نشریه معارف عقلی
پیاپی 40 (بهار و تابستان 1399)

Explaining the truly divine and religious government and criticizing other governments are considered as the preconditions of the scientific endeavor for the realization of the divine government in the world. The world of political thought in the past centuries has witnessed an emphasis on secular governments with popular legitimacy and the denial of religious government. Therefore, it is important to criticize the reasons stated in the political thoughts of influential theorists for denying religious government. One such theorist is Thomas Hobbes, a seventeenth-century political philosopher. In his book, Leviathan, he proposed the theory of government in Christianity and, using religious sources, denied the possibility of religious government before the reappearance of Christ; this part of Hobbes' political thoughts has received little consideration. This paper aims to criticize one of the theoretical sources of the denial of religious government in modern times; the sources by which the secular trends and the opposition to the religious government in the Islamic countries were influenced. Thus, in the present paper, Hobbes's narrative reasons for denying religious government and his religious arguments were criticized, and it was proven that Hobbes had numerous flaws in deriving the Christian government theory from religious sources. Hobbes not only lacks scientific competence, proper method, and sound foundations in deriving from Christian sources, but also has erred in interpreting and resorting to Christian texts. Hobbes' theory of religious government suffers from internal inconsistency as well as incompatibility with the tenets of the divine religion.

In addition to its socio-political aspect, unity has a religious precedence in political philosophies influenced by monotheistic religions. This paper investigates the possibility of social unity in Islamic political philosophy and its reasons. The purpose of this study is to prove the possibility of unity in Islamic society from the perspective of Islamic political philosophy. The origin of unity in Islamic political thought is monotheism. Therefore, monotheists have true unity. One of the characteristics of the issue of unity in Islamic political philosophy is the priority of affection over all the factors that create unity, even justice. The theoretical and practical possibility of unity in Islamic political philosophy is an idea shared by thinkers. Discussion of the effects of unity and its obstacles in the sources of Islamic political philosophy is one of the reasons for the possibility of unity from the point of view of Muslim philosophers.

The present paper seeks to address the extent of the Islamic Revolution of Iran's achievement in confronting liberalism and in challenging the widespread attacks of liberalism in the fourth decade of its life. Regarding this issue, it can be said that the Islamic Revolution of Iran has had very important achievements in the fields of discourse and civilization. In the field of discourse, Iran rejected colonial ideas supporting the separation of religion from politics, and confronted liberalism with serious challenges with discourses such as the principles of Tawalla (showing love both for God and for those who follow him), Tabarra (disassociation with God's enemies), and the rule of ‘Nafye Sabil’ (to prevent the Islamic society to be dominated by non-Muslims) and the export of the revolution. Also, in the field of civilization, Iran has had many successes in the cultural, political, economic and military areas. Therefore, using the analytical-philosophical approach, this paper examines the achievements of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in confronting liberalism.

Changes in discourses and metanarratives have led to changes in the quantity and quality of soft power sources, and from this view point, the position of power sources in different worldviews and schools goes different from each other. The Islamic Revolution, with its theistic worldview and its ideological manifestation in the form of Islam, presents a set of fundamental values and beliefs to the world. The Islamic worldview makes the attractive sources of Islamic system different from soft power sources in materialistic schools in terms of diversity, dispersion, depth and continuity. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the process of producing soft power for the Islamic Revolution by the substantive and structural resources of the Islamic system, such as divine legitimacy and the government of the Muslim jurist (Velayat-e-Faqih). Using the descriptive- analytical method, it investigates the application of this element in the creation of power, and in this way, provides a proper background for a precise understanding of the distinctions between the secularist and the theistic approaches to the subject of soft power.

Unitarism and pluralism are the two main trends in political thought based on which all the works of political philosophers from the classical to the contemporary era can be explained and interpreted. Social contract is also one of the most important theories in political thought that explains the transition of human societies from the natural to the civil state. The proponents of social contract (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) do not have the same explanation of civil state. Therefore, using the analytical-interpretive method, the present paper seeks to compare the views of the proponents of social contract in explaining the civil state on the basis of political unitarism and pluralism. The findings of this study indicate that three different models of unitarism and pluralism are inferred from the political thought of social contract. Contractual unitarism, democratic unitarism, and contractual pluralism are three models that emerge from explaining the position of the three variables of citizens, political groups, and government in the civil state in the political thought of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke.

Using descriptive and analytical method, this paper seeks to show the various manifestations of political participation in the Islamic government and examine its realization in some instances of this method of government. According to the findings of this study, in the Islamic government, various manifestations of political participation are realized, including preparing the ground for the formation of the government, protection of the government, participation in decision-making, obedience to the ruler, supervision on the ruler, guidance of the ruler and finally, accountability of the ruler. Attention to the aforementioned manifestations, that arise from the fields of political participation in the two spheres of religious beliefs and duties, facilitates the claim that, contrary to secularists’ ideas, the path to political participation is not blocked in the Islamic government; the priority of divine rules over citizens’ preferences does not mean ignoring their position and role in the management of society. Not only is the government based on the single and specific religion of Islam compatible with the basis of political participation, but also the participation of citizens in politics is one of the important and basic pillars of religious government.

Authoritarianism is a new form of despotic government that emerged in the early twentieth century. Western and Muslim scholars have examined its relationship to political theories and systems. Since some indigenous scholars have accused Islamic political philosophy of authoritarianism, it is necessary to extract the components of authoritarianism and examine their relationship with the foundations of Islamic political philosophy. Therefore, the present paper, using descriptive and analytical method, identifies the components of goal-oriented authoritarianism under the headings of "total domination" and "security" and then challenges them. Total domination is rejected because it is the result of the domination of the forces of anger and lust over the power of reason, so it cannot provide "happiness" that is the ultimate goal of politics. Moreover, Security cannot be regarded as one of the the ultimate goals of politics; rather, it must be placed among the intermediate goals that underlie the ultimate goals.