عبدالمطلب عبداله رهیافت انقلاب اسلامی 2980-9118 19 73 2026 03 18 Political Order and Governmental Rationality in Imam Khomeini’s Jurisprudential Thought: A Reading through Michel Foucault’s Framework of Governmentality نظم سیاسی و عقلانیت حکمرانی در اندیشه فقهی امام خمینی(ره): خوانشی در چارچوب دولت‌مندی میشل فوکو 3 26 243603 FA حمید فرشی استادیار گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی ، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران Journal Article 2025 07 28 This article examines the concepts of political order and governmental rationality in the jurisprudential thought of Imam Khomeini and seeks to reinterpret them through the analytical framework of governmentality. The main problem of the study concerns how political order is conceptualized in Imam Khomeini’s political jurisprudence and to what extent the concept of governmentality can be employed to understand the logic of religious governance without leading to normative reductionism or unjustified theoretical synthesis. The central research question asks whether a meaningful conceptual dialogue is possible between Imam Khomeini’s notion of governmental rationality and the logic of governmentality, or whether these two frameworks are fundamentally incompatible. The research hypothesis is that governmentality can only function as a limited analytical tool for understanding certain mechanisms of religious governance, while it remains incapable of explaining the sources of legitimacy, normative goals, and jurisprudential foundations of political order. The study adopts a qualitative methodology based on conceptual and documentary analysis, drawing on Imam Khomeini’s juridical and political works as well as relevant Persian theoretical scholarship. The findings indicate that political order in Imam Khomeini’s thought is normative, duty-oriented, and teleological in nature, and that any application of modern governance concepts must be conditional, limited, and theoretically self-conscious. Introduction This study explores the concepts of political order and governmental rationality in the jurisprudential thought of Imam Khomeini through the analytical framework of Michel Foucault’s theory of governmentality. While Imam Khomeini’s political jurisprudence has been extensively examined in Islamic and Iranian scholarship, its relationship with modern theories of governance remains under-theorized. Existing studies often focus either on normative foundations or institutional dimensions, without systematically engaging with contemporary analytical frameworks. This article addresses this gap by asking whether governmentality can serve as a meaningful interpretive lens for understanding religious governance in Imam Khomeini’s thought. The central problem concerns the possibility and limits of conceptual dialogue between Islamic political jurisprudence and Foucauldian analyses of power. The study aims to avoid both uncritical assimilation and rigid separation, proposing instead a conditional and reflexive approach. Materials and Methods This research adopts a qualitative methodology based on conceptual and documentary analysis. Primary sources include Imam Khomeini’s major juridical and political writings, particularly those related to governance, authority, jurisprudence, and public order. These texts are analyzed alongside key Persian scholarly works in political theology and political jurisprudence. In addition, selected English-language studies on Shi‘i political authority and governmentality theory are used to contextualize the analysis. The method consists of three main stages: first, reconstructing Imam Khomeini’s conceptualization of political order and rationality; second, outlining the core elements of Foucauldian governmentality; and third, conducting a comparative and critical reading to identify points of convergence and divergence. The analysis remains interpretive rather than empirical, focusing on theoretical coherence, internal logic, and conceptual boundaries. Discussion The findings indicate that political order in Imam Khomeini’s thought is fundamentally normative, jurisprudential, and teleological. Unlike state-centered or security-oriented models, political order is grounded in divine law, religious duty, and moral responsibility. Governance is understood not merely as administration, but as a form of ethical and spiritual guidance. Governmental rationality in this framework integrates legal reasoning, contextual awareness, moral accountability, and concern for public welfare. Concepts such as maslahat (public interest) and the role of time and place in jurisprudence demonstrate a dynamic and adaptive dimension within this normative structure. In contrast, Foucauldian governmentality analyzes governance as a set of techniques, rationalities, and knowledge systems aimed at regulating populations and shaping conduct. It operates at a descriptive level, emphasizing power–knowledge