The credibility of women’s testimony in Islamic jurisprudence has been controversial. Although it is not a new subject and it has been proposed for a long time but this cannot avoid us not to address the new comments on this issue and not to consider different attitudes toward it in order to understand legislator’s opinion better. Two approaches can be proposed in this field. First, gender-based approach which treats a woman’s testimony as half of a man’s based on rational and narrative reasons. On the other hand, the second approach, in the historical context, attempts to adjust the attitudes which can be the cause of misunderstandings, through reinterpretation of situations in traditional approach and the analysis of citation reasons and provide the possibility to bypass the traditional approach based on time and space requirements and juridical-legal modernity in order to pave the way for a modern approach towards women’s testimony. The latter approach through accreditation to women’s testimony, assumes women’s testimony as a small issue in dynamism of Islamic jurisprudence, so that it can keep pace with time and space changes.

Today, it has been evident that without having a theory or a definite approach either to literature & history, writing a history of literature becomes totally impossible. Despite the initial contradiction between formalistic & historical methodologies, systemic formalism could be recognized as a pioneer movement which could formulate a definite methodological framework for history writing of literature. With such a perspective in mind, systemic formalism projected some terms as: evolution, change, historical dynamism, canonicity, dominant trait, system & so on. This approach, in spite of the criticisms made against it, took the first steps in bridging the gap between synchronic & diachronic studies in literature. Moreover, Literature which has been served until then as a covering to prove the assumptions of historians to interpret the flow of history became the main focus of historical studies. Following a critical approach, this paper seeks to answer these questions: first, what are the theoretical origins of systemic formalism? Secondly, what are its possibilities & limitations in compiling a history of literature?

The study of Shariati's methodology in Islamology shows that his creativity and modernity in the different interpretation of religion is undoubtedly the result of his methodological innovations in applying the achievements of sociology and modern philosophy of history in redefining religious concepts and beliefs. Shariati's approach to Islamic studies can be placed in the context of the sociology of religion. Shariati has always considered the three components of historicism (attention to the background and historical role of phenomena), objectivism and systematic attitude as the main features of his method. Using an interpretive method with an analytical approach, this article seeks to show that Shariati's unique method in Islamic studies has paved the way for attention to new dimensions of religious texts and Islamic history, which has enabled him to have an ideological understanding of religion. In Shariati's approach to Islamology, special attention has been paid to the political and social capacities of Islam and the Shiite religion.

If we consider the understanding of human affairs, politics and community, with existentialist approach, as the foundation of Arendt’s philosophical and political thinking, so this paper tries to understand the meaning of understanding in Arendt’s thought and its relation to her philosophical hermeneutics. In this regard, we consider her interpretative approach in the text of tradition of hermeneutics, especially in Heidegger’s and Gadamer’s hermeneutics. The most similarities of Arendt, Heidegger and Gadamer about understanding, are their Emphasize on the uniqueness, newness and beginning every human being. They, also criticize essentialism, reductionism, scientism and historicism and emphasizing the importance of pre-assumptions in understanding. In their belief, understanding is circular, situated and worldly. Of course the most important similarity between their hermeneutics, is the will to deal with phenomenon. Above all, story-telling, showing the researcher as a unbiasesd viewer, use of differentiation and discrimination, functioning of paradoxes and analyzing them to achieve the understanding, and also use of taste and imagination, all are the special characteristics of Arendt’s phenomenological hermeneutics.

This study aims to examine the historical trends of undergraduate general education curriculum from 1934 to 2020 in Iran. By using documentary research methodology, relevant published and unpublished documents in well-known Iranian universities and research institutions as well as main Iranian databases were systematically investigated by keywords of “university general units”, “history of Tehran University”, “history of National university”, “university curriculum”, “University of Tabriz”, “University of Pahlavi”, “university general education curriculum”, “acts of Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution’s acts”. Thematic analysis with an inductive approach was used to analyze the data. The analysis of the policies of general education curriculum showed that since 1934 until now, we have experienced three forms of curriculum including: general education curriculum in shadow (1934-1966), obvious general education curriculum (1966-1979), and Islamic curriculum and public awareness (1982 - 2020). Results of this research could raise the awareness in describing the history of general education curriculum and how it was shaped in Iranian university context.

