Philosophical foundations of Mahdavi Favorite State

The aim of this article is to present a Methodological role Model for developing the domain of Mahdavi favorite State addressees. AS the principle Monotheism, to be universal, should be presented in language of reason and logic, so Monotheistic Community by leadership of the last divine great Caliph executor should be also presented in the same way. For, either Islamic message, or need to favorite state ,I.e , justice-centered Monotheistic Community is universal and belonged to all oppressed people in all over the world. Based upon this necessity in this article philosophical foundations of Mahdavi favorite state has been studied by logical analysis of data. Findings of the research indicate that Mahdavi Ideal community is not similar to no one of Utopia proposed during history. In favorite Mahdavi State first Manager is Omnipotent and Omniscient God who submitted the leadership of favorite state on the globe to his Caliph, i.e , Messenger of Allah. In the first step the head of favorite state on the globe is the Great Messenger , but after him the responsibility of leadership is in charge of his executor who is same as him in all characteristics except receiving revelation; He is infallible in understanding Quran and behaving according to it as well, like messenger of God he is , so to speak, talker Quran.This mentioned state has not been operated yet,for the sake of people unpreparedness, those who have a fundamental role for establishing Mahdavi favorite state, despite of other favorite ones, but for the certain promise of Allah and reason verdict that non-stablishing mahdavi favorite state is breach of God purpose for creation, one day it will be stablished, human desire will be fulfilled and man will come to his dreams. It has been prepared the context for Logical possibility of this favorite political system for all eagers of justice and oppressed people with any school of thought, by proposing philosophical foundations of Mahdavi favorite state divided into epistemological and ontological and anthropological in the article and clarifying their differences with other ones.