relations, subject formation, and administrative practices. It does not address questions of metaphysical legitimacy, moral obligation, or transcendent purpose. The comparative analysis shows that governmentality can be analytically useful in examining how religious governance operates through institutions, discourses, and regulatory mechanisms. It helps clarify how authority is exercised, how norms are internalized, and how social order is maintained. However, it cannot account for the foundational elements of Imam Khomeini’s political thought, including divine legitimacy, ethical accountability, and spiritual objectives. Three major boundaries are identified. First, governmentality cannot explain the source of political legitimacy in Islamic jurisprudence. Second, it lacks the normative framework necessary for evaluating power in moral terms. Third, it reduces human agency to behavioral regulation, whereas Imam Khomeini emphasizes moral autonomy and religious responsibility. These limitations prevent governmentality from functioning as a comprehensive interpretive framework. Conclusion This study concludes that a limited and conditional application of governmentality is possible in the analysis of Imam Khomeini’s political jurisprudence. When used as an analytical tool rather than a normative theory, it can illuminate certain mechanisms of religious governance. However, any attempt to treat it as a substitute for jurisprudential reasoning leads to theoretical distortion. Political order in Imam Khomeini’s thought remains inseparable from divine law, ethical purpose, and teleological orientation. A rigorous analysis must therefore preserve the autonomy of Islamic political thought while selectively employing modern conceptual tools. This balanced approach enables meaningful dialogue without conceptual reductionism. این مقاله به بررسی مفهوم نظم سیاسی و عقلانیت حکمرانی در اندیشه فقهی امام خمینی می‌پردازد و می‌کوشد این مفاهیم را در پرتو چارچوب تحلیلی دولت‌مندی بازخوانی کند. مسئله اصلی پژوهش آن است که نظم سیاسی در فقه سیاسی امام خمینی چگونه صورت‌بندی می‌شود و تا چه حد می‌توان از مفهوم دولت‌مندی برای فهم منطق حکمرانی دینی بهره گرفت، بدون آنکه به تقلیل هنجاری یا تلفیق ناموجه منجر شود. پرسش محوری مقاله این است که آیا میان عقلانیت حکمرانی در اندیشه امام خمینی و منطق دولت‌مندی امکان گفتگو مفهومی وجود دارد یا این دو در سطوح بنیادین ناسازگارند. فرضیه پژوهش بر این مبنا استوار است که دولت‌مندی تنها به‌عنوان ابزاری تحلیلی محدود می‌تواند برای فهم برخی سازوکارهای حکمرانی دینی مفید باشد، اما قادر به تبیین مبانی مشروعیت، غایات هنجاری و بنیان‌های فقهی نظم سیاسی نیست. روش تحقیق کیفی و مبتنی بر تحلیل مفهومی و اسنادی است و با اتکا به آثار فقهی و سیاسی امام خمینی و پژوهش‌های نظری فارسی انجام شده است. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که نظم سیاسی در اندیشه امام خمینی ماهیتی هنجاری، تکلیف‌محور و غایت‌مند دارد و هرگونه استفاده از مفاهیم مدرن حکمرانی باید مشروط، محدود و آگاهانه باشد.

https://www.rahyaftjournal.ir/article_243603_14028d2c8b4ceac1689f82ddfe7ec9e0.pdf

عبدالمطلب عبداله رهیافت انقلاب اسلامی 2980-9118 19 73 2026 03 18 The Role of Political Discourses in Shaping the Value Orientation of Iran’s National Curriculum نقش گفتمان‌ های سیاسی در جهت‌ گیری ارزشی برنامه درسی ملی در ایران 27 52 243604 FA خاتون وکیلی مربی، گروه علوم تربیتی،دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران Journal Article 2025 09 08 This study aims to analyze the role of political discourses in shaping the value orientation of Iran’s national curriculum. The research adopts a qualitative content analysis with a discourse-oriented approach. The main research question examines how political discourses influence the value orientation of the national curriculum and through which mechanisms these values are reproduced. The research corpus consists of Persian and English academic articles and policy-related texts addressing educational justice, resistance, guardianship, and national identity within the formal education system. The unit of analysis includes statements and thematic elements related to political and normative values. The findings reveal that four dominant discourses, namely value-identity foundations, justice, resistance, and national identity, constitute the prevailing meaning structure of the curriculum. The normative-value discourse functions as the central framework that directs other discourses through language, imagery, symbols, and instructional content. Educational justice largely remains at the level of rhetorical claims, while resistance and national identity are systematically reproduced in both the explicit and hidden curriculum. The results confirm that political discourses play a structural role in defining and stabilizing the value orientation of the national curriculum. Introduction National curricula function not only as pedagogical instruments but also as key mechanisms for transmitting social values, political norms, and dominant ideologies. In many societies, especially those with strong state involvement in education, curricula operate as discursive spaces in which power relations, collective identities, and moral frameworks are reproduced. In Iran, due to the close relationship between political authority and educational institutions, the national curriculum extends beyond technical learning objectives and serves as a vehicle for promoting official value systems. