جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « Morteza Motahari » در نشریات گروه « علوم اجتماعی »

Max Weber's approach as a sociologist is classified in the category of sociological micro-approaches, and his explanation of various phenomena is an objective co-explanation. Paying attention to the individual and explaining based on considering the position of the individual in the society has shown itself even in his opinion about the development of religion in the society. This article is written with the aim of understanding the criticisms obtained from the point of view of Morteza Motahari about Max Weber's views on the issue of the development of religion. It is written in an exploratory, descriptive and critical method, has reached this finding that religion is not a phenomenon with the origin in atheism, humanism or society, so that due to the changes and transformations of conditions and time, it needs to evolve and conform to the conditions. Comprehensiveness and compatibility of religion with reality are two basic elements for religion that prove it doesn't confront substantive changes. Also, the nature of religion has not changed in the course of history so that religion needs to be completed. The elements of all divine religions are the same, and no change has been made in these elements, so as to create the suspicion of change, transformation and evolution in religion. The Qur'an's point of view regarding the development of religion is an integrated point of view. That is, from the beginning of the creation of the first man to the last creature, this religion has been accompanied by Allah almighty with the aim of ensuring the happiness of the this world and the afterlife world with man and human society, and since the goal is the same, religion has also been comprehensive of this goal from the beginning until now.

The concept of freedom came from the constitutional era in the Iranian intellectual arena, but the philosophical reflection on it among Iranian thinkers is a more recent phenomenon. Among recent Iranian thinkers, Morteza Motahari and Abd al – Kareem Soroush, there have been deeper intellectual conflicts with the phenomenon of freedom. What are the similarities and differences between the two thinkers in terms of freedom? And what does Motahari and Soroush define in terms of freedom? From the perspective of these two thinkers, which dimensions and limits of freedom are they? The findings of this article suggest that Motahari is confronted with the phenomenological phenomenon of freedom with theological assumptions, and therefore he considers freedom as the existence of freedom and will in the human being, which is necessary for his spiritual excellence. While Soroush confronts modern liberal assumptions (and in particular the positivist methodology and pluralistic ontology), Freud considers freedom as the highest human value. At the same time, both thinkers, under the influence of Islamic and mystical beliefs, have two dimensions for freedom: internal freedom and outer freedom. Of course, Motahari emphasizes more on freedom of innocence and more emphasis on external freedom. Meanwhile, both thinkers of sharia and morality are considered red lines (circles) of freedom. The method of this paper is comparative

Present paper devote to explores the epistemology of view of Pierre Bourdieu and Morteza Motahari. This two thinkers with respect to their intellectual context and background, Each viewed with particular look at the issue of recognition, One with an Islamic philosophy insight and another In terms of Western Sociology, As everywhere in their thinking can be observed the difference between Islamic epistemology and Western epistemology. From Bourdieu perspective, Action intercede between The objective structures of society and actors subjective structures because their deeds are the main form of recognition. In contrast, Motahari calls,of society and nature, as internal and external sources of s knowledge which in a real organic relationship causes the production and transformation of knowledge. In this regard, in this article we are going to intend with a comparative study of opinions of both thinkers realized commonalities and differences in their thought and consider the issue of knowledge of their views

"The reasons for the decline of the Islamic Civilization" is a topic which has attracted many intellectuals and a lot of theorists have asserted various views to elaborate the subject. Morteza Motahari, one of the Iranian thinkers, had been preoccupied with the issue for years and had depicted a thorough roadmap to study the subject. He believed that reforming an attitude is prior to reforming an action, hence to improve the function of people in society, it is essential to transform their attitudes. Furthermore, the beginning of this reformation depends on people, because any reformation originates from the public and then moves towards the ruling class and the elites. Accordingly, Motahari wrote Dastan Rastan[1] to address the youth to the reformation of their views. The present study, through the method of qualitative-content analysis is seeking to extract the concepts that the philosopher was conveying to his young audience. Moreover, this study is trying to scrutinize the amount of conformity between the mentioned concepts of the work and the idea of the roadmap which Motahari illustrated for the revival of the Islamic Civilization. The findings of this study prove the issues achieved by the content analysis of the book are intensely in agreement with the philosopher's theory about the reasons of the decline of the Islamic Civilization.

Before the coronation of the Second Pahlavi, religious literature rarely noted the concept of Fitrah. After coronation of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in September 1941, however, the term and its theorizations found wider recognition in those magazines and newspapers aimed at promoting religious ideas. Gradually, Fitrah became a key concept in two significant ways: making a case for religion against criticisms raised by Marxists and secular critics of religion on one hand, and criticizing reactionary and superstitious interpretations of the religion on the other. Hence, Fitrah became so significant a tool in socio-religious struggles that it was called “the mother of all problems” of Islam by Morteza Motahari right before the Islamic Revolution. After the revolution, however, its moment was gone and the functions it had in pre-revolution era went obsolete. Thus, again, the concept was marginalized altogether. This paper investigates the socio-religious functions of Fitrah in the Second Pahlavi era.

AsadAbadi and Motahari contened that Believing in Ghada and Ghadar affects destiny of societies. The problem in this article is inspired by thoughts of Jamal-Aldin Asad Abadi and Morteza Motahari. Social theories of both thinkers about Ghada and Ghadar are studied by comparative method. Asad Abadi’s theory about Ghada and Ghadar is more historical-experimental, during the history of before and after Islam and its spatial domain is world history. On the other hand, social theory of Morteza Motahari is more historical- philosophical, about after the appearance of Islam and its domain is Islamic history and Islamic nations. Both thinkers believe that understanding of Orientals about Ghada and Ghadar is false. This false understanding is intentional and biased according to Asad Abadi’s view but unintentional and unconscious as a result of less information and excessive focus on Quran and less focus on thoughts of the prophet and Imams in Motahari’s viewpoint. Both thinkers believe in the positive role of unbiased Ghada and Ghadar understanding on development of Islamic nations. Nowadays biased understanding about Ghada and Ghadar in Islamic nations is a barrier to development and results in sloth and indolence.