درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

This paper pays particular attention to three critical junctures in Iran’s contemporary history: The Russo-Persian wars of the 19th century, Iran’s occupation by the Allies in 1941, and the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Combining a constructivist approach to geopolitics with the theory of Social Reality Construction, this article argues that these series of wars in the past two centuries have created an intersubjectivity, making Iranians feel “lonely” when the very survival of their state was at the stake. While Iran’s geographical situation has brought the country to the core of the great powers’ attention, repeated foreign invasions or interventions seem to have reproduced a sense of vulnerability for the Iranians. This paper is constructed around the following question: Is there something embedded in Iran’s geography that betrays this land’s sovereignty and imposes loneliness? The conclusion is that there is no natural or geographical reason to justify Iran's loneliness in the international arena, but rather, a perceptual construct reproduced by the historical context of events. The imposition of great political powers to contain Iran in its geography and to make it a buffer zone constitute a spatial reality; however, the feeling of loneliness derives from the social construction of reality.

This paper compares Islamic teachings regarding Jihad with Gandhi’s Satyagraha or non-violent resistance. Abdul Ghaffar Khan, one of Gandhi’s Muslim followers, has argued that not only was Islam compatible with non-violent methods, but that Prophet Muhammad had taught his followers non-violent resistance hundreds of years earlier than Gandhi had. Scholars such as Eknath Easwaran have also reiterated this argument (Easwaran, 1999, 34). This paper on the other hand argues that Islamic teachings regarding non-violence are more complicated than what Khan proclaimed. The verses of the Quran regarding Jihad or struggle can be divided between the revelations in Mecca, during the first thirteen years of the Prophet’s campaign, and the final ten years of his life, after he and his followers immigrated to the city of Medina. In the first thirteen years, Prophet Muhammad preached non-violent resistance even though Muslims were under severe pressure and prosecution. During this period Islamic teaching are quite compatible with Gandhi’s Satyagraha. However, after the new Muslim community immigrated to Medina and formed an Islamic government it came under the threat of annihilation by a foreign invading army, at which time Islam and its Prophet permitted defensive wars, unlike Gandhi’s teachings and Khan’s assertions. The paper concludes that Ahimsa may work only in the route towards power, whereas when the position of power achieved and an independent political community and its leadership formed, according to Islam, means of legitimate and justified violence could not be avoided altogether.