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, political discourses such as guardianship, resistance, justice, and national identity have become embedded in educational policies and textbooks. These discourses shape learning objectives, narrative structures, and symbolic representations. Despite their significance, many previous studies have focused primarily on organizational or content-related aspects of curriculum design, paying limited attention to its ideological and discursive dimensions. This study seeks to address this gap by analyzing how political discourses influence the value orientation of Iran’s national curriculum. Using critical discourse analysis, the research examines the mechanisms through which political meanings are produced, legitimized, and normalized within educational texts. Materials and Methods This study employs a qualitative methodology based on discourse-oriented content analysis. The research examines political discourses and value orientations in Iran’s national curriculum through a dual-level analysis of academic literature and official school textbooks. Academic and policy-oriented publications are treated as secondary data sources reflecting dominant interpretive frameworks, while selected textbooks are analyzed as primary institutional texts through which these discourses are operationalized. A purposive and criterion-based sampling strategy was adopted. Academic sources were selected based on their explicit engagement with political discourses in education, focus on national curriculum policies, or use of interpretive analytical approaches such as discourse analysis and qualitative content analysis. Textbooks were selected from key subject areas, including social studies, history, language, and religious education, due to their relevance to political and normative content. In total, twenty-three sources, including seventeen Persian and English academic studies and six official textbooks, were included in the analysis. Data analysis was conducted in three stages. First, open coding was applied to identify recurring conceptual themes such as justice, resistance, guardianship, national identity, and ideological reproduction. Second, axial coding was used to organize these themes into broader analytical categories. Third, critical discourse analysis was employed to examine processes of meaning construction, value naturalization, and the marginalization of alternative narratives. To enhance validity and reliability, triangulation across academic and textbook sources and cross-checking of coding procedures were employed. Conceptual saturation was achieved when the inclusion of additional sources did not generate new analytical categories. Discussion The findings indicate that Iran’s national curriculum is structured around several interrelated discourses that jointly shape its value orientation. Among these, the normative-value discourse occupies a central position and provides the conceptual framework for organizing other discourses. The discourse of justice is prominently emphasized in policy documents and academic discussions. However, analysis shows that justice often remains at a rhetorical level and is rarely translated into concrete pedagogical practices. This gap reflects structural constraints and ideological priorities within educational governance. The discourse of resistance functions as a key identity-forming mechanism. Concepts such as struggle, martyrdom, and opposition to external threats are repeatedly emphasized in curricular narratives. These themes are reinforced through both explicit content and hidden curricular practices, including school rituals and symbolic activities. Guardianship and political authority are also embedded in educational texts through moral and religious framing. Rather than encouraging critical reasoning, these narratives often promote obedience and loyalty as ethical imperatives. This approach contributes to the formation of a normative political subject. National identity discourse integrates cultural, historical, linguistic, and religious elements into a unified framework. This synthesis reinforces political legitimacy by presenting state ideology as an inseparable component of collective identity. From a sociological perspective, these discourses operate through mechanisms of selection, emphasis, omission, and repetition. Language, imagery, narrative structures, and institutional practices jointly contribute to the normalization of political values. Conclusion This study demonstrates that