Mohammad Reayate Jahromi
Abstract
Referring to the fundamental and universal principles of human rights, Allameh Jafari believed that the divine religions, and at the top of them, Islam, are the culmination or peak of human rights. The comprehensiveness of Islam is evident and obvious in explaining rights and duties from its attitude ...
Read More
Referring to the fundamental and universal principles of human rights, Allameh Jafari believed that the divine religions, and at the top of them, Islam, are the culmination or peak of human rights. The comprehensiveness of Islam is evident and obvious in explaining rights and duties from its attitude to human being as "universal man" in the form of "universal face". Referring to natural roots of five bases of universal human rights, he believes that they believe that Islam and the West have an "eighty percent" agreement on human rights. Islam also emphasizes the principles of the right to life, human dignity, education, liberty and equality and in some cases, including Islam's specific look at the definition and value of humans, there is a twenty percent difference between Islam and the West. But in Kant's thought, the rules of human rights are “priori” rules of practical reason. Kant says fundamental rights are "universal". Allameh accepts these rights and emphasizes on the necessity of their adjustment according to the norms of other cultures. The Kantian human rights are rooted in reason, not revelation because they are derived from the text of Protestantism, which has led to the secularization of the religion. Kant's utopia in the form of the "Commonwealth Society" is the product of such an approach. Religion does not play a role in Kant's human rights and it is moral absolutely. While human rights in terms of Allameh Jafari come from the revelation and they are conformed to religion despite being ethical. The paper will present the points of sharing and differentiation between Allameh and Kant by focusing on the concept of right.
hasan mehrnia
Abstract
Religion and State from the beginning of world's history were two important issues which have occupied human mind. For a long time, there has been a dispute about the relationship between them. In this quarrel, we can find three main views: isotropy, divergence, and ascendancy of one of them to the other. ...
Read More
Religion and State from the beginning of world's history were two important issues which have occupied human mind. For a long time, there has been a dispute about the relationship between them. In this quarrel, we can find three main views: isotropy, divergence, and ascendancy of one of them to the other. In this paper, we have a brief look on Hegel’s political and religious thoughts and his turning in his viewpoints. Then we examine and criticize his opinions about politics and religion. Further, we should notice that although he regards religion only as an instrument in the hands of the state, we are not allowed to regard him as an atheist philosopher or as an adherent of separation between state and religion. At the end of the paper, we find that although the theory of “organic state” which Hegel suggests for solving the “paradox of liberty and submission” is a growth head way in comparison with “mechanical view” of Lock and Hobbes about the social contract and with Benthamian utilitarianism, but firstly, there is no restriction against becoming his constitutional monarchy to a kind of dictatorship and secondly, as he finally regards religion as a servant for the state, the relationships between state and religion remains unsolved in his philosophical system.
Andrew Gustafson
Abstract
This paper compares the thought of Miff and Mutahhari, particuiar/y their vie1vs of moral education, higher sentiments, and their common values. Itfurthermore argues that Miff and Mutahhari both provide a strong basis for a critique of the consumerivation of culture, ivhich often happens in a giobaiized ...
Read More
This paper compares the thought of Miff and Mutahhari, particuiar/y their vie1vs of moral education, higher sentiments, and their common values. Itfurthermore argues that Miff and Mutahhari both provide a strong basis for a critique of the consumerivation of culture, ivhich often happens in a giobaiized econ
