نشریه معرفت سیاسی
سال هفتم شماره 2 (پیاپی 14، پاییز و زمستان 1394)

The present paper seeks through a general picture to show that there are two types of socialization of man: modern socialization which is based on the discourse of the proponents of social contract, and the socialization which is ascribed to divine nature. The foundations and implications of man in the first approach are represented in the desire for security in an environment of ambiguity and fear. In the second approach, because there is a divine covenant between God and man, the foundations and implications involve the fulfillment of the pledge, and inevitably bring love and happiness. According to the first approach, man is inherently selfish, individualistic and breaks the contracts and conventions. According to the second approach, man, because of the nature bestowed on him by God, assumes responsibility, is capable of managing trusts, is inherently social, and finds joy in passing through the stages of perfection.

The rationality of the epistemic and value system is based on epistemology, cosmology, anthropology and axiology. Since widely differing views are presented are on each of these factors, we must admit that we will have different types of rationality. Religious types of rationality are clearly differentiated from secular ones. Of course, we may find various types of rationality in these two spectra. It is clear that Islamic rationality is not the same as the Christian and Jewish types of rationality and it is wrong to assume that modern secular rationality is the same as ancient Greek or Roman secular rationality. However, each of these kinds of rationality has its own specific requirements and outputs. As a special way of managing communities, democracy may be approved by some types of rationality and rejected by other types. Considering democracy from the view of Islamic rationality, the present paper seeks to estimate the relationship between the two. Addressing this issue is important because many experts believe that democracy is the outcome of secularism and it develops only in the atmosphere when secularism prevails. This paper attempts to refute this claim and prove that the reverse of it is true.

In the foreign policy of Islamic state, all the theories about the principality of peace or war have serious ambiguities and drawbacks. Therefore, referring to authentic Islamic sources, especially the Quranic verses and traditions, as well as the words of Muslim jurists and commentators and reviewing the mentioned perspectives, the paper proves that none of these principles can be of any help to the Islamic state to formulate the foreign policy and determine the rules and regulations governing the foreign policy. Since the principality of war or peace is not an inherent one, and should observe other rules and laws, we have to look for the basic principle which governs war and peace. This paper seeks to prove that the principle of devotional service of God can be the basis for setting the coherent frameworks and strict conditions of the foreign policy of Islamic State, including the terms and limits of the rules and regulations which govern war and peace.

One of causes of failing to present the best ground for the political life of man to enable him achieve happiness and bliss is inattention to the role of the origin of creation in setting the goals and strategies of political life. According to the Qur’anic perspective, understanding man’s happiness as a member of the system of existence requires the knowledge of the origin of creation. This view, which has important implications affecting the political life of man, differs from the western view about life. Investigating Allameh Tabatabai’s works, especially Al-Mizan commentary, this study seeks to answer this question: What are the most important principles of the knowledge of the origin of creation in politics? The research is based on the assumption that we can infer from Allameh’s works, especially “Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Quran” principles like God’s ability, creativity, knowledge, ownership, divinity, and authority as the principles of the knowledge of origin in politics and identify many implications of these principles when designing the value system of political life.

Examining the theory of legitimacy in the political thoughts of Allameh Hilli and Ibn Taymiyya, this paper seeks through comparative study to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of their views and present a coherent theory about the political legitimacy which is derived from Islam and which is based on reason, the Quran and Sunnah. Using a descriptive- analytical method for highlighting the points of similarity and the differences between the two views, the paper concludes that Ibn Taymiyya has not been successful in his theorizing because of his misconception of the issue of Imamate. His views have some of the drawbacks like contradiction, holding that people should participate in legitimization, presenting non-realistic criteria, secularization of society and regarding corrupt and authoritarian governments as legitimate. Based on reason and Sunnah, Allameh Hilli’s theory does not have such drawbacks. He has been able to logically organize his view about political legitimacy according to true Islamic worldview and regards that political legitimacy originates from the legislative will of God, which cannot be realized except through a divine decree.

The notion of "national interest", because of being founded on Hobbe's political philosophy and the theory of “government - nation”, involves some principles and requires a specific form of activism in foreign policy the outcomes of which can clearly be seen in the increasing alienation of the nations and human societies as well as the never-ending competition and conflict among nations in attaining and protecting their determined interests. Analyzing the Islamic political philosophy, this study aims to analyze the theoretical foundations of the Islamic government’s interests in foreign policy through a descriptive - analytical method. Therefore, explaining some theoretical foundations such as the ultimate goal of social systems, and the need for cooperative services in the relations among the units, the current study seeks to prepare the ground for designing an approach to the concept of interest which is in contrast to the idea of national interest in terms of scope, depth and orientation.