جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « collective wisdom » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

“Deliberation” in Mehdi Bazargan’s thought, in changeable issues, is based on contemporary reason. But on the one hand, both deliberation and contemporary human reason cannot ignore the general approaches of »religion«, and on the other hand, distinguishing the religious general approaches without using »reason« cannot become possible. While »reason« is the reference for picking methods, it is the basis for understanding religion. Accordingly, reason and religion are not separate from each other. In fact, »deliberation« in Bzargan’s thought is a clear example of the accompaniment of reason and religion. To demonstrate this proposition, the bases for »deliberation« in Bazargan’s thought will be considered in three parts: the principle of deliberation in government; the principle of revelatory prophecy; secularization of government or separation of religion and government, not separation of religion and politics; and the differentiation between values and methods. Based on these three principles, we can speak of the originality of both »religion« and »reason« in Bazargan’s thought.Bazargan's experience after the 1957 Revolution, which faced him with the real problem of governing, became a means of gradual changes in his thoughts than his combative approach in the 1340s and 1350s. These gradual changes limit Islam's position from the pervasive ideology with a lot of commands for all social and political programs to merely directing ideology in a set of principles and generalities. Therefore, the scope of deliberation, which was limited to executive affairs in his thoughts before the revolution, extends to the legislative domain, which this article attempts to discuss in detail.

The aim of this paper is to defend the following thesis: It is rational to believe that the right to life is restrictively a Divine right and not a human right; that is, only God has the (moral/legal/religious) authority to make and issue the laws surrounding life and death. This paper is structured as follows: after some introductory points are given, two arguments in favor of the above thesis will be formulated; the first argument is based on the fallibility of human knowledge and judgment, and the second argument is based on the rejection of the human right to life because of its implausible implications. Finally, some implications and advantages of the favored thesis will be explained briefly.

The high volume of laws and regulations and their dispersion has become a problem in our legal system for many years. Citizens, lawyers, and even decision-makers have faced many laws and regulations, not only that the relationship between them is unclear, but sometimes they are unaware that some are obsoleted. The issue of organizing these laws and regulations, entitled “Revision” for several years, has been on the agenda of the three powers, especially the legislature and the executive power. The development of communication and information technologies and the possibility of using collective wisdom and successful global experiences in this regard, has made the use of this method of depuration as a suggestion that can be considered. But the key question is whether, basically in the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is it possible to use this method to revise the laws and regulations? Focusing on various dimensions and stages of revision, collective wisdom can play an important role in identifying and proposing its proper organization, but the legislation of this organization in law and regulation, according to the constitution, not only cannot be delegated out of the structure of legislative references but cannot even obligate legislator to follow the result of collective wisdom.