Existence of multiple viewpoints and sometime inconsistent regarding the concept and area of historical views in understanding of revealed context in contemporary scientist's thought has led to the necessity for typology and analysis of different views for achieving modest and regulated approaches. There are three different opinions among the contemporary scholars as follow: ''Historicity as a formation of revealed text in the context of the history''; "formation of revealed text under the control of Arabic culture: and "Historicity based on Philosophical hermeneutics principles". Current study via descriptive – analysis methods has shown that historicity is accepted when explains the historical evidence and event of the time of the revelation of the Qur'an and does not damage to the objective identity of revealed text of the Qur'an. Also, it has shown that some types of historical understanding like as "exegesis through philosophical hermeneutics" or "Contemporary literary commentary" because of some difficulties, must be correct and adjust. Therefore, the Noble Qur'an in addition to observing the realities of the life of the descending audience has a transcendental identity and does not change with changing environment Keywords: Critical Analysis, Historicity, Philosophical Hermeneutics, Contemporary Literary Commentary, Contemporary Scholars.

Copleston's approach to the East has evolved over time, leading to distinct earlier and later phases. He developed a deeper understanding of Eastern and Russian thought, distancing himself from his previous approach. Among his many works, "Philosophers and Culture" and "Religion and the One: Philosophies East and West" stand out as two significant books that employ a comparative approach. Rather than emphasizing the contrast between Eastern and Western philosophies, Copleston highlights their interaction and synergy, which broaden perspectives and enrich thinking. While Copleston's approach to comparative studies is historical, it differs from Mason-Ursel's historical approach. He views the expansion of vision and the enrichment of thought as the most significant achievements resulting from the interaction between Eastern and Western thought. Key considerations for comparative scholars include gaining familiarity with the outlines of philosophies from other cultures and their respective languages, avoiding hasty dichotomies and inaccurate generalizations, and emphasizing the importance of presuppositions.

Comparison between philosophers and philosophical systems has been there since the beginning of the history of philosophy until our time, as Farabi in his book, Al-Jam’ Bayn Rai’ al-Hakimayn, somehow has comparatively studied the viewpoints of Plato and Aristotle. Nevertheless, it was Paul- Masson Oursel, who in the early twentieth century, through a historical approach, focusing on Western thought, launched an integrated methodological discussion of this issue in his book, Comparative Philosophy (1931), and comparatively studied philosophical viewpoints and idea. The present paper, while reflecting on the nature, possibility, conditions and objectives of comparative philosophy, is an attempt to study the intellectual and cultural backgrounds of the idea of comparative philosophy and condition and pathology of its teaching and research in contemporary Iran. Also in a positive step, attempts have been made to introduce and analyze three models of comparative philosophy in contemporary era – that is, the comparative approaches of Étienne Gilson, Henry Corbin and Toshihiko Izutsu in the light of their comparative works – which underline the possibilities and limitations of comparative philosophy with regard to the tradition of Islamic philosophy. Reflecting on the pivotal status of Kant in the history of Western philosophy and significance of paying attention to it in comparative philosophical studies constitute the concluding part of this paper.

Following the communism pattern governing on urban spaces before the independence of Georgia, urban views and buildings architecture also affected by socialist ideas. However, the overall structure of today’s city in Georgia is following the general face of that pattern, but in the years after independence and separation from the Eastern Block, increasing political, social and cultural communication with West, parallel with the trend to globalization and attempt to attract more tourists, this change has been intensified. In recent years, adopting two approaches of “traditionalism” and “westernism” are the predominant approaches in the architecture and city development of Georgia. First approach is to return to the traditional forms and the components governing on it which can be seen in architecture, landscape and urban design, especially in new cities. In this approach, classic patterns using stony materials with high details which is one of this area’s architecture properties is performed in views of buildings with various applications. The second approach is constructing form-oriented buildings and using modern urban elements for creating a new identity and attracting tourist. These grammatical structures, regardless of native aesthetic values and regardless of cultural and social background play the role as visual focus in cities. However, the tradition-oriented approach in building architecture and urban spaces can be considered as an effort to set identity for the landscape of the area cities, but this approach is diminished to the level of imitation from old architecture and formal loan-translation. Second approach with economic aims and competition with western countries regardless of cultural, operational, geographical and historical properties of this area has also resulted in only chaotic and eclectic face of city. The intersection and the problem of both current approaches is neglecting identity problem and the identity dimensions of future architecture in Caucasus. The identity meaning the continuity of a culture during the historyof a nation is forgotten in both approaches; in first approach with formal view to tradition and history, and in second view with fascination and pure imitation from western architecture. Continuing this process undoubtedly leads to cities without identity which are wandered in the search for a lost in history or an un-detected in west.