed in no political role for the religious scholars. Therefore, central to their attention was how to maintain integrity of the society by guaranteeing a life safety for Sufis as well as Sunni minorities. Akhbārī refutation of emulation theory by which they meant an opposition against mujtahids was positive in function because it was capable to accredit laypeople understanding of the sacred texts. This linear epistemology was an absolute threat to social position of mujtahids who defended some hierarchical epistemology based on which the society was divided into two groups: a majority of laypeople who ought to emulate a minority of knowledgeable ulama.     

These apparently adversaries seem to share the same idea based on which Akhbārī ulama were propagating a notion of secularism. Reviewing well-known researchers in this field, this article focuses on two academic theses authored in a ten-year-period. Relying on different methodological and theoretical bases, Mohsen Al-e-Ghafour (2000) and Rouhollah Eslami (2010) share the same idea and conclusion that according to Akhbārī doctrines religious scholars are not allowed -and must not be- to play any political role. However, referring to Amin Astarābādī himself, this article reaches this conclusion that their argumentations are not documentarily satisfied and fail to confirm their interpretation. Besides, the so-called Akhbārī ulama were in close contacts with the state and people as well which makes us regard this interpretation historically indefensible.

Knowledge seeks the scientific understanding of a phenomena and here, subject, method and purpose, have a special significance. They are formed on the basis of noetic presuppositions, which are called paradigms in brief. Sociology is a multi-paradigm science and study and critique of these paradigms and their theoretical consequences is one of the tasks taking into account by philosophy of the social sciences. The need for such studies becomes even more apparent when we find that many researchers are not so familiar with the noetic presuppositions and paradigms of social sciences methods. Ignoring this paradigmatic system has various consequences; for instance, achieving a new theory can be expected no more. Sentiment to this noetic disorder increases when the research subject is issues such as addiction, divorce and poverty; because people expect the social sciences to be able to find strategies to reduce or remove them. When such a goal is not met, a crucial question arises: What is the main problem of researches in this category? We believe that one of the main problems of these researches is methodological issues. Accordingly, in the present article, we try to answer this basic question that "what methodological gaps are involved in divorce articles in Iran?" we got the following answers:
Dominance of positive attitude;
In advance known Results and lack of increasing knowledge;
Lack of foresight, suggestion and control;
Lack of value neutrality measurement;
Disregarding the theoretical nature of concepts.

Usage of mental levers alongside the physical pressures is included among the tools of colonialists for controlling those being dominated so that there would be a suitable justification in the face of interrogation of awakened consciences and just judgements, not to mention satisfactory and voluntary contentment and accompaniment of those being under yoke. Such mental levers are injected into the society more in the shape of “acquisition-based” and “determinism-based” theories in order to introduce usage of such interests as their natural or acquisitive right by showing that the dominators are beneficiaries. These theories have been founded upon anthropological principles, the revelation of which is not tended by the imperialistic system, but it has tried to keep it concealed deliberately in order to prevent from fiasco. The author of this article seeks to find the anthropological principles of “acquisition-based” theories of the imperialistic system. Highlighting the aspects of “ego-centeredness” and “race-centeredness” includes basic topics of these principles which have considered “fact-finding” and even “fact-making” as monopolizing feature of the “dominators” and have introduced them to be competent and necessary leader and realizer of interests and even a criterion for “prosperity” and “prosperity-thriving”.

Poverty and economic inequality are concepts that lead to different social consequences for human societies. The creation of this social phenomenon is due to the reasons that each social, political, and economical thinker based on his school of thought has clarified parts of it, and subsequently enumerated solutions to solve it. This article is shaped in response to this social phenomenon and wants to explain and analyzes the social causes and consequences of poverty and economic inequality and its solutions from the perspective of one of the Muslim thinkers who have widespread works to this field, namely, Sayyid Qutb (1966-1906). To do this, at the outset, the concepts of poverty and inequality are separately described from a sociological view and in the sequel, the causes of the creation of this phenomenon, its consequences, and its solutions are being explored in Sayyid Qutb's Thoughts. Indeed, in this article, it becomes clear that the deviation from the path of monotheism is the main cause of the domination of this crisis in the Sayyid Qutb's approach and his solutions for this phenomenon is determined.

Patrick Baert believes that although there are many capabilities in field of philosophy of social sciences, pragmatism has not come to its proper place yet due to lack of enough attention on behalf of philosophers. He believes that pragmatism can be used properly in this field and new prospects in social sciences may be discovered by its assistance. In his Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Towards Pragmatism and due to his criticisms on social sciences and philosophy of social sciences,Baert claims that one of his purposes in the book is to develop a new approach in philosophy of social sciences employing pragmatism. This article is going to explore his claim; before discussing on the content, it has scanned all the chapters and analyzed Persian structure and translation of the book. At last and through content review and scrutiny of author’s claim it is concluded the book achievement is far from author’s assertion and his suggestions have no meaningful difference with expressions of hermeneutics, interpreters, instrumentalists and followers of critical school and Baert has innovated nothing new and commenced no novel path for social sciences.

