فصلنامه حکمت اسلامی
پیاپی 16 (بهار 1397)

In scientific discussions, sometimes discussions regarding legislation are examined under the heading ‘the theory of legislation’. Here, it is not clear why should one discuss the problem of the legislative theory at all. Aside from this, sometimes it can be seen that specific standards have not been taken into consideration for the definition of a view regarding legislation as a legislative theory. It is for this reason that it is not clear precisely what discussions must be presented in the structure of a legislative theory. According to the findings of this research project, the ‘theory of legislation’ is composed of concepts and the normative rules that rule over the process of legislation. By presenting a clear definition of the institution of law and the process of its formation as well as the obligations that rule over this process, it attempts to explain the problem of legislation in modern societies. It is hoped that by presenting a clearer picture of the necessities of legislation in the theory of modern legislation, the present paper as well as similar research projects can prepare the ground for discussions regarding the relation between this institution and its requirements with the values and ideology of the Iranian society and the normative systems that have been accepted in it.

Even though Avicenna was not bound to the popular religious beliefs in ontology and presented his own unique interpretation of the system of existence – to the extent that he was labeled a heretic by the jurists – he was very much affected by religious axioms in the field of political philosophy. This is true to the extent that in his ‘theory of government’ he connected religious axioms and his ontological ones. In his view, the true ruler is no one but the prophet and after him, the caliph that the prophet has explicitly delineated or his followers have specified is the only one who deserves to rule. He had a jurisprudential view regarding those individuals who rise up against the righteous leader or even those people who are apolitical with respect to him. Thus, he said that such people should be killed and that resisting them is an action that could bring one closer to God. According to Avicenna, the person who possesses a pure intelligence and is the closest of people to religion is the only one who deserves to rule.

Law is a concept that has a long history in western thought. Even with all of the intellectual-cultural upheavals that have taken place in the western world from ancient times till the modern era, it has always retained its importance and centrality [in the totality of knowledge]. In modern thought, law changed along with the fundamental changes that occurred in the relation between modern man and the world. This was such that the subject became the foundation of the world and everything else became the object of this subject. In this relation, law took on a new meaning. Better than anyone, Kant, one of the greatest philosophers of modern thought, depicted the concept of modern law under the topic of the relation of the subject with the world. According to Kant, with its subjective law, the practical intellect delineates the will. Thus, the intellect delineates and legislates. This delineation is the very concept of freedom in the modern interpretation of this term. Therefore, modern law is autonomous. In the creation of the practical law, it is necessary for the intellect to assume its existence. This understanding of the law is completely different from the common meaning of the term that is popular in our legal circles today. An analysis of it is important in the understanding of our relation with modern law, especially in the delineation of the place of law in foundations of religious thought.

Law is one of the most fundamental propositions of the modern science and system of rights. Even though this concept is self-evident, it has acquired many different meanings in the various schools of thought contained in the philosophy of rights. Aside from its historical nature, the transformation of the concept of law in the tradition of the positivistic school of thought in the west only has meaning in a total network of concepts, axioms, values and structures. From this point of view, in understanding the fundamental propositions of the humanities, by using an analytical method that proposes a tripartite structure of ‘apparent, hidden and hidden in the hidden’, it is possible to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of law in the positivistic legal school of thought. This methodology is not only innovative it also clarifies the profound relation between rights, politics and philosophy based upon consumer-like essence of the science of rights. The result of such a method will be the understanding of law as a historical concept that is founded on specific philosophical foundations, not law as a vessel that has the ability to accept any and everything. Since law is the center of the modern system of rights, the proper understanding of the concept of law is necessary for the understanding of the modern system of rights. It is only then that we can accept or reject it.

In the general meaning of the term, philosophy is divided into theoretical and practical philosophy. Sometimes, Farabi refers to practical philosophy as ‘human philosophy’ or ‘social philosophy’. It is the extension and reflection of theoretical philosophy in the actions and behavior of the human being. He understands practical philosophy to be a science the propositions of which can be demonstrated. Keeping in mind the properties of such sciences, it is possible to understand the distinctions of practical philosophy from the point of view of Farabi. One of these is that the propositions of this science are in accordance with reality due to the fact that they are certain. They do not depend on human convention. In the practical philosophy, if one wants to form a syllogism, then it is necessary to use certain premises. The propositions of practical philosophy are reports. They are not conventional in nature. Therefore, ‘must’ and ‘must not’ have no place in this science. The topic of practical philosophy is the voluntary action of man that plays a role in his felicity. Keeping in mind all of these distinctions, it must be stated that practical philosophy is a real science, not a conventional one.

