پژوهشنامه متین
پیاپی 98 (بهار 1402)

The history of political thought in Iran has been so far put on paper chiefly in view of the relationship between tradition and modernity. Without exaggeration, it can be claimed that the method of recording political thought has itself turned into a dominant and hegemonic discourse, making it hard for other discourses to emerge. Adopting an analytical-descriptive methodology, this paper tries to shed a new light on Iran’s discourses of thought through investigating the relationship between ethics and politics: political Islam or Islamist discourse, liberalist discourse and Marxist discourse.Theoretically speaking, there are three forms of relationships between ethics and politics: maximum metaphysics, minimum metaphysics, and no relationship between ethics and politics. Findings of the paper indicate that in view of the relationship between ethics and politics, the Islamist discourse is of maximum metaphysics, hence seeking maximum ethical interference in politics. To that end, Iranian liberalist discourse is of minimum metaphysics favoring least ethical intervention in any aspect of human life. Given certain theoretical foundations constituting its pillars, the Iranian Marxist discourse believes in separation of ethics from politics.

Death anxiety has been one of the most important concerns of human being since recorded history. This is a significant issue since the majority of thinkers have talked or written about it anytime anywhere. Since any approach toward death is affected by any individual’s worldview, three approaches may be distinctively argued on death and issues surrounding it: philosophical, ethical and mystical.In view of Imam Khomeini, the three approaches are intertwined. This paper intends to adopt a descriptive-analytical study on Imam Khomeini’s works in order to find and analyze his opinions about each approach individually. In philosophical approach, he follows Mulla Sadra’s line of thought about the issue of death, i.e. death is interpreted as the existential development of soul and its perfection. On this basis, Avicenna’s attitude toward death, its clarification and causes of death are criticized. His ethical approach toward death results in some consequences such as lack of death anxiety, readiness to embrace death, and adopting a non-absolutist attitude toward the material world. Death as a choice and mystical annihilation are two most important arguments in relation with death that have been covered in Imam Khomeini’s mystical approach. In this approach, he describes death as a means of “piercing the veil” that is interpreted in different ways depending upon the spiritual standing of individuals. In sum, although Imam Khomeini’s general approach toward death is in the same line with Mulla Sadra’s approach, his independent opinion and multidimensional personality have enabled Imam Khomeini to look at the truth of death from a higher position and meticulously analyze issues surrounding death.

The need to protect life and prohibition of suicide – either in action or omission – is a religious necessity as signified by various verses and narrations. At the same time, there is lack of consensus in its inclusiveness regarding some issues such as in cases where avengers of blood are ready to accept financial compromise to forbear Qisas for life. Accepting this by the Qisas for life convict is not yet certain, provided that the killer can afford such payment. Imam Khomeini has rejected such legislation for the Qisas for life convict. In this paper, we have analyzed reasons by the authors for and against Imam Khomeini’s opinion. These reasons encompass a wide spectrum of verses, narrations, rational reasons, invocation to void consequences, etc. Findings of the paper show that those believing in lack of such obligation seem to be more acceptable. However, with respect to some rules and principles, adopting a precautionary approach is advised since it helps adopting a mid-way between opinions for and against such legislation.

Divisibility or partial rescission of contract is one of the guarantees for execution of contracts widely accepted by majority of legal institutions and international systems in developed countries. This option helps partial execution of contract instead of total revocation or complete enforcement of the contract. Thanks to its special qualities, installment contract has been paid due attention in terms of divisibility to the extent that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods has enacted certain articles about it, emphasizing divisibility of installment contract with approach highlighting its efficiency. Since there is no such solution in Iranian law, particularly in terms of installment contract, in this paper we have tried to first present a precise definition of installment contract on one hand, and present solutions from Imamiyah jurisprudence, with Imam Khomeini’s opinion included, for divisibility of installment contract. On the other hand, we have tried to investigate some criteria of economic analysis approach to prove that accepting divisibility will boost the efficiency of installment contract.