The relationship between value and the social sciences has always been a subject of debate among sociologists as well as philosophers of the social sciences. It is clear that this debate is essentially a philosophical debate, and when the sociologist wears the philosopher's cloak, he discusses it. Many thinkers have maintained that social science must be independent of values ​​in order to maintain the objectivity of the social sciences. Others have cited two sources of discovery and justification for better explaining this purpose or going beyond this radical reading. The lack of clarity in the concepts involved and the inaccuracy of the dispute have added to the ambiguity of the debate. This article examines the meaning, value, objectivity and disaggregation of the social sciences into six positions, discoveries, concepts, justifications, acceptance of theory, recommendation and application. While explaining the requirements of each official, we try to take the path of clarification by using the foundations of muslim philosophers.

By reviewing some researches, it seems that the critique of positivism in the humanities, or any statement of pluralism and nativeism, has come to be seen as falling into the trap of relativism. The origin of this view can be due to the lack of attention to the various meanings of relativism. Relativism is generally considered as a general concept, rooted in the skepticism of the Sophists and reproduced by post-positivists in various fields. As human beings are the criterion of everything, and in the absence of absolute truth, the Consequences of knowledge completely change from one person to another, to the extent that the Incommensurability of paradigms and the impossibility of dialogue will be its natural result. Precision in the dimensions of the issue illustrates the fact that relativism is not a single unit and has many varieties. With more evidence, the result is that what is famous for relativism in some cases essentially suffers from verbal contrasts with relativism in its extreme meaning, and in some cases the belief in such teachings is not only a fall in skepticism, but also seems to be a sensible and correct. Authors, by differentiating and explaining these types, have tried to offer all kinds of imaginable relativism in the social science in the proposed optimal model and evaluate each of them epistemologically.

Because of the highlighted role of ethical responsibility in social and individual life, it is looked as an important issue in ethics area. Social responsibility that is defined as a sub-factor of ethical responsibility will have such an important place. What is discussed in responsibility discussions commonly is the “human will”. Responsibility is more based on the free will. In the public society, someone who is determined is not responsible. Therefore, responsibility and human will are closely depended together. On the other hand each definition of will is related to the determinism. There is various kind of determinism and social determinism is one of them. Perspectives that focus on social situations as determiners of situations disregard the human will and they are believe in social determinism. According to these issues, this study attempts to consider the social and individual responsibility against social determinism By disregarding or minimizing the concept of human will, determinism disregarded the concept of ethical responsibility in our social and individual life. Such events have broad consequences for social and individual life

Investigating the concept of "pure Islam" in the thought of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei The pure Islam in the intellectual system of the revolution leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is a fundamental concept and all references and arguments are based on pure Islam. In this article, by examining the most important references in leader lectures and works before the revolution, efforts have been made to examine the concept of pure Islam and its dimensions. The method used in this research is content analysis. According to the results of the research, pure Islam pays attention to all aspects of human life and, in addition to the individual's dimension, it is important to consider social and political dimensions. Therefore, religion is not isolated from politics, and due to the attention given to this dimension by Imam Khomeini, the Islamic revolution was formed and the theory of democracy and Velayat-e faqih was introduced. The struggle against oppression, the importance of reasoning, the protection of the oppressed and the importance of sacrifice and jihad, the practical faith are essential features of pure Islam, and on the other hand, American Islam influenced by intellectual and intellectual thinking, supports wrongdoers, is ignorant of Worldly life and has an individualistic approach.

Abstract: The modern times approach is the same as Aristotle has written in the fourth book of physics: ((The 'now' is the link of time)). While Heidegger believes this understanding of time, puts the being as something present at hand for Manipulation, because the being is in now Discrete from the past and the future, and it seems that its totality is available for to be dominated. As a result of this process being is not able to revealing and uneventful world is embodied. However, in Heidegger's philosophy, something must have happened before thinking and acting in a genuine and meaningful way. But, Heidegger's suggestion for to get out of this problematic situation (uneventful world), is not the prescription of a struggle, but the abandonment of things to oneself as they are. Heidegger expresses this abandonment with the term "Gelassenheit". Some researchers from Heidegger's term "Gelassenheit" concluded some kind of inaction and numbness. However, in the present study, we will show that "Gelassenheit" is not space neutral and inaction arena, But also is itself involves activism, But at the time it belongs, The present time that is realm of past and future confluence, And Heidegger calls it the name "genuine moment", a determined moment that should be expected, And when it happened, identified the hidden event in it. The term "Gelassenheit" suggests a delayed process and thus, in the face of the objectification process in modernity.

Among the believers in the significance and possibility of realizing religious science, Ayatollah JavadiAmoli, believes in the possibility of the realization of religious science, by adopting a positive approach and relying on various topics of the tradition of Islamic thought. In more than a decade, we have come up with a wide range of reports that have been delivered in two opposites of criticizing or confirming his theory, and have contributed to the review his view. Among the critics, Professor KhosrowBagheri has expressed the most and most reflective criticisms of this view. Given that his criticisms embraced various areas of the theory, in some cases, he was faced with the response of the scholars defending from the theory. It seems that thinking more in the works of Ayatollah JavadiAmoli prevents from the emergence of some criticism. Hence, the present paper seeks to answer some of his criticisms by reviewing and focusing on the works of Ayatollah JavadiAmoli.