Without a doubt, the progress and degeneration of societies occur within the context of the laws of science and social causation. The understanding or negligence of these laws can have positive and negative effects on the movement towards [social] ideals. The present paper seeks to answer the following vital question: ‘Aside from physical laws, are there also other laws that have an effect upon the progression of society?’ If so, then what are these laws? In this research, we have utilized the bibliographical-analytical method to analyze the social laws mentioned in religious texts from two standpoints:I. We have analyzed the effective factors. Aside from the material factors, there are four types of spiritual factors that play a role in the existence of the [desired social] result. These four factors are non-human factors and human factors. The later can be divided into the following: vision, behavior and action.
II. According to the results, the religious texts speaks of two types of traditions, absolute traditions that do not depend upon the action and behavior of man and conditional traditions that do. These traditions can be divided into principle and secondary traditions. The traditions that speak of the increasing or decreasing of blessings are principle and their social effects and consequences have been mentioned in the religious texts.

As a form of government, democracy is one of the most challenging of concepts in political philosophy. Plato presented two fundamental objections to democracy and in this way he became one of its first and most important critics. Nevertheless, democracy has tested numerous models throughout history. This is true to the extent that modern democracy is only apparently similar to classical democracy. Keeping this in mind, it is possible to ask, ‘Can Plato’s objections to classic democracy be applied to modern democracy?’ This article uses the descriptive-comparative method and analyzes three views regarding the possibility of applying Plato’s objections to modern democracy. According to the first and second view, it is useless to examine Plato’s objections in the modern era. This is because they are either invalid or because modern democracy is essentially different from classical democracy. For this reason, it is safe from the criticisms of Plato. The third view – that we coincidentally adhere to – accepts the substantial unity of the two democracies and also believes that the fundamental faults of classical democracy also plague in modern democracy.

The present article seeks to examine the problem of peace in the political philosophy of Sadr al-Mutallihin Shirazi. The main question in this discussion is the following: What is peace in Sadr al- Mutallihin’s opinion and what role does it play in his philosophy? In response to this question, it has been claimed that in the political philosophy of Mulla Sadra, apparently, all of the individual and social areas of the life of a human being struggle with the problem of peace. Peace is something that must be sought out in all three of the pillars of life, i.e. culture, politics and economics. Otherwise, it will not be possible to talk about peace. According to the Transcendent Political Philosophy, everything that destroys knowledge, safety and life – or in other words, social justice – is far removed from peace. From this point of view, it is possible to say that peace and war both accidentally occur for society. If justice exists, then peace exists and knowledge, safety and life are secured in society. However, if justice does not exist, then war and conflict will occur. It is for this reason that in Islamic philosophy a great emphasis has been placed on justice as a pillar of existence. Aside from knowledge and wisdom, it is one of the most important distinctions of the Islamic ruler and the Islamic government. Also, resistance has been formulated to oppose those who bar the path to the knowledge of God and who prevent people from living peacefully. Thus, its purpose is peace.

Until the first half of the 20th century, philosophers of rights introduced human rights as ‘natural human rights’. Therefore, contemporary human rights are the same natural human rights. In this paper we have utilized the bibliographical method of research and have taken recourse to induction and reason. They explained the conclusion of the comparison of these two types of rights in two sections. The natural and unnatural human rights have 8 similarities, the most important of which are the following: 1. Both of them mean merit. One is a natural merit and the other is an unnatural merit. 2. Natural and unnatural rights are both purposeful. 3. Regardless of whether they are natural or unnatural, rights always lead man to the acquisition of perfection. Also, natural rights have distinctions that are not possessed by unnatural rights. These can be summarized as follows: 1. They are all natural and essential to man. 2. Natural rights are stable and above time and space. 3. Natural rights can be proven through logical demonstration. 4. These rights must be secured. 5. All of these rights exist before legislation. 6. Natural rights are the source of legislation. It is for this reason that they are more important than unnatural rights.