Iran’s national curriculum functions as an organized discursive system in which political, cultural, and educational domains are deeply interconnected. Rather than serving as a neutral pedagogical tool, the curriculum operates as a mechanism for reproducing dominant value frameworks. Four interrelated discourses, namely normative values, justice, resistance, and national identity, structure the curriculum’s meaning system. Among them, normative discourse plays a central organizing role, while other discourses reinforce and legitimize it. The findings suggest that educational reform in Iran cannot be effectively pursued without addressing the ideological foundations of curriculum design. Sustainable change requires greater openness to plural perspectives, critical pedagogy, and participatory decision-making. By adopting a critical discourse approach, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how education functions as a site of power, meaning production, and ideological reproduction. It also provides a framework for future research on curriculum policy and cultural governance in non-liberal educational systems. این پژوهش با هدف تحلیل نقش گفتمان‌های سیاسی در جهت‌گیری ارزشی برنامه درسی ملی ایران انجام شده است. روش تحقیق، تحلیل محتوای کیفی با رویکرد گفتمان‌محور است. پرسش اصلی پژوهش این است که گفتمان‌های سیاسی چگونه بر جهت‌گیری ارزشی برنامه درسی ملی تأثیر می‌گذارند و این ارزش‌ها از چه سازوکارهایی بازتولید می‌شوند. جامعه پژوهش شامل مقالات علمی فارسی و انگلیسی مرتبط با عدالت آموزشی، مقاومت، ولایت و هویت ملی است و واحد تحلیل، متون پژوهشی و سیاستی مرتبط با برنامه درسی و آموزش رسمی کشور می‌باشد. فرضیه تحقیق بر این مبنا است که گفتمان‌های سیاسی به‌صورت فعال جهت‌گیری ارزشی برنامه درسی را شکل می‌دهند و سازمان می‌بخشند. تحلیل داده‌ها نشان داد چهار گفتمان اصلی ــ مبانی ارزشی و هویتی، عدالت، مقاومت و هویت ملی ــ ساختار معنایی مسلط برنامه درسی را تشکیل می‌دهند. گفتمان ارزشی-هنجاری نقش چارچوب مرکزی را ایفا می‌کند و سایر گفتمان‌ها را از طریق زبان، تصویر، نماد و محتوای آموزشی جهت‌دهی می‌نماید. عدالت آموزشی بیشتر در سطح شعار باقی مانده، در حالی‌که مقاومت و هویت ملی به‌صورت سازمان‌یافته در متن و برنامه پنهان بازتولید می‌شوند. نتایج به روشنی فرضیه پژوهش را تأیید می‌کند و نشان می‌دهد گفتمان‌های سیاسی نقشی ساختاری در تعیین و تثبیت جهت‌گیری ارزشی برنامه درسی ملی دارند.

https://www.rahyaftjournal.ir/article_243604_806ba140a89c31090d08d5651dda40ff.pdf

عبدالمطلب عبداله رهیافت انقلاب اسلامی 2980-9118 19 73 2026 03 18 Transformation of the Concept of Political Legitimacy in Contemporary Islamic Philosophy in Iran: A Theological Study of the Works of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli تحول مفهوم مشروعیت سیاسی در فلسفه اسلامی معاصر ایران: مطالعه‌ ای کلامی بر آثار آیت الله جوادی آملی 53 72 243605 FA محمود رضا صدرایی گروه فلسفه و کلام اسلامی،دانشگاه پیام نور،تهران،ایران Journal Article 2025 10 20 This study examines the transformation of the concept of political legitimacy in contemporary Islamic philosophy in Iran, with a focus on a theological analysis of the foundations of legitimacy in the works of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli. The main research question is: How has the concept of political legitimacy been shaped in Javadi Amoli’s thought, and which theological and philosophical dimensions stand out most prominently? The central hypothesis of the study is that political legitimacy in contemporary Islamic philosophy is grounded not only in social acceptance, but in a combination of revelation, reason, and human nature (fitrah), while justice, rule-governed order, and religious teleology serve as key evaluative criteria. The research employs a qualitative, analytical-descriptive method, and the data were collected through content analysis of Javadi Amoli’s works and related texts in Islamic political philosophy. Comparative analysis with classical Islamic theories and Western political philosophy also helps clarify shared features and important distinctions. The findings indicate that in Javadi Amoli’s thought, political legitimacy results from the overlap of revelation, reason, and fitrah, and its realization depends on the observance of justice and religious legality. The results further suggest that theological analysis of these texts provides a basis for a more precise examination of the practical legitimacy of governments in Iran. Introduction The concept of political legitimacy has undergone significant transformation in contemporary Islamic philosophy in Iran. In classical Islamic political thought, legitimacy was often discussed in relation to divine authority, religious law, and the moral standing of rulers. In modern Iranian Islamic philosophy, however, the concept has expanded into a more layered framework that seeks to reconcile revelation, reason, and human nature with social acceptance and institutional order. This study focuses on Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s works as a representative and influential source for