mahdi shajarian

The impossibility of reconciliation of two contradictories has an important position as the ‘mother proposition’ in the system of foundationalism. This article attempts to explain, through an analytical-critical method, the objections that can be posed to this principle and answer them. Doubt in recounting position of this principle and considering it as a mental structure, doubt in its realism, doubt in the instances of this principle due to probability of not discovering some of the conditions of contradiction, doubt in possibility of adjusting an argument by relying on this principle due to no independent proposition of it and, finally, doubt in referring to this principle in foundationalists’ scientific efforts are among the most important drawbacks in this regard. None of these drawbacks seems to be right. Impossibility of reconciliation is the essential judgment of two contradictories, no matter in which existential sphere they are assumed. Doubts in realism of this principle will lead to skepticism, and intuitive knowledge is the foundation of affirming it. The inductive nature of the conditions of contradiction is not in conflict with the axiomaticity of this principle. Argumentation is not restricted to syllogism. Besides, according to some foundations, the primary axioms are pluralized along with this principle. In their scientific efforts, the foundationalists also are obliged, merely in the position of offering proofs on the basis of restricting the primary axioms to this principle, to refer their arguments to this principle.

The central issue of this research is how the place of consensus and reputation in the derivation of women's jurisprudence is reviewed. This research explores the answer to this question by analytical-critical method and by referring to library sources. There is a claim of consensus or reputation regarding most of the jurisprudential issues of women. Some jurists have sided with the incompatibility of the implication of proof on the one hand and consensus and reputation on the other hand and have refused to issue a fatwa in accordance with proof. This process is not acceptable; Because the strongest type of consensus is invalid, as a result, other types of consensus and reputation cannot be used. In addition, disagreeing with the proof and agreeing with the consensus and reputation is not only a performance in accordance with caution, but it is a kind of imprudence due to disregarding the valid proof. Some jurisprudential fatwas in the field of women's issues are rooted in the anthropological foundations of jurists, which are incorrect; as a result, their consensus is on a case where there is an independent reason, and such a consensus is not valid. The correct path in jurisprudential issues of women is methodical research in reliable sources, even if the result of this research is contrary to consensus or reputation.

This paper’s central aim is to analyze fully the distinctions between the jurisprudential concept of veil and the moral concept of chastity. This difference has not been clearly explained in the literature and they have been mistakenly taken for one another in social rules. Adopting a descriptive, analytical, and critical method in the form of library research, the present research seeks to draw seven main distinctions between them. While “veil” in the sense of women’s body covering is an external jurisprudential obligation, “chastity” in the sense of abstinence in regard to sexual activities is an internal moral virtue. Every man and woman is obliged to perform chaste actions whereas every woman is not obliged to wear a veil. “Veil” can be seen as a quantitative measurable indicator but “chastity” can be seen as a qualitative cultural indicator. “Chastity” is a rational duty with a priori justification; in contrast, “veil” is a duty unconcerned with rationality which can be justified a posteriori. “Chastity” has advantages and disadvantages for society and thus is a social duty; on the contrary, “veil” as such does not have social advantages regardless of its overlap with “chastity” and it is useful for a person to wear a veil only because of the obedience of divine commands.

Deserving justice between men and women is the meaning of "gender justice" which is not related to equality between them at the real level. But at the perceptual level, when there is inequality in it, it will need to be justified. In Islamic jurisprudence, there are many individual and social rulings that differentiate between men and women. The common discourse of jurists regarding this fatwa is non-change. Meanwhile, the central issue of the article is how the performance of the said discourse is evaluated in terms of real gender justice and capacity building for the perception of gender justice. This research tries to examine the said discourse with a critical analytical method.This discourse, relying on some theoretical foundations such as "limiting reason in the position of inference", "relying on the absolute wisdom of the Shariah" and "relying on consensus and reputation", tries to infer the fatwa of distinction. Some supporters of this discourse also try to explain the wisdom of these distinctions from a verbal perspective.According to this article, on the one hand, the mentioned theoretical foundations are not able to justify all these distinctions, and on the other hand, the mention of the mentioned wisdoms will not justify all the fatwas of distinction. These problems cause this discourse to face gender justice neither at the real level nor at the perceptual level. Therefore, it is necessary in jurisprudential inferences, through "ijtihad in the principles of inference" and also "revision of jurisprudential evidences". According to the social requirements of the current era, the differentiation fatwa should be re-examined.

