درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Ayatollah Javadi Amoli has a relative comprehensiveness in religious studies and also in dealing with issues of political theology, including the areas of political theology, which has made him a prominent figure. (Importance) The article, based on Skinner's intentional hermeneutic method (method), has analyzed the relationship between Islam and the state with some interventions. Based on this, the main question is what is the type of relationship between religion and government in Javadi Amoli's view? (Main question) The hypothesis is based on the fact that, based on the subjective and objective grounds and the conventional norms in this field, Javadi Amoli, by rejecting the idea of ​​the separation of religion and politics, considers the relationship between religion and government to be based on the fundamental principle of God's absolute sovereignty and also the right to choose and creative freedom, and emphasizes government as a divine office. (Hypothesis) Based on this, some conclusions are: Javadi Amoli is one of the serious theorists of the integration of religion and politics and religion and government based on rational and religious evidence; a religious state is not contrary to the active role of the people, but it is not the only exclusive component either; government as a religious office; the role of reason in political legitimacy; Separation of legitimacy in the position of proof from legitimacy in the position of proof; an Islamic ruler over society does not have a mandate but rather a guardianship, and people accept his divine guardianship through expert experts; people have a fundamental role in the position of proof, but they do not have any role in the position of proof; the nature of Islamic rulings explains the necessity of forming a religious government; neither is imposition legitimate in the essence of religion, nor can a religious government be compulsory; man, by law, must accept religion and divine sovereignty; the decision to implement or not implement divine commands and laws in society is in the hands of the people; in a religious government such as liberal-democratic governments, the people's opinion and opinion alone are not the axis; the politics and government of the prophets (peace be upon them) is an ever-pure politics; two types of guardianship over the excluded and guardianship over the wise are mentioned in the Quran; an Islamic ruler over society does not have a mandate but a guardianship of the second type; The attorney is dismissed by the client, but the guardian is dismissed due to lack of conditions. (Findings)

In the post – Cold War world, cultural diplomacy has become a key instrument of the foreign - policy apparatus of modern nation - states, serving to influence nations — alongside governments — through culture, identity, art, values, and norms. Iran and India, as two modern nation - states with shared racial, cultural, and identity roots, have not succeeded in establishing a balanced relational interaction. Accordingly, this study seeks to identify which foundations and components play an objective role in redefining and constructing such a relational interaction. The research hypothesis posits that the historical – civilizational, religious – ethical, and scientific – cultural – artistic foundations can be effectively applied within the cultural diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. These encompass components such as the Persian language, shared scientific and literary figures, architecture, the Muslim community (particularly the Shiites), and extensive historical–civilizational ties. This applied study employs a mixed - methods approach (quantitative – qualitative), documentary research, and soft - power theory to analyze the subject

This paper examines the politics of human rights in Iran. It explores how the Islamic Republic reconceptualises and responds to the perceived ‘Western discourse of human rights’ and it highlights the tensions and compromises made between this discourse and Tehran’s official Islamic discourse. The main question of this article is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced ‘Western discourse of human rights’ and what effect has this discourse had on the human rights perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran? This article is based on the idea that the Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted a softer and more pragmatic position in the face of Western human rights. The paper suggests that Tehran’s human rights discourse is increasingly becoming a more resilient and dextrous site of ideological gravity in the maintenance of power for the Iranian state’s elite. The concept of human rights, as fleshed out in the Republic’s politics, has Islamic and Western dimensions which interact and entwine as the expediencies of Iranian political life play out. As such, Tehran at times adopts offensive (anti-Western) values and at others defensive (pro-Islamic) approaches. This paper argues that a third thus emerging in the Islamic Republic’s human rights discourse: the politics of pragmatism and compromise. The empirical evidence drawn from interviews and official documents supports this argument that the Iranian state is increasingly capable of using human rights as a foci of ideological legitimisation of the status quo – the Republic’s institutions which regulate and monitor human rights are seen here as ‘epistemic sites’. They define the borders of legitimacy and normalcy in human rights discourse and praxis in Iran. The data of this article is the result of a series of interviews and the method of the article is critical discourse analysis and tries to present a new narrative of human rights positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.