understanding this transformation. The central concern of the research is to identify how political legitimacy is conceptualized in his thought and which theological and philosophical foundations support it. The study argues that legitimacy in this framework cannot be reduced to popular consent alone; rather, it is a hybrid notion rooted in divine guidance, rational justification, and the innate disposition of human beings toward truth and justice. Materials and Methods This research adopts a qualitative, analytical-descriptive approach. The primary materials are the published works of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, supplemented by relevant texts in Islamic political philosophy and selected comparative references from classical Islamic and Western political thought. The data were gathered through systematic content analysis, with attention to recurring concepts such as legitimacy, justice, law, reason, fitrah, divine authority, and social acceptance. A comparative framework was also used to identify both continuities and differences between Javadi Amoli’s theory and earlier Islamic approaches as well as modern Western theories of legitimacy. This method enabled the study to move beyond a purely descriptive account and toward a theological-philosophical reconstruction of legitimacy as a normative and practical category. Discussion The analysis shows that Javadi Amoli’s view of political legitimacy is multi-dimensional. First, legitimacy has a divine-epistemic dimension: revelation provides the highest source of normative authority and moral orientation. Second, it has a rational dimension: reason is not merely subordinate to revelation but functions as a means of understanding, interpreting, and defending legitimate political order. Third, legitimacy has an anthropological dimension based on fitrah, the innate human disposition toward truth, justice, and moral order. In this sense, legitimacy is not simply imposed from above; it must resonate with the deepest moral and existential structure of human beings. Fourth, legitimacy has a normative-social dimension, in which justice, legal order, and the rule-governed functioning of governance become essential conditions for validity and acceptance. From this perspective, social acceptance is important but insufficient by itself. A government may enjoy public support, but if it lacks justice, religious legality, or conformity with rational and divine criteria, its legitimacy remains incomplete. Conversely, a politically and morally grounded system that fails to connect with social realities may not achieve effective legitimacy in practice. Javadi Amoli’s theory therefore presents a layered model in which revelation, reason, fitrah, and justice mutually reinforce one another. The comparative analysis also shows that this model differs from liberal theories that ground legitimacy primarily in popular sovereignty, while at the same time it shares with some modern approaches the recognition that legitimacy must be practical, communicable, and socially lived rather than purely abstract. Conclusion The study concludes that political legitimacy in Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s thought is best understood as a composite and relational concept. It emerges from the convergence of revelation, reason, and human nature, and it becomes operative only when justice and religious legality are realized in governance. This framework offers a distinct contribution to contemporary Islamic political philosophy by providing a theological basis for evaluating not only the ideal foundations of authority but also the practical legitimacy of governments. As such, theological analysis of Javadi Amoli’s works opens a pathway for more precise studies of political legitimacy in Iran and offers a robust conceptual model for further research in Islamic political thought. تحقیق حاضر به بررسی تحول مفهوم مشروعیت سیاسی در فلسفه اسلامی معاصر ایران می‌پردازد و تمرکز آن بر تحلیل کلامی مبانی مشروعیت در آثار آیت‌الله جوادی آملی است. سؤال اصلی پژوهش این است که «مفهوم مشروعیت سیاسی در اندیشه جوادی آملی چگونه شکل گرفته و چه ابعاد کلامی و فلسفی آن برجسته است؟» فرضیه تحقیق این است که مشروعیت سیاسی در فلسفه اسلامی معاصر نه تنها بر مبنای مقبولیت اجتماعی، بلکه بر ترکیبی از وحی، عقل و فطرت انسانی استوار است و عدالت، قانون‌مندی و غایت دینی معیارهای کلیدی سنجش آن هستند. روش پژوهش کیفی و تحلیلی ـ توصیفی است و داده‌ها از مطالعه محتوای آثار جوادی آملی و متون مرتبط با فلسفه سیاسی اسلامی جمع‌آوری شده‌اند. تحلیل تطبیقی با نظریه‌های کلاسیک اسلامی و اندیشه‌های فلسفه سیاسی غرب نیز به روشن شدن وجوه مشترک و تمایزهای شاخص کمک کرده است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که در اندیشه جوادی آملی مشروعیت سیاسی نتیجه همپوشانی وحی، عقل و فطرت است و تحقق آن وابسته به رعایت عدالت و قانون‌مندی دینی است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که تحلیل کلامی این آثار امکان بررسی دقیق مشروعیت عملی حکومت‌ها در ایران را فراهم می‌کند.