What are the fundamentals of macrotheology in the field of gender equality from the perspective of transcendental theosophy? Meritorious for justice for women and men will not be achieved unless some necessary theoretical foundations are explored first. One of the most important of these foundations is the type of attitude that the researcher of gender equality has towards the origin of existence. This has caused feminists to formulate many theological efforts. In this regard, transcendental theosophy - which has presented many and innovative topics in the field of theology - can be demonstrated from this perspective. According to the principles of transcendental theosophy, the origin of existence is the absolute perfection, and as opposed to the feminist beliefs, it has no defects or limitations. This absolute perfection arranges all the affairs of the existence and this causes every creature, including women, to be appreciated and dignified because of their complete belonging to him. Legislation is one of the things that is included in the domain of his absolute sovereignty, and thus his will has dominance in deciding over the laws related to women and men. In the field of creation, God has wisely fashioned the distinct creation of men and women, and neither of these two, contrary to some feminist perceptions, are incomplete creatures and condemned to disorder. In the field of legislation, the laws that are issued by His Highness are also wise laws, and ultimately, in the relationship between God and His creatures, the "right to obey" is absolute; Therefore, in setting the normative principles of gender equality, one cannot neglect the commands and decrees of God.

How the contribution of the application of reason in inference of Sharia rules is explained in contemporary studies regarding women's issues. This study aims to address this question by applying an analytical-critical method, through contemporary sources. These studies have sometimes used the foresaid reason in the condition of discovering the “sovereign rule" of Sharia and have attributed the "precedence of the independent rule of reason over texts", "the rule of justice based on the rule of common sense", "the validity of the presumptive rule of reason" and "the evolutionary process of justice". Moreover, they also applied reason to discover the "secondary rule" of the Sharia, and they addressed the "rational discovery of expediency" and the "rational discovery of justice at the point of execution". It seems that though reason is not used much in the common background of jurisprudence, the scope of its application has been generalized in contemporary jurisprudential studies regarding women's issues. Indeed," presumptive reason" has been used to derive some jurisprudential Fatwas, from this point of view, reason is included among other valid conjectures. These studies are a great opportunity to activate the capacity of reason in jurisprudence, but at the same time, it is necessary to explain the basis of the validity of presumptive reason in them and to define the quality of its departure from the basic principle of sanctity of action to presumption, and to correct the ambiguities and some seemingly apparent mistakes in them.

Gender justice means entitlement justice for women and men. The discourse of change seeks to reduce the jurisprudential inequalities between men and women in order to achieve this justice. The purpose of this study is to analyze the methodology of this discourse and provide a desirable methodological roadmap for achieving gender justice. In this regard, by analytical-critical method, the works of writers after the Islamic Revolution on these inequalities have been studied. Under this discourse, "non-jurisprudential and intellectual approaches" undermine the credibility of the book and tradition. But jurisprudential and quasi-jurisprudential approaches still insist on the validity of some jurisprudential arguments. Under these recent approaches, the "change approach in implementation" considers the scope of change only in the implementation stage of Sharia rules. The "change approach in infallibility" considers the stage of inference of  Sharia rules to be changed, and is formed by "discovering new branches" and revision the reasons with the conventional methods in jurisprudence. And the "setting of new principles approach" achieves new jurisprudential ideas by ijtihad in the rules of inferring the Shari'a ruling themselves and acquiring new methods. Despite some criticisms of these approaches, some of their rules are acceptable. And the desired order in them for achieving gender justice is as follows: First, the establishment of new principles and the revision of the rules of inference; Second, discovering new branches and revision the reasons; Third is the change approach in implementation on the assumption that  inequality leads to corruption, and fourth is the discourse of stability on the assumption that no justified change is proven even in the execution stage.