The current age is full of regional wars in the Middle East and defending the land and frontiers of Islamic Republic of Iran based on geostrategic theories is not restricted to the national geography of this country. The question of how to defend the country at this juncture is an issue of contemplation by the legal and political circles and thinkers, i.e. diplomacy and action. This paper, developed through an analytical-descriptive method and by using library tools has come to the conclusion that a glance at the jurisprudential fundamentals indicates that self-defense, i.e. use of force to avoid damage is obligatory. A clear example of this is the use of force for defense as exception to the principle of prohibition of resorting to force. Of course, jurisprudential approaches toward the issue are sometimes accompanied by differences. The necessity of jihad for defense is not conditional to the decision of the infallible leader or his private or public vicegerent. However, with the presumption of formation of a powerful Islamic rule headed by just and obedient leader, if possible and in case of lack of serious damage for delay in defense until legal permission, defense at the permission and based on the decision of a legitimate leader will be permissible upon his discernment. This paper, reviewing differences in opinions over the issue, intends to clarify self-defense in view of Islam as well as its jurisprudential fundamentals, the extent of jihad for defense, including defense of Islam against conspiracies of the enemies, defending the land and territory of Islam, defending Islamic states, defending Muslim citizens of Islamic states and other believers, and finally terms and restrictions of jihad for defense, concentrating discussion of the issue on Imam Khomeini’s viewpoints.

This paper intends to analyze theological arguments in recent years on the fifth generation of revolutionary theories. After the Arab Spring in 2011, given the characteristics of these revolutions, continuous debates took place on how to clarify and analyze these developments. In 1980, Goldstone argued three generations of revolutionary theories, followed by Foren (1993) and Goldstone (2001) who introduced fourth generation of revolutionary theories that unlike third generation, placed more emphasis on revolution as agent. The question of this paper is the emergence of fifth generation of revolutionary theories. Within less than a decade, revolutionary scientists (Allinson, Adams, Laveson, Bayat, Beck, Ritter, Eslim, Donn, …) have extensively argued revolutions in the past three decades (since 1989) and questioned capacity/incapacity of the fourth generation of revolutionary theories in clarifying and analyzing these revolutions. This paper will review such arguments and analyze the fourth generation of revolutionary theories through a critical analytical method to argue the emergence of the fifth generation of revolutionary theories. Results show that revolutions in the past three decades lacked essential components of the fourth generation of revolutionary theories, in particular, ideology, leadership, and revolutionary organization). Therefore, with the help of works by later revolutionary scientists (particularly Bayat (2017), Loveson (2019), Allinson (2021, 2019), and Adams (2021, 2019)) some characteristics of the new generation of revolutionary theories will be accessible according to which, “revolution” has found a new definition, i.e. “collective protest action, sudden (to some extent), relatively calm, nonviolent, coupled with mass mobilization, by extensive use of cyberspace and social networks, without unified leadership and ideology, along with political overhaul in line with democratization of procedures of governance”. The majority of revolutions in the past three decades have taken place against one-party dictatorships (socialist regimes), autocratic dictatorships (despotic single-person regimes in MENA (Middle East and North Africa)). Therefore, despotism has been the cause and ground for revolutions and their consequences have been political (overhaul of political system). Moving away from social revolutions (Skocpol, Foran, Goldstone), and ideological revolutions (Foran, Goldstone), the “new” revolutionary theory is after analyzing a procedure that has caused a political overhaul in despotic regimes.

The rule of bona fide and contract of bailment are two important principles in extinguishing liability. Readdressing these two principles is important given the fact that in the majority of jurisprudential texts they are invoked for extinguishing liabilities. However, there is no clear-cut demarcation in the words of jurists in relation with inclusiveness of the two principles. Understanding proportionality of the two principles can bring about important effects on the majority of jurisprudential and legal issues. From among the arguments Imam Khomeini has made in his jurisprudential works, it can be understood that the issue governing the rule of bona fide is the permission by Sharia law and rationals for its loss or corresponding action. Therefore, wherever exigency of loss is stronger than its corruption, it shall be a reason for enforcement of the rule of bona fide. For that reason, the issue of contract of bailment is indelible and the permission by owner and Sharia law go counter to exigency of loss and corresponding action. Also, Imam Khomeini’s approach toward the two principles regarding their relationship with the general evidence on liability is this that removing rule of bona fide from the evidence on liability is a specialized issue and withdrawal of the contract of bailment depends upon specification of generalities. This paper studies the effects resulting from clarification of the substantive difference between the two principles, among which lack of possibility to stipulate responsibility and liability in rule of bona fide and the possibility of conditioning liability in the contract of bailment can be underscored.