https://www.rahyaftjournal.ir/article_243605_ef2e69f68a5ddf589ccf6d7ea8a2c2fb.pdf

عبدالمطلب عبداله رهیافت انقلاب اسلامی 2980-9118 19 73 2027 02 20 Economic Justice under Inflationary Conditions: A Jurisprudential-Social Examination of Mechanisms for Compensating Monetary Depreciation عدالت اقتصادی در شرایط تورمی: بررسی فقهی–اجتماعی سازوکارهای جبران کاهش ارزش پول 73 96 243606 FA امین بهاروندی گروه معارف اسلامی، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران محمود حزبه زاده گروه معارف اسلامی، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران و عضو هیئت علمی گروه معارف اسلامی، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی جندی‌شاپور اهواز، اهواز، ایران (نویسنده مسئول) Journal Article 2025 06 05 This study examines the issue of compensating for the depreciation of money under inflationary conditions from the perspective of Shi'a jurisprudence and economic justice. The central research question is whether, within the framework of Islamic transactional jurisprudence and based on principles such as justice, no-harm (la darar), and fulfillment of obligations, a legitimate and coherent mechanism can be developed to compensate for the loss of purchasing power in loan contracts. The hypothesis of the study is that, given the credit-based nature of modern money and the role of inflation in generating unjust transfers of value, compensating for the decline in purchasing power is not only compatible with the prohibition of usury (riba), but is also necessary for the realization of economic justice. The research adopts an analytical-deductive methodology and draws on juristic sources, Islamic economic literature, legal analyses, and the rulings of contemporary jurists, particularly the recent fatwa of the Supreme Leader of Iran, to extract theoretical foundations and practical solutions. The findings indicate that Shi'a jurisprudence possesses substantial capacity to recognize compensation for monetary depreciation, since its foundational principles do not permit serious harm to be imposed on either contracting party. Moreover, contemporary fatwas reveal a shift from emphasis on nominal amounts toward recognition of the real economic value of property. Consequently, mechanisms such as contractual stipulations, judicial adjustment, and indexation may be proposed as legitimate models for preserving value without violating the prohibition of riba. Introduction Inflation in modern economies is not merely a macroeconomic phenomenon reflected in rising prices; it also functions as a mechanism of wealth redistribution. When inflation persists, the purchasing power of money declines, and fixed nominal obligations lose their real value. This issue becomes particularly significant in loan contracts, where repayment of the same nominal amount after a long period may result in substantial injustice to the lender. In traditional Islamic jurisprudence, loans (qard) are regarded as benevolent contracts intended to assist others rather than generate profit. At the same time, any increase over the principal amount is generally treated with suspicion because of the categorical prohibition of riba. However, the emergence of fiat money and chronic inflation has transformed the economic nature of money itself. Unlike gold and silver, contemporary currency has no intrinsic value and derives worth primarily from purchasing power. This raises an important jurisprudential question: should repayment be based on the nominal number printed on currency notes, or on the real economic value represented by that amount at the time of lending? This study addresses that question by linking jurisprudential reasoning with the broader concept of economic justice in Islam. Materials and Methods The study employs an analytical-deductive methodology grounded in textual and conceptual analysis. Primary materials include classical and contemporary Shi'a jurisprudential sources, legal commentaries, writings in Islamic economics, and contemporary fatwas concerning inflation and debt repayment. Particular attention is given to the recent legal opinion issued by the office of Ayatollah Khamenei permitting compensation for loss of monetary value under certain conditions. The research also engages comparative economic literature, especially works by Muhammad Umer Chapra, El-Gamal, and Taqi Usmani, in order to situate the issue within broader debates on justice, fairness, and the objectives of Islamic law. The method consists of three stages: 1. Conceptual analysis of money, inflation, and justice in Islamic thought. 