English Which man and woman are superior to humans? This question has different answers on feminist ideas and each feminist has responded in some way. Some feminists seek the criterion of male or female superiority in their sexual and natural differentiation and others see this criterion in their gender, social and behavioral differentiation. This research uses a descriptive-analytical method to answer this question by the principles of Transcendent Philosophy and researches about it. Based on these principles, both feminist tendencies are unacceptable. The superior human is a human being who is far greater in being and this greatness is created by the realization of the stages of practical and theoretical reason. A more perfect human being is a human being who has more intellect. Sexual differentiation between men and women does not in itself create or hinder this stages and gender differentiation can only lead to human excellence if it is endorsed by theoretical and practical reason. In his various books, Mulla Sadra also has many words about the female character but this study does not believe any of them contradict this result and none of these words definitively defines a woman as being a second sex and in her opinion, a woman is not the second sex.

Do political activities and presence in the social arena cause human perfection? Some feminists respond positively to this question. They believe men are more perfection than women because of their political roles. In the meantime, the costly role of the being a mother also helps this. Therefore, in order to achieve perfection, women must limit their maternal role and take over political and social roles. According to Transcendent Philosophy, such an absolute view is not acceptable. The criterion of perfection is the extent of existence of human beings, which is realized while benefiting from the level of theoretical and practical reason. The ceiling of human desires is not limited to the material world but also strives to reach the higher worlds and search for their perfection in them. Thus, if the political and social roles as well as the maternal roles are proportionate to the theoretical and practical reason and lead to the continuation of the Substantial motion in levels of existence, they create a degree of perfection. These things by itself have no effect on perfection of human and none of them can be regarded as an absolute criterion of perfection.

The intellectuals on justice research have proposed various definitions of justice though irreconcilable. How may one get the true meaning of justice from among those many definitions? Some of them are formal merely developing a framework for different fields without any criterion for its application on realities. On the contrary, content-based definitions highlight determined criterion or criteria for the realization of justice.  The author is first of the view that formal definitions take precedence over those of content in term of the explanation of conceptual principles of justice. Content-based definitions concern issues of justice, rather than the boundaries of its "conceptual principles". Secondly, from among those conceptual definitions, "giving the right to the rightful" is the most complete one. We can get closer to the true meaning of justice if we make use of Allamah Tabatabaii's theory of mental considerations adding two terms of "wisely and mental construct" to it. According to this definition, a justice researcher seeks for the rights and advantages that the system of creation has not given to the people, nonetheless, it is necessary to construct them -they are rooted in concrete realities outside- in the mind in order to create a desired social life. As to those rights, we cannot say that they are true or false. If their consideration is rooted in concrete realities, then it is wise to act upon, or else they are null and void. This definition proves the significance of philosophical discussions for gaining the wisely constructed rights, and also shows the secret of discrepancies of the researchers in their explanation of the criteria of justice.

From the point of view of Nahj al-Balagha's letters, one of the most important strategic principles in the realm of governance is the principle of "general satisfaction", which requires a long-term operational plan and successful implementation of it requires several tactics. The main issue of the paper is that from the perspective of Nahj al-Balaghah's letters, what Tactics can this strategic principle be realized? From the Nahj al-Balaghah letters, we can deduce a number of operational tactics with a descriptive analytical method to realize this strategic principle. These tactics in the aspect of negation are five principles: abstaining from autocracy, avoidance of rente, avoidance of bad promise, avoidance of violence and avoidance of coercion of the people. In a positive aspect, there are seven principles: support for the needy, informing people, accompanying them in hardship, allowing them to criticize, treating them equally, direct communication and apologizing for the wrong assumption. This paper believes that the strategy of "general satisfaction" is not fully addressed in the Islamic Basic Document of Iran, and some of the above principles have not been addressed; therefore, it is necessary to consider this principle in completing and promoting it. The basis of the proposals has been raised.

