نشریه سیاست پژوهی ایرانی
سال سوم شماره 1 (پیاپی 7، بهار 1395)

Since creation of man to-this day, human communities have been influenced by political power in such a way that different groups have attempted to access to power and its control. Acquisition of political power put capabilities at the discretion of mankind that if not controlled pave the ground for rulers to lean towards misuse of power. Hence, world thinkers with different approaches to political power have used various tools to control it. In Islam, too, control of power has been further emphasized to the extent that it has pointed to design of specific tools from within man to control power, not to mention commonly used tools in the world. Among the Islamic thinkers in modern world, Imam Khomeini (ra) as revitalizer of Islamic thought and unifier of theory and practice of Islamic thought has paid serious attention to this momentum. But how? So this question faces us that in political thinking of Imam Khomeini (ra), how political power can be controlled by means of internal tools? The present article has come to the following results by applying an analytic-descriptive method Imam Khomeini (ra) believes in tools like justice, faith, piety and knowledge of Islam and law for internally controlling of political power. These tools are assumed to holders of political power and rulers of Islamic community and thus public soul and property are not assaulted. This is because these internal tools in harnessing rebellion and abusing power play a role in particularly control of power from affliction to corruption.

Peace stands in contrast to war and it is one of the two ways that constantly faces followers of religions and schools confronting those who reject their beliefs. In Islam, none of war and peace is the main principle; it is circumstances and situations that determine each of them just as each of them has conditions and red lines in Islam. In order to elucidate must’s and must not’s of peace in the eyes of Imam Khomeini (ra), the honorable descendant and outstanding spokesman for Islam in modern times, the red lines of peace have been examined in two parts: The red lines concerned with different situations and circumstances are like that peace must not threaten Islam and Muslims and weaken authority of regime; peace must not enfeeble Islamic front in the world; peace must not leave us be negligent of enemy and enmity of enemy; peace must not be coerced; peace must not be humiliatingly rendered and disregard reciprocal rights; and red lines of peace are also related to people, groups and thoughts like peace with arrogant powers, peace with Israel, peace with tyrants and despots and peace with those trespassing the community and Islamic system.

Jurisprudents regard “Absence of Corruption and Loss” as one of the conditions to enjoin good and forbid bad, but Imam Husayn (‘a) launched his uprising although he knew the nature of his uprising as enjoining good and forbidding bad and failed to comply with the condition. Jurisprudents for justifying such strategy of Imam Husayn (‘a) have brought up likely things like “uncertainty of martyrdom”, exclusive path of martyrdom”, “permit of peace with enemy rather than its obligatoriness”, “mystery-laden movement of Imam Husayn (‘a)” and “drop of condition of no-loss with importance of obligatoriness”, but Imam Khomeini (ra) by theorizing the last thing has changed it into a theory and has put it into practice.

The author of article has tried to clarify on a subject-based method two features of citizenship features that is membership and partnership by presenting sources and Shiite legal-jurisprudent principles and by arranging its inclusions. Therefore, author has drawn this conclusion that membership is meant based on two bases of acquired nationality and subjected nationality because in the former, resolve, belief and faith remain as foundations meaning that every individual can embrace Islamic nationality by accepting Islamic ideology and receive membership in the Islamic community through a voluntary pledge (faith). In subjected nationality, people who want to co-live with Muslim citizens without having Islamic belief are allowed to take part in the Islamic community under circumstances and conditions (faith). Besides, conclusion drawn is that citizens are not restricted in participation, but they have limitations in right of partnership in political administration or right of being elected in political occupations (or partnering) and they cannot participate to occupy offices of nation’s political management only because they are citizens.

Hazrat Imam Khomeini (ra) is the first jurisprudent in political history of Shiism who succeeded in establishing a government and restoring theory of guardianship (Velayat-e-Faqih). To this direction, he viewed expedient jurisprudent in a different manner than before and further highlighted its governmental-social aspect than what it had been before. This is while earlier Shiite scholars pointed more to aspect of expediency in religious areas and individual obligations in their writings and the application of this momentum had been ignored in socio-political matters. Hazrat Imam Khomeini (ra) underscoring prophetic biography introduced the expediency as the basic tenet in perpetuating and maintaining the Islamic system; practically speaking, his political conduct represented his commitment to this vital principle in the Islamic community. The article author has tried to analytically and descriptively and based on library research data deal with theory of expediency in thinking and practice of Hazrat Imam Khomeini (ra).

It seems necessary to recognize stands and functions of US and EU as to their role-plays as two major effective actors in international order. Some of the important international issues such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, Middle East peace process and particularly Iran and our country’s nuclear program have found considerable amount of capacities of US-EU foreign policy and diplomacy. Both powers try to pursue in their own specific way their interests and benefits in dealing with important matters of the world. In different times, this differential method has led to differences between both powers in global issues which if not scientifically checked shall be mistaken at the surface level or deeply and in the way of approaching them. Therefore, recognizing new and old areas of differences and their causes seems necessary so that the level and scope of these differences at different times might be learned by looking into these cases and a more realistic recognition can be reached. In this way, the effective potential of each of the two powers is understood considering their tools and facilities in international issues.