2. Jurisprudential examination of principles such as la darar (no harm), fulfillment of obligations, fairness, and prohibition of riba. 3. Normative evaluation of practical compensation mechanisms, including contractual clauses, judicial adjustment, negotiated settlement, and inflation indexation. Discussion The findings suggest that the central disagreement among jurists is not over the prohibition of riba itself, but over the proper characterization of money in contemporary economies. If money is treated purely as a fungible nominal unit, repayment of the same amount appears sufficient. But if money is understood as a store of purchasing power, then severe inflation causes real loss to the lender, and nominal repayment alone may fail to discharge the debt fairly. Islamic economic thought places strong emphasis on preventing unjust enrichment and ensuring balanced exchange relations. Chapra argues that institutions which facilitate hidden redistribution of wealth contradict the ethical objectives of Islamic economics. Inflation without compensatory mechanisms effectively transfers wealth from creditors, wage earners, and savers to debtors and holders of real assets. This resembles a concealed tax and may intensify inequality. From a jurisprudential perspective, several principles support compensation. The doctrine of la darar rejects legal outcomes that impose significant avoidable harm. If inflation destroys a substantial portion of the lender’s capital value, strict insistence on nominal repayment may create unjust harm. Likewise, the principle of justice requires proportionality between rights and obligations. Fulfillment of contracts can also be interpreted not merely as honoring numbers, but as preserving the substantive value intended by the agreement. Contemporary Shi'a juristic thought increasingly reflects this shift. While some earlier authorities rejected any increase beyond nominal principal, more recent positions differentiate between usurious gain and restoration of real value. The recent fatwa permitting recovery of inflationary loss based on official indicators is especially significant because it treats compensation not as profit from time, but as restoration of legitimate entitlement. Several legitimate mechanisms emerge: 1. Contractual stipulation: parties may agree in advance to adjust repayment according to inflation. 2. Judicial adjustment: courts may intervene where severe depreciation creates manifest inequity. 3. Official indexation: use of recognized price indices or central bank data. 4. Reconciliation (sulh): negotiated settlement where precise calculation is disputed. These mechanisms preserve justice while avoiding riba, since the purpose is compensation rather than gain. Conclusion The study concludes that compensation for monetary depreciation in inflationary contexts is compatible with the principles of Shi'a jurisprudence and the broader objectives of Islamic economic justice. The issue should be understood as a transformation in the subject matter of money rather than a change in the prohibition of riba. Since modern money is value-based rather than intrinsically valuable, repayment based solely on nominal figures may fail to satisfy justice and may impose serious loss. Accordingly, compensation for loss of purchasing power can be regarded not as unlawful excess, but as restoration of real entitlement. Mechanisms such as indexation, contractual clauses, judicial modification, and negotiated settlement provide workable models for contemporary Islamic legal systems. In this sense, dynamic jurisprudence is capable of reconciling fidelity to classical norms with the realities of modern inflationary economies. این پژوهش به بررسی مسئله جبران کاهش ارزش پول در شرایط تورمی از منظر فقه شیعه و عدالت اقتصادی می‌پردازد. پرسش اصلی تحقیق آن است که آیا در چارچوب فقه معاملات و براساس اصولی چون عدالت، لاضرر و وفای به عهد، می‌توان سازوکار مشروع و منسجمی برای جبران قدرت خرید در عقد قرض ارائه کرد یا خیر. فرضیه پژوهش بر این مبناست که با توجه به ماهیت اعتباری پول در اقتصاد مدرن و نقش تورم در ایجاد انتقال ناعادلانه ارزش، جبران کاهش قدرت خرید نه تنها با حرمت ربا تعارض ندارد، بلکه در راستای تحقق عدالت اقتصادی ضروری است. روش تحقیق، تحلیلی–استنباطی است و با بهره‌گیری از منابع فقهی، آثار اقتصاد اسلامی، تحلیل‌های حقوقی و بررسی فتاوای مراجع، به‌ویژه استفتای رهبر انقلاب، به استخراج مبانی نظری و راهکارهای عملی می‌پردازد. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که فقه شیعه ظرفیت گسترده‌ای برای پذیرش جبران کاهش ارزش پول دارد؛ زیرا اصول بنیادین آن اجازه نمی‌دهد ضرر جدی بر یکی از طرفین قرارداد تحمیل شود. همچنین بررسی فتاوای معاصر نشان می‌دهد که نگرش فقهی از تأکید صرف بر عدد اسمی به توجه به ارزش واقعی مال تغییر یافته است. در نتیجه، می‌توان سازوکارهایی مانند شرط ضمن عقد، تعدیل قضایی و شاخص‌بندی را ـ بدون تعارض با حرمت ربا — به‌عنوان مدل‌های مشروع جبران ارزش پیشنهاد کرد.