Feminists believe that gender is influential in knowledge and cognition, and that various knowledge is formulated by men in accordance with their interests and justifies the oppression of women. On the contrary, critics believe that in this view, firstly, there is a confusion between the criterion of the truth of knowledge and its origin, resulting in a "developmental fallacy" and secondly, it causes "epistemic pluralism". According to this article, the accuracy of Allameh Tabatabai's Theory of Considered Things tools provides a new analysis in this discussion. Based on this analysis, we can talk about the "causal effect" of gender on the level of formation of  considered things. Thus, gender does not prove  considered things and, contrary to critics' beliefs, is not their "criterion of truth," but it can create them. In the meantime, in order to attain wise  considered things, if a person has sufficient prior knowledge of existence, human, and the relationship between the two, and is not confined to a particular gender, he can attain more wise  considered things. Thus, neglecting the influence of these previous cognitions is a mistake of the feminist view, not a belief in the influence of gender. In the meantime, believing in basic knowledge can also prevent one from falling into epistemic pluralism. In this article, the two criticisms with emphasis on theory of considered things are examined in detail.

Which of the following approaches to defining gender justice is the most correct? The way gender justice is defined impacts on the practical and theoretical results of this field. Using an analytical-critical method, the present article studies contemporary feminist works by Persian-language writers on gender justice, and discovers two general approaches to the definition of gender justice. “Equality justice” is one of them, which regards any gender and legal discrimination between men and women as against justice and, in fact, considers equality in all areas to be the criterion for realizing gender justice. “Desert justice”, on the other hand, does not view equality or inequality as the criterion of justice; rather, it considers either of them to be possible on the basis of careful prior studies, and thus avoids prejudice towards the criterion of gender justice. According to this article, desert justice approach is the most complete approach to defining gender justice and in order to avoid relativity in the norms of the realm of gender justice, it is necessary, in this combined pair, to define gender as the definite “man and woman” duality, and thus to define gender justice as “desert justice to men and women” contrary to the prevailing feminist trend.

The main point of this article is Mulla Sadra’s view about women.
Although interpretation of the nature of woman and explaining the mystery of her differences from men has not been an independent problem for Mulla Sadra, the answer to this question can be implied from his ontological and humanistic principles. From Mulla Sadra’s philosophical point of view, humanness, in the famous Peripatetic interpretation, is not the entire reality of human beings and what distinguishes between man and other creatures is not speech in the meaning of “intellection”, rather, it is speech in the meaning of “sacred rational soul”. The entire reality of human beings is determined in light of the intensifying substantial motion of this rational soul toward the highest ranks of existent, in such a way that each one of men and women would turn into a continuous unit that has the capacity for movement from the lowest ranks of being to borders of infinity. The criterion for superiority in this movement is enjoyment of the ranks of knowledge and action. Accordingly, the sexual and gender differences are not in themselves a factor of superiority of either man or woman over another; rather, it is the enjoyment of different ranks of existence in light of actualization of knowledge and action that indicates each human being’s level of felicity and perfection. In the ending part of the article a challenging phrase of Mulla Sadra about women and the justifications brought up for it would also be surveyed.

