پژوهشنامه متین
پیاپی 90 (بهار 1400)

This paper, for the first time, intends to bring to light the undiscovered and unknown role of Allameh Tabatabai in inception of the signifier of “independence” in Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution discourse with the help of discourse theories expressed by Laclau and Mouffe, Foucault, Robert John Wuthnow, and Randall Collins. In the meantime, this study seeks appropriate answers to the following questions: What was the role of Allameh Tabatabai in inception of the signifier of independence in Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution discourse? What are the social mechanisms behind publication and connection of Allameh Tabatabai’s thought with the inception of the Islamic Revolution discourse? Results of the current analysis indicate that although Allameh Tabatabai lacked a political and revolutionary strategy in the course of the Islamic Revolution, with the centrality of his theory of “Idrakat I’tibari” (Conventional Perceptions), he has revived the subjective position of the “interpretive philosopher” and manifested the role of non-mediated “political subjectivity” (thought production) and mediated political subjectivity (through his students, intellectual circles and discourse assemblies). Furthermore, he has practically played his role in inception of the signifier of independence in Islamic Revolution discourse through the media of philosophical-social statement of the dogma of “Al-Islam Hovalhall” (Islam is the final solution), clarification of the concepts of political independence, cultural independence, and elaboration of the priority of intellectual and cultural independence over political independence.

Revocable contracts are terminated as a result of such incidents as the death and incapacity of either party to the contract. An important issue concerning revocable contracts is the basis for dissolution of these contracts as a result of the aforesaid factors, which has been a matter of discord among Imamiya jurists and jurisprudents so that some jurists and jurisprudents consider dissolution of the revocable contracts an option coming from their revocability while some others have expressed other fundamentals for dissolution. In this research work, while reviewing viewpoints by Imamiya jurists and jurisprudents on the grounds for dissolution of the revocable contracts, we have taken into consideration Imam Khomeini’s views on the issue. Unlike Iranian law, the issue has not received due attention in Egyptian law. However, given the instances of dissolution in some revocable contracts such as lending contract, it can be said that in Egyptian law, the basis of dissolution of revocable contracts often rests on the will of contract parties.

Today, toleration is an important social and political behavior in addition to being an ethical pattern. Many philosophers have placed emphasis on the need for practicing social toleration along with observing such behavior in personal relations. Recommendations on observing this type of toleration come from pluralism based on certain viewpoints in epistemology. An instance is Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena, a theory that was generalized by John Hick and introduced into religious epistemology and also into the issue of salvation as a concept attributed to the Muslim mystics in order to ultimately serve as a reason for recommendations on social-political toleration. This work intends to narrate and take a critical approach toward the theory and generalization by Hick in a bid to introduce a substitute theory for pluralism. Based on the proposed model taken from mysticism and enriched by Imam Khomeini’s views, “man” is the origin of toleration as the best manifestation; hence, toleration is not a product of pluralism but an outcome of transcendental anthropology. This model results in distinction between beliefs on one side and their proponents on the side so that the person can be held at a position to be critical of the beliefs and procedures, to tolerate proponents of such beliefs and associated factors, and to avoid falling to the illogical outcomes of the pluralists or the shallow bias of the monopolists.

Until before Muhyiddin ibn Arabi, Sufis chiefly used Tajalli (the appearance and disclosure of God as Truth in Islamic theoretical mysticism) in its common sense in practical mysticism (intuitional epiphany). The theory of manifestation of Truth in theoretical mysticism of Ibn Arabi and his commentators has been already covered but manifestation of Truth in praying – that mostly focuses on the worshipping aspect of practical mysticism – has received less attention. The theory of manifestation of Truth in theoretical mysticism concerns the appearance or disclosure of God’s manifestations from the origin of creation and the return of these manifestations to the Almighty God that takes place in two ascending and descending circles. In practical mysticism, Tajalli is intuitional, described as a light falling upon the heart of the spiritual wayfarer. Manifestation of the Divine Light is a result of God’s friendship with the servant, a cause of intuition and spiritual growth and perfection, and promotion in the path toward the proximity to God. With respect to the applicable status of manifestation of Truth in praying in practical mysticism, we have reviewed views by Ibn Arabi and Imam Khomeini on this issue. Ibn Arabi’s practical mysticism is epistemological in nature, while Imam Khomeini has taken a wayfaring and mystical approach. His spiritual wayfaring is based on praying, seeking refuge in the Infallible Imams (AS) and based on epistemology introduced by Ibn Arabi. This research work intends to clarify the similarities and differences as well as the quality of thoughts and spiritual wayfaring in practical mysticism by the two influential scholars concerning manifestation of Truth in praying.

Today, crude oil is one of the most important economic resources, utilization of which requires foreign investment and interaction with international oil corporations through inking appropriate contracts. Joint venture contract is among agreements reached between an oil company of the hosting country and a foreign oil corporation as investor. According to the agreement, the contractor explores and produces crude oil in a specified area and according to the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract. The benefits are thus shared between the two parties. Despite the fact that joint venture contracts are used as an appropriate contractual model in some countries, there are some ambiguities concerning these agreements that question their capacity for implementation. One such ambiguity that makes implementation of these contracts uncertain is about the transfer of ownership and its contradiction with the principle of Nafy-e Sabil (no-dependence rule) as an important jurisprudential principle. Authors of this paper have reviewed various views and analyses and have come to the conclusion that joint venture contract is not in contradiction with the principle of Nafy-e Sabil in the sense of rejecting dominance of the foreigners on public property, thus it does not contradict public ownership of the oil reserves.

One of the decisive factors in studying a subject matter that immensely affects the results of the study, is the method of drawing conclusions based on the gathered data. If a researcher adopts trivialist approach toward an issue, his findings will definitely and deeply differ from the results produced by a researcher taking holistic approach. Since “ownership” is one of the most fundamental legal and economic issues, this paper intends to find appropriate answers to the following questions: What is the chiefly adopted method of Imamiya jurists in inference of ownership laws, is it trivialist or holistic in nature? Is it proportionate to the function and status of ownership concerning other issues? This paper has gathered views of the jurists, researchers and Muslim scholars in general, and Imam Khomeini’s views in particular, as the most outstanding jurist who has adopted independent reasoning and jurisprudence in administration of social affairs. In the end, we have tried to pick one of the two methods based on conceptology and understanding of the ultimate goals of “ownership” as a proper method of independent reasoning for inference on related rules.

The union or disunion of Talab (Quest) and Iradah (Determination) is one of the disputed issues among the scholars of Islamic jurisprudence. The difference of opinion stems from Kalam or speculative theology and the difference of opinion in attributing the quality of speaking to the Almighty God. The Asha’irah believe in speaking of God through the language of Quran, thus argue that Talab is different from Iradah. Imamiya jurists fall in two groups concerning the issue. One group believe in union of the Talab and Iradah due to the juxtaposition of the two and the belief in Kalam Nafsi (the concept that Allah's words subsist within Himself) like in Quran, while the second group reject juxtaposition of the two and maintain that it is possible to believe in disunion of the two while failing to accept Kalam Nafsi or God’s speaking through the language of Quran. Both believe in union of Talab and Iradah, but Akhund Khorasani and Imam Khomeini have adopted a different approach toward the issue. This paper has carried out a comparative study of Akhund Khorasani’s views as the first Usuli (majority Shia) scholar introducing the subject and Imam Khomeini’s views as a highly innovative personality in contemporary jurisprudential principles in order to clarify the differences between the two perspectives.