https://andishehsiyasi.ri-khomeini.ac.ir/ The Journal of Political Thought in Islam en daily 1 Sat, 21 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0330 Sat, 21 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0330 https://andishehsiyasi.ri-khomeini.ac.ir/article_236743.html This research aims to explain the fundamental role of ontology in the formation of political philosophy and compare it in the three traditions of Christianity, Islam and modernity. The main argument of the article is that every political philosophy, before being a set of political propositions, is based on an ontological view of the three basic components of "God", "nature" and "man". Accordingly, the article first presents a three-fold model for the analysis of ontology and then shows how the difference in understanding the existence of God, the nature of nature and the nature of man leads to fundamental differences in political concepts such as freedom, justice, legitimacy, sovereignty and the relationship between religion and politics. In the pre-modern Christian tradition, ontology is based on the axis of original sin and existential hierarchy, and this has led to a politics based on obedience, abstinence and separation between the "city of God" and the "earthly city".In the Islamic tradition, monotheistic ontology, relying on the concept of "human caliphate" and divine continuity in existence, has laid the foundation for a political philosophy that emphasizes justice, moral responsibility, and harmony between nature, society, and the divine. In contrast, modernity, with its anthropocentrism and scientific naturalism, has removed God from the political process and redefined politics based on self-centered rationality, individualism, and social contract. According to the research findings, the fundamental differences between Islamic political thought and modern political philosophy lie not simply at the level of ethics or jurisprudence, but also at the level of ontology. As a result, political philosophy, without paying attention to existential and metaphysical foundations, loses the possibility of explaining its key concepts, and understanding politics inevitably depends on understanding existence https://andishehsiyasi.ri-khomeini.ac.ir/article_237227.html This article, employing an interpretive and inductive approach with a qualitative comparative method, investigates and contrasts the perspectives of two prominent thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood, namely Hassan al-Banna (the founder) and Rashid al-Ghannushi (leader of the new generation), regarding the concepts of "party" (Hizb) and "partisanship" (Tahazzub) within the Islamic political system. The central question is whether the ideological differences between these two representatives of the Brotherhood's intellectual evolution across two distinct historical periods can be attributed to temporal, spatial conditions, and socio-political transformations. Through content analysis of primary sources (works of al-Banna and al-Ghannushi) and secondary resources, the research findings indicate that while both emphasize the unity of the Ummah and the comprehensiveness of Islam, al-Banna, operating within the colonial context of Egypt, held a negative view of partisanship, considering it a source of division and societal weakening rooted in Western political concepts. Conversely, al-Ghannushi, shaped by experiences of exile in Egypt and France and witnessing Tunisia's democratic transition, perceived partisanship as a tool for political participation and achieving power within an Islamic framework, eventually leading the Ennahda Movement to formally become a political party. These differences largely stem from the contrasting political and social environments where these thinkers lived and were active, as well as evolving perceptions of the role of parties in modern societies. Al-Banna emphasized an organic Islamic society rejecting Western-style parties, whereas al-Ghannushi, influenced by democratic realities, integrated party politics into his Islamic framework. Therefore, the evolution of Brotherhood thought from a resistance movement to an established political force signifies an ideological flexibility in adapting to new realities, reflecting the dynamic nature of political Islam. https://andishehsiyasi.ri-khomeini.ac.ir/article_237672.html The nature of science and social reality has always been of interest to Muslim thinkers and sociologists. The main goal is to express the understanding of Muslim sociologists of science and social reality. Is the social reality intended by Muslim sociologists the same social reality as in Western sociology, or, despite the commonality of terminology, is the understanding and explanation of social reality from the perspective of Western sociologists different from the understanding of social reality by Muslim sociologists, and Muslim sociologists try to examine social realities through distinct perspectives, methods, and concepts? The basic research method of the study is descriptive-analytical, the data collection method is library and documentary research, and the data analysis method is qualitative research due to the nature of the research. It was conducted based on a review of the texts of two Iranian sociologists, a Palestinian sociologist living in the United States, and a thinker of Turkish descent. The findings of this study show that the attitude towards science and social reality from the perspective of Muslim thinkers and sociologists, although in terms of form and content, is largely influenced by sociology and Western sociologists, there are also fundamental differences between the two fields of sociology and the two groups of thinkers and sociologists. Conclusion: The holistic view of physics and metaphysics and the perception of the natural world as divine revelation accepts realities and social reality as divine revelation, and such an attitude constitutes the fundamental difference between positivist sociology and the sociology that Muslim sociologists deal with in the form of social reality. https://andishehsiyasi.ri-khomeini.ac.ir/article_239288.html Within the contemporary field of political and theological thought, the relationship between man and resistance constitutes one of the most fundamental philosophical questions of modern civilization an arena where the crisis of modern man signifies an existential rupture from the sacred realm and an exile of meaning from the horizons of reason and politics. Anchored in the philosophical outlook of Imam Khomeini’s (r.a.) Letter to Mikhail Gorbachev, this study re‑examines the formation of the Divine‑oriented (theomorphic) human and his function in shaping the semantic structure of a theology of resistance a realm in which the monotheistic human as the existential manifestation of divine presence, The central inquiry asks how, within Imam Khomeini’s intellectual system, the transitionfrom the self‑grounded material human to the Divine‑oriented human gives rise to a new logic in Islamic political philosophy, and how this