نشریه علوم سیاسی
سال سیزدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 50، تابستان 1389)

The Umayyad period is the period when the theological debates initiated at the age of the first four rightly-guided caliphs turned into politico-theological controversies. In this period, there existed particular politico-theological controversies, among schools and sects such as Murji’ah, Kharijis, Mu’tazilah, Zaydiyah among others, which had considerable impacts on the socio-political developments of the period. Participating in the politico-theological debates and controversies of the time, Imam Baqir played a crucial role in preparing the grounds for the establishment of the Imamiyyah School in two respects. On the one hand, his debates and activities had theological characteristics and, alongside critically evaluating the principles of other schools, established the foundations and principles of the Imamiyyah School. On the other hand, he founded the basis of the Imamiyyah Shi’a political thought through criticizing the ruling political apparatus and common political thought at the time. After an overview of the politico-theological controversies of the Umayyad period, the present paper embarks on the elaboration of the Imam Baqir’s contribution in terms of politico-theological debates and controversies.

Social changes have always been one of the concerns of scholars. The present paper is to clarify the role of Imam Baqir in changes, focusing on culture and politics. Referring to historical evidence, the writer tries to identify the Imam’s role in decision-making in the field of culture and creating examples in politics. He prepared the grounds for cultural change through establishing a university, devising scientific methods such as Ijatihad, and confronting deviational thoughts. In the field of politics, he promoted social changes through creating examples, advancing anti-oppression spirit, creating social integrity among the Islamic Ummah, promoting jihad, negative resistance, and gallantry.

According to Allahmeh Tabataba’ee, good, evil, and social justice are common social causes to which people refer in their social lives. Lack of, or neglecting, this common cause results in political despotism and social exploitation. In addition, he distinguishes between two types of good and evil: the good and evil of an act per se and the good and evil of an act after being done by an agent. The first type is a kind of “secondary intelligibles” [ma’qul thani] but the second is temporal [‘e’tebari]. Similarly, he applies the two concepts of ma’qul thani and ‘e’tebari in relation with social justice. Based on his conception of good, evil, and social justice, on the one hand, the possibility of referring to these concepts remains possible and, on the other hand, it is possible to modify and change them. For the first time, this paper addresses this issue and presents a specific analysis of good, evil, and social justice and their role in socio-political life of Allameh Tabatab’ee.

Political Fiqh, like any other disciplines, has its own particular concepts, method, and course of intellectual development, was initiated in a specific condition, and underwent certain changes to be as it is today. Understanding a discipline requires tracking the way it was formed and the changes occurred to its basic concepts. Thus, to understand political Fiqh one has to find out how it was formed and what changes its concepts went through. The establishment of the Safavid rule and its practical and theoretical requirements prepared the grounds for the development of the social concepts of Fiqh and for the introduction of new elements to the Shiite political Fiqh. This paper elaborates on some aspects of these works.

Globalization is one of the aspects of the increasing culturalization of social life. Thus, cultural plurality is the final fate of globalization and implies both diversity and unity at the same time. Despite its fundamental differences with secular foundations of globalization in its Western conception, the Islamic approach somehow recognizes cultural diversity in line with unitary trends. This will not lead to the uprooting of other discourses at time when the hidden Imam appears and the Islamic discourse dominates over the others. Thus approach can be reinforced through strong Quranic, traditional, rational, and historical reasons.

20th century was a century of fighting against imperialism and despotism in the Middle East. Along with the attempts of the agents of despotism and imperialism, a number of vigilant people took effective measures towards freedom and independence. However, not all of these resistance fighters were successful equally. Some, who knew the enemy and his instruments and strategies well and had comprehensive intellectual foundations, were successful not only in both arenas but in founding an alternative religious government with the support of their people, for instance, the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Another group, were partially successful in uprooting imperialism and expelling its agents, but they themselves inclined towards despotic rule and became the puppet of imperialism, like the revolutions in Algeria and Libya. The last group were not successful even in achieving their primary goals and suffered much expenses. An example is the Palestinian group, Alfath. Nowadays, its leaders changed their direction 180 degrees and are going astray from their first goals and positions.

Hassan Hanafi, the contemporary Egyptian intellectual, has analyzed contemporary intellectual movements in Egypt and the Islamic revolution in Iran. He classifies Egyptian contemporary thoughts into three major movements: religious reformism, liberalism, and secular scientific movement. These three movements, he believes, have turned into two antagonistic trends: Salafism and secularism. In their identification of the problems existing in the Islamic world, these three movements have similar attitudes. However, they have different solutions for the problems. He finally introduces a fourth trend alternatively called “post-fundamentalism”, “enlightened Islam”, or the “Islamic left” which does not accept a single interpretation of truth and promotes relativism and dialogue. Finally, the paper elaborates on Hanafi’s analysis of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the crises in the Islamic world.