فصلنامه شیعه شناسی
پیاپی 44 (زمستان 1392)

The Shiites of the Middle East, due to their geographical dispersion and residence in regions with high geo-economic value, enjoy a proper geo-political situation in the political and economic realms in the region and the world. On the other hand, some evolutions such as the Islamic revolution of Iran, the success of Hezbullah in Lebanon, the Shiites’ role in Iraq after Saddam, and the diffusion of Islamic awakening, have all caused the Shiite geo-politic issues to shine at the heart of the evolutions in the Middle East region. Accordingly, understanding the real status of the Shiite’s geo-political position as well as identifying opportunities and challenges facing it is an important issue. The present article poses the following question: “what are the opportunities and dilemmas of the Shiite’s geo-politics in the Middle East?” In this way, the article attempts to explain the Shiite’s geo-politics in the political and security evolutions of the Middle East region to identify the strong and weak points as well as the opportunities and threats facing the Shiites. To do so, the article uses a descriptive-analytical method and the SWOT model to offer a proper strategy for promoting the Shiite’s geo-political status in the Middle East region. The Analysis of the information about the Middle East Shiites shows that – due to their identity elements, the dynamic religious laws, and their geo-politically high value residence – the Shiites are able to step towards invasive strategies and using proper policies to improve the Shiites’ geo-political status in the region.

The present article explains the methodology of naturalization and granting identity to modern political concepts in Ayatollah Naeeni’s semantic system. In the framework of religious law using legal reasoning, he presents a picture of consonance between modern concepts and traditional ones, preferring tradition over modernity to grant an Iranian- Islamic identity to the modern political concepts. The present article explains Naeeni’s method for naturalization or granting Iranian-Islamic identity to modern political concepts to display the strengths and weaknesses therein. This shows his attempt to prove that there is no inconsistency between Islam and modern political concepts, as well as the necessity to innovate or consider a new method in naturalization or granting identity to modern political concepts.

By drawing the lines of the desirable future, Messianism organizes the internal dynamism of the existing situation. The result of this process for societies is facilitation of the affairs by granting hopes as well as accessing the desirable situation through excitability. In this view, dynamism and delight in societies depends on the level of furthering existing situation based on a desirable future; and messianism is a proper framework for explaining such a trend. The present study, in addition to exploring the concept of messianism, investigates its link with politics in Iran and America; and finally, in view of the differences between the elements of messianism in Christianity and Shiism, it reviews this link in the two countries.

The structure of doctrines, or religious dogmas, consists of some general notions set in a special way, used to refer to the body of Islamic fundamental beliefs. Muslim theologians have considered the structure of Islamic doctrines along with their content. This has been articulated in different ways. They have, sometimes, explicitly referred to a certain structure and even have justified it; and sometimes, they have merely used the books on structural doctrines for classifying their materials. The present article uses a typological perspective to investigate the views of Imamiya scholars on the structures of Islamic doctrines on a historical basis and show that those scholars, in the Occultation Period, have presented Islamic doctrines in five different structures as follows: (1) Dual structure (monotheism, justice); (2) Four-part structures type I (monotheism, justice, prophethood, imamate); (3) Four-part structures type II (monotheism, prophethood, imamate, resurrection); and (4) Five-part structure (monotheism, justice, prophethood, imamate, resurrection). In the present article, the turning points where various structures were rivaling one another, or turned into one another, are investigated.

The present study aims at investigating the reasons for Shiite-phobia and the ways to confront it. The main question of the study is as follows: “what is the reason for Shiite-phobia and what are the ways to confront it?” to answer the question, the present study was conducted in a descriptive explanatory way. Based on the findings, the enemy’s Shiite-phobia started with Islamic revolution of Iran; and the reasons are as follows: the Shiite’s rich and dynamic culture, the Shiite’s geo-politic situation, the Shiite’s God-centrism thought as opposed to the Western humanitarianism, the Shiites’ victories and strength in confronting enemies, the possibility to expand the Islamic revolution and to awaken the Muslims all over the world, as well as the idea of clash of civilizations and the Westerner’s concern about the Shiite’s victory in such a war. To confront this psychological phenomenon, the states, media and the elites of the Shiite societies must take effective measures to remove the consequences of this psychological invasion.

The Ottoman Empire, who had always been opposing the establishment of a strong government in the east of its territory, felt a threat with the establishment of the Safawid state. The Ottomans, who regarded themselves as the guards of the Sunnite Islam, knew that the religious leanings of the Ottoman citizens in Anatolia are very close to Safawid’s beliefs. Observing the great leaning of the Turkmen tribes towards the Sheikh Safi’s clan, they attempted to use the religious conflicts to control this process. Ottomans, who had seized power through the support of the same tasawwuf on which the Safawid based their power, felt this threat more and more. Thus, we may classify the factors effective in Ottomans’ reaction to the establishment of Safawid Shiite state into two gwnwral factors: religious and tribal. The present study uses a descriptive-analytical method as well as library resources to investigate the Ottoman’s reaction to the establishment of Safawid state, the actions taken by Bayazid II and Sultan Salim in this regard, as well as their incentives up to Chaldoran Battle.

A travelogue is, indeed, a written collection of observations and reports of a traveller based on his own views and opinions on social phenomena as well as the economic and political conditions of a society, a society he may have had but a temporary short access to. The details not much important for one’s contemporary historians may be of great importance for later historians because of the role these details have in reconstructing the political, economic, social and cultural conditions of that era. Thus, the part of a travelogue dealing with the traveller’s direct observations may be considered as a historical travel.The status of the Shiism and the Shiites has not been properly investigated yet. Thus, in view of this need and the importance of the information in these travelogues about the Shiites, they may be regarded as the first base for the orientalists to study the Shiites. Here, we have explored and studied a travelogue with its approach to study of Shiism. Although Shiite culture and art are not apart from Islamic culture and art, they have had special spiritual identity and images in different eras of Shiites’ political and cultural power. In the present article, we seek to focus on various aspects of Shiism and Shiites in Benjamin’s travelogue to call the authorities in this realm to more scrutiny and reflection.

Imam Ali would use a special type of argument against his opponents in the spheres of intellectual, doctrinal and political issues. His arguments were in a way that no opponent would be able to respond. In other words, based on the speeches and beliefs of his opponents, he would argue against them. This method is seen in his arguments against Muawiya, Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Musa Ash’ari, Qa’edin, Talha and Zubayr, as well as Kalib Jaramy and Ash’ath Kendi. Besides, he used the same method in rejecting the arguments of Muhajerin and Ansar who had gathered in Saqifa to seize the power of caliphate as their own right. Imam’s style was such that no one could reject. Never would Imam argue just based on his own beliefs without paying attention to his opponent’s speeches and beliefes.