The religious science is epistemic systems about the real world. The study of the philosophical foundations of science and the principles of theology is the first step towards the establishment of religious science. The emergence of the term religious science in the country's scientific community has become the center of some controversy, so that we encounter a number of contradictions among proponents and opponents. Given the extent of the controversy, the fact that the mere expression of the acceptance or non-acceptance of religious science by the thinkers, due to the various statements, does not clearly trace the theory of scholars. Frequent recurrences of views give rise to controversy and rigidity. Among those who believe in the possibility of religious knowledge, due to the importance of the theory of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and Dr. Golshani, we compared their theories of religious science and based on this, pointed out the position of reason and revelation in the views of each of these thinkers. This article seeks to make a step towards the clarity of religious science by comparing views.

native science and its relation to religious science in recent decades has been the focus of Muslim scholars. According to some readings of native science, the pursuit of wisdom to science, all indigenous and historic.This approach usually taken as relativism and pluralism knowledge and in conflict with the principles of Islamic epistemology. Contrary to popular perception, relativism is not a unified whole and have varieties. Kachooyan is one of the scholars of Islamic methodology of human knowledge, which explain the historical nature of human and assert pluralism in humanities. This is reason to the accusation of radical relativism from some alternative streams in religious knowledge. The authors have tried to carefully distinguish between What is known as relativism, wise relativism and not acceptable relativism, and by explaining the views of the community of this Muslim thinker, to show that his ideas about native science, has no epistemological objections of fails types of relativism.

Michel Foucault has been an influential contemporary thinker. He made some serious criticisms on his predecessors and was influenced by some others too. Here we intend to study epistemological foundations of his paleontology in terms of a survey of his major key words related to this subject. Therefore, after we present a general scheme of structuralist Foucault and examine concepts such as paleontology, episteme, and discourse, we answer the following questions: how did Foucault define reality? How should one achieve it? Was Foucault a relativist? If yes, in what respect was he a relativist? What was the basis of his relativism? As an answer to these questions, one could say his paleontology was cohesive in the field of truth. The Theory of Truth Coherence bounds reality to the coherence of proposition and the given knowledge with a set of propositions. Foucault believes various realities buried across history must be discovered by a paleontological approach. Of different types of relativism, he chose ontological and epistemological ones. Through paleontological key words such as episteme and discourse, he started an endless path of epistemological relativism, whose criticisms would be discussed here in detail.

Michel Foucault was a contemporary philosopher with a global influence. He proposed serious critiques to the earlier intellectuals and was also influenced by many of them. The present study will only examine the epistemic principles of his genealogy through answering questions such as “how did Foucault define the truth? What path did he take to get to the truth? Was Foucault a relativist? In what domain was he a relativist and what was the basis of his relativism?” The analysis of the epistemic principles of genealogy showed that Foucault remained loyal to the theory of Coherentism in defining the truth through both stages. Moreover, in genealogy had nominalistic approaches and Foucault's choice of the varieties of relativism was ontological relativism and epistemological relativism. Loyal to Nietzsche and his ontological-relativist approaches, he extended the relativism maintained in genealogy and emphasized that, during every period in history, power determines the truth or falsehood of premises through discourse.

Among various readings of late Wittgenstein, Bernard William's interpretation has been noteworthy and a matter of controversy among commentators. Based on William's point of view, moving from Tractatus to Philosophical Investigation, Wittgenstein passes from "my language limits equal my world limits" and in other words from transcendental solipsism to transcendental idealism or "our language limits equal our world limits". His main goal is to explain that in transition from "I" to "We", one cant get rid of transcendental idealism concerns. It should be noted that Williams regards Wittgenstein as a transcendental idealist in a special meaning. This article first of all tries to present an accurate explanation of William's interpretation. Regarding this, some great Wittgenstein commentators who pay attention to this interpretation, i.e. Ilham Dilam, Dereck Bolton and Norman Malcolm, are appealed for help. Following this, the interpretation is going to be analyzed and criticized.

The present article investigates the question of what the reaction of the Islamic philosophy to the problems facing the religious epistemology is. Is it passive to them? Does it justify them and withdraw or it solves the problems and presents rational and wise solutions? The authors, after their constant efforts in a few decades, have found that the Islamic philosophy, with its broaden domain, has the ability to solve the problems of philosophy of religion and religious epistemology. The collection of solutions it presents can, at least, be considered as alternate solutions – along with other solutions – by those thinkers who do not favor this disposition. After stating a list of problems and their answers based on the Islamic intellectual and philosophical tradition, the present study investigates, for example, two reasons among the most important reasons for disability of intellect and intellectual reasoning in [proving] God’s existence (i.e. the meaninglessness of the words and concepts of necessary and possible [being] and denial of predicative existence) and presents answers based on that tradition.