Regarding the structure of government and the interconnection of its components, we can speak of justice on two levels. First, the "structural justice" level together with the question, "what normative principles guarantee the realization of "justice"-as 'placing everything where they belong to in the structural arrangement of the components of government?" And second, the "poststructural justice" level together with the question, "what principles guarantee the 'justice' with the same definition, after the formation of the structure of government?" This study asks the mentioned questions upon Nahj al-Balagha's letters. Besides, it infers the answers to those questions by discovering distinctive principles at the two levels of "justice in the structure of government" and "justice after the formation of the structure of government" using the descriptiveanalytical method and searching in the library resources. The letters of Nahj al-Balagha present norms for the two fields of "employee recruitment" and "post-recruitment'; as they offer standards for the two areas of "relation with people" and "relation with the enemy" regarding post-structural justice. Despite the simplicity of the government structure in Imam Ali's era, this study believes that meeting the mentioned principles leads complex structure of the modern governments and results of their activities to notable levels of "justice in the structure of government

How is the origin of existence depicted in feminist theology, and how this depiction can be criticized in the light of Sadra’I Wisdom? Along with their theoretical endeavor for improving the position of women, feminists have also dealt with the reformation of the theological beliefs regarding the origin of existence. By criticizing the idea of gender-oriented God in the common Christian thoughts, they have tried to represent an image that justifies feminist’s efforts in the course of the revival of women’s rights. Employing a descriptive- analytical method as well as probing into feminist's works, this study claims that some feminists in the "Theology of Transcendence" raised the status of the origin of existence higher than the Christian God; whereas some other feminists demoted it by focusing on the “Theology of Degradation". By depicting a hallucinated, variable, feminine, materialistic and non-transcendental God, the Theology of Degradation seeks to upgrade women’s status in order to compensate for their lost rights. Transcendence of women at the expense of God’s degradation is not plausible in Sadra’i Transcendental Wisdom. Indeed, woman’s transcendence according to Sadra’i Transcendental Wisdom is correlated with God’s transcendence. Hence, Sadra’i Wisdom challenges feminist Degradation Theology by representing a theorematic argument on two essential foundations of " the existence of the origin" and" absolute perfection of the origin". In addition, this system of wisdom not only depicts a plausible representation of the status of men and women, but also avoids the degradation of God’s status in order to provide the basis for achieving their lost rights.

The main issue of this research is a brief knowledge of the methodology of the book Ma`rifat Ullahi billah la bi al-Owham il-Falsafiyyati wa al-Irfaniyyah. In this book philosophical teachings and mystical teachings all have been claimed to be full distortion; therefore, the study of its method for assessing this claim is the goal of this paper followed by a descriptive-analytical method. Lack of a correct and logical method of study may be regarded as the most considerable failure of the book. As explained in the paper, the author of the work, when criticizing philosophical teachings has not used a reasonable method and, therefore, misunderstood philosophers and mystics` words, ideas and technical terms and distorted. In addition, when intending to propose a new system for the two fields, the author has not any success and his teachings and arguments may not be agreed with

Behaviors arising from following shari'ah are always subject to the possibility of not being in correspondence with the fixed tablet, lawhi mahfuz. It is at this point that the realm of Shari'at shows itself and its inclusion or exclusion to behaviors becomes clear. In this research, intended to explain this realm, current views on interests and evils are analytically and critically examined. In this regard, this paper emphasizes that although the adoption of Ash'arites and Mu'tazilites may considerably expand this realm, the two views are subject to numerous significant flaws. On the cntrary, Na`ini`s theory of expediency of facilitation limits the realm of Shari'at. In this paper, therefore, with an emphasis on Sheikh Ansari`s theory of behavioral expediency, maslahati sulukiyah, and presenting a version of it, it has been tried to expand the realm of Shari'at without meeting such flaws

One of the most mainfest sign of wise men in Quran and narratives is "Divine obeying" And doing" legal commandments" This subject is useable from snatch and multiple Descriptions for wise men in the passages that was told .Allthough some of this commands could be foud out by absolute mindBut not most of them .we call them " Higher than the intellect" So its nessesary to explain the fact of wise ment in obeying in front of commands. This script is covering this title. And it can explain 3 answers to this subject. In Analyze_Descriptive way By Quran and narrativesbiengsign"of legal commandment and talking about further purpos.being scientific.With leaning to the base of certitude. And in the endbeing certain "Repulse the probable harms by doing themThey are 3 reasons that are going to be explained in this script .