logic when confronted with the crises of modern rationality—configures the architecture of theology of resistance and sacred governance. The research aims to uncover the anthropological foundations of tawhidi (monotheistic) knowledge and to explain their theoretical and civilizational implications in redefining justice, power, and freedom within the framework of Islamic governance.Methodologically, the research employs a qualitative, network‑based thematic analysis informed by Quentin Skinner’s intentionalist hermeneutics, treating the Letter as a founding discursive unit encoded at linguistic, philosophical, and historical levels. Over one hundred initial themes were extracted and clustered into four overarching and twenty‑four organizing themes: (1) the Divine‑oriented human and the theology of resistance; (2) innate disposition (fitrah) and monotheistic rationality; (3) critique of material anthropology and the horizon of the sacred; and (4) Islam as a system of epistemic and social salvation.Findings reveal that Imam Khomeini transforms reason from an instrument of calculation into a light of presence, and politics from a mechanism of domination into a system of meaning. https://andishehsiyasi.ri-khomeini.ac.ir/article_240589.html The Fadak Sermon is a foundational text of early Islam in which speech functions not merely as a legal claim but as a discursive act that reconstructs the criteria of truth, justice, and legitimacy. Existing studies have largely examined the sermon within the historical dispute over Fadak or as a theological rhetorical text, giving limited attention to how it redefines the very standards by which political and legal legitimacy are judged. This study addresses this gap by examining the logic through which “truth” and “legitimacy” are articulated in the discourse of the Fadak Sermon.Employing a qualitative analytical approach, the research draws on van Dijk’s cognitive-oriented critical discourse analysis, together with Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of hegemony and articulation and Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic capital. The corpus consists of the full text of the Fadak Sermon and syntactically and semantically parallel Qurʾanic verses. Analysis is conducted across linguistic, cognitive, and socio-power levels.The findings show that in the discourse of the Fadak Sermon, monotheism (tawḥīd) operates as a prior cognitive-political criterion for judging justice and legitimacy rather than as a purely doctrinal belief. By articulating concepts such as truth, justice, and obedience around the central signifier of monotheism, legitimacy is constituted as symbolic capital whose validity depends on alignment with the divine order. The article’s main contribution lies in proposing a concise analytical model for understanding the discursive production of legitimacy in religious-political texts without reducing them to political prescriptions or purely historical interpretations, while clarifying mechanisms of authority, judgment, and normative evaluation. https://andishehsiyasi.ri-khomeini.ac.ir/article_241297.html This study examines and compares two scholarly perspectives—the "Possibility" and "Impossibility" schools—regarding the applicability of Mulla Sadra's political philosophy in constructing an Islamic government. The primary objective of this research is not merely to prove or disprove such applicability, but rather to investigate, evaluate, and comparatively analyze the text-based arguments advanced by each intellectual camp (represented by Lekzayi and Sadr in the Possibility school, and Tabatabaei and Davari in the Impossibility school) in support of their respective claims. The research employs a qualitative, descriptive-analytical methodology based on library research and systematic content analysis of primary and secondary sources. The findings indicate that the fundamental difference between the two schools lies not only in their conclusions but also in their methodological approaches to interpreting Mulla Sadra's texts and their historical-social readings of the Safavid period. The Possibility school, drawing upon concepts such as "the primacy of existence" (asalat al-wujud), "substantial motion," and "Wilayah" (Guardianship), extracts a coherent political system from Sadra's works, emphasizing the compatibility of Transcendent Wisdom with Islamic governance. In contrast, the Impossibility school, emphasizing the "decline of political thought" in post-Farabi Islamic philosophy and the "reiteration of al-Farabi's ideas," regards the practical application of Sadra's philosophy as unfeasible for addressing contemporary political challenges. The study concludes that the feasibility of implementing Mulla Sadra's political philosophy depends on the manner in which these arguments are critically interpreted, contextually adapted, and methodologically re-examined in light of contemporary conditions. Ultimately, this research underscores the necessity of moving beyond binary interpretations toward a nuanced, critical engagement with Sadra's philosophical legacy for meaningful political theorization in the Islamic world today. https://andishehsiyasi.ri-khomeini.ac.ir/article_241684.html Abstract:The Gülen political–social discourse emerged in the 1970s around the central signifier of “service” (hizmet) and gradually evolved into a transnational religious–social movement. Within this discourse, service to society is articulated through concepts such as modern education, science, Islamic ethics, and intercultural dialogue, forming a coherent chain of equivalence. By synthesizing Islamic teachings with modern values, the Gülen discourse seeks to reconcile religious faith with scientific advancement while emphasizing pragmatism, social responsibility, and the active role of civil society. From the 1990s onward, the movement significantly expanded its educational, academic, and philanthropic activities beyond Turkey, extending its reach to Central Asia, Europe, the United States, and Africa.Employing Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, this study examines the transformation of the Gülen discourse in the context of hegemonic crises and sustained political pressure, addressing how the discourse has undergone processes of change, contestation, and reconstruction over time. The findings demonstrate that, in response to power struggles and discursive exclusion, the Gülen discourse has strategically rearticulated its religious and cultural foundations. In contrast to the authoritarian discourse of the Erdoğan government—characterized by a crisis of meaning—the movement has sought to maintain internal cohesion and diasporic legitimacy through the reconstruction of its discursive order and a renewed emphasis on service, education, and dialogue."The Gülen Movement, a prominent example of demonstrates that the success of a religious–civic movement is contingent upon its capacity to foster internal cohesion, manage differences, remain flexible in the face of crises, and engage intelligently with the global environment.