نشریه علوم سیاسی
سال سیزدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 49، بهار 1389)

Studying governmental verdicts issued by jurisprudents is an important subject in political Fiqh. An important question about governmental verdict is that if one is certain that a governmental verdict issued by a jurisprudent in contradictory to reality, is the verdict incumbent on him / her or not. On the basis of the person’s certainty and the reality, there might be four possibilities:certainty of contradiction to axioms of religion,certainty of contradiction to axioms of Fiqh,certainty of contradiction to an obligatory minor verdict,certainty of contradiction to expediency of the Islamic society.The incumbentness of governmental verdict is studied in regard with these four possibilities. The important one is the fourth. The jurisprudent’s verdict is incumbent because of to the jurisprudent’s being the most knowledgeable of governmental Fiqh, the supervision of expert jurisprudents on the process of issuing verdict, and the executive sovereignty of the jurisprudent in the society. As a result, if a person is certain of the contradiction of a governmental verdict to expediency, his certainty has no social value and his governmental verdict is incumbent because of his executive sovereignty. Others may only have scientific sovereignty, but obedience in the realm of social behavior only belongs to jurisprudents.

This paper is to study how jurisprudential and political Fiqh schools were formed during the 2nd and 3rd century (AH). The different attitudes and assumptions of the jurisprudents in that age towards sources and process of deciphering verdicts led to the formation of various jurisprudential schools. Theological understandings and the views of the founders of these schools towards the relationship between and vote and hadiths, or human achievements and divine textual data were much influential on this issue. This paper is to, after presenting a brief overview of these schools, elaborate on their differences and analyze how jurisprudential approaches to political issues were formed among the Sunnite scholars.

The present paper is to study and analyze the West's confrontation with political Islam discourse in the contemporary period. First, on the basis of an analysis of the features of the activation of political Islam, one can find out that the challenges between Islam and the West are based on strategic elements and signs of identity and civilization in practice. Thus, the key to mutual understanding and or any kind of antagonism is achieved through a true knowledge and finding common principles and characteristics, and ways of intimacy to remove challenges. As a result, mentioning the reasons behind the fear of the West from political Islam and the manners of their reaction at the level of civilization, the present paper embarks on the analysis of this confrontation in the present era.

Having an active role in justice-seeking movement and in making the kings to observe laws, the jurisprudents in the constitutionalist period Iran, when facing with new political issues, studied these issues and each adopted different positions in regard with them. Some considered them in accordance with religious laws and some against them. Others also tried to adapt them to religious laws. The present paper is to explain the different political positions adopted by jurisprudents during the constitutionalist period Iran in regard with new political issues such as the codification of constitution, formation of national majlis, freedom, equality, majority vote, election, and its causes.

On the basis of discourse analysis, this paper is to show how globalization can provide an opportunity for the Islamic world to unify. Although globalization may result in many challenges for the Islamic unity, it may create considerable opportunities for the Muslim's unification. Due to the universalistic character of the Islamic discourse, the West's antagonistic relationship to Islam has resulted in the unity of Muslims'. Thus, the West's antagonistic attitude towards Muslims has resulted in the Muslim's unification against a common enemy, i.e. the West.

An important intellectual challenge between the dominant Islamic thought, on one side, and the dominant political thought in the modern West, i.e. liberalism, on the other side, is the relationship between religion and state. John Locke is one of the major founders of liberalism who was interested in liberalism and tried to propose arguments for it. Based on Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, the present paper is to critically evaluate his ideas in this regard.

On the basis of a constructionist approach, the present paper is to systematically study the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s to produce a better and more cohesive understanding of its variables as compared to others. First, dominant theories of international relations, with an emphasis on realism, are briefly surveyed, then, it is explained why constructionism is adopted as framework to analyze the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Finally, through an elaboration on the epistemological, ontological, and humanistic foundations of theory in foreign policy, the prescriptive implications of the theory for the foreign policy of Islamic Republic of Iran are proposed

Spragens crisis theory, as one of the most important methods of political thought, has four stages: identifying and observing the problem, finding and analyzing the causes of the crisis, ideally reconstructing the political society, and finally proposing solution. To apply this theory, at least six requirements should be brought into consideration: the difference between the relationship between thought and time with crisis theory, cohesion of political theory, proving that political theory and the existing crisis are related, contextualism of the scholar, relativism and the difference between crisis theory and the sociology of knowledge.