https://www.rahyaftjournal.ir/article_243606_c23775a13620403a78cd480289da6592.pdf

عبدالمطلب عبداله رهیافت انقلاب اسلامی 2980-9118 19 73 2027 02 20 The Evolution of Takfiri Discourse from the Medieval Islamic Period to ISIS and Its Critique from the Perspective of Islamic Unity in the Thought of the Islamic Revolution سیر تحول گفتمان تکفیر از دورۀ میانه اسلامی تا داعش و نقد آن از منظر گفتمان وحدت اسلامی در تفکر انقلاب اسلامی 97 122 243607 FA قاسم حزباوی دانشجوی دکتری گروه علوم سیاسی، واحد خرم آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، خرم آباد، ایران علی فلاح نژاد استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی،واحد خرم آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، خرم آباد، ایران علی قاسمیان استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، واحد خرم آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، خرم آباد، ایران Journal Article 2025 07 16 This research aims to analyze the evolution of the discourse of takfir from the Islamic Middle Ages to contemporary jihadism and ISIS, and to criticize it from the perspective of the discourse of Islamic unity in the thinking of the Islamic Revolution. The main question of the research is how the discourse of takfir has been reproduced in connection with the construction of power and to what extent the thinking of the Islamic Revolution has been able to provide a theoretical and practical alternative to this discourse. The research hypothesis is based on the premise that takfir is a historical and discursive phenomenon that becomes active in situations of crisis and power struggle, and Islamic unity, if institutionalized and accepting internal criticism, can be an effective counter-discourse in containing it. The research method is qualitative and based on critical discourse analysis that has been carried out using historical, jurisprudential, and political sources. The findings show that ISIS is a radical manifestation of the absolutization of meaning in Takfiri discourse, and that the thinking of the Islamic Revolution, despite its important theoretical and empirical capacities in criticizing Takfiriness, is itself exposed to challenges such as ideologicalization and institutional weakness in managing disagreement. Introduction Takfir, defined as declaring other Muslims unbelievers, has historically functioned as a marginal juridical practice within Islamic jurisprudence. However, over time, it has evolved into a powerful discursive instrument closely linked to political authority, social crises, and identity conflicts. In the medieval Islamic period, theological debates, sectarian rivalries, and state-building processes contributed to the gradual politicization of religious language. Concepts such as faith, community, heresy, and deviation became embedded in power relations and mechanisms of exclusion. In the modern era, the collapse of traditional political structures, colonial interventions, and the emergence of failed states intensified identity anxieties in Muslim societies. These conditions enabled radical movements to reactivate and reinterpret classical discourses in rigid and absolutist ways. Among these movements, ISIS represents the most extreme form of takfiri discourse, transforming it into the ideological foundation of a violent political order.At the same time, the Islamic Revolution introduced a distinct discourse centered on Islamic unity, rational religious interpretation, and the management of diversity. This discourse sought to counter sectarianism and delegitimize takfir. Nevertheless, its theoretical and practical effectiveness remains subject to critical evaluation. This study aims to analyze the historical transformation of takfiri discourse and to assess the capacity of the Islamic unity discourse to function as a sustainable alternative. Materials and Methods This research adopts a qualitative methodology based on critical discourse analysis combined with historical and textual interpretation. Primary sources include classical theological and juridical works, particularly those of Ibn Taymiyya, as well as contemporary ideological texts produced by jihadist groups such as ISIS. In addition, speeches, writings, and official documents related to the Islamic Revolution and its approach to unity have been examined. Secondary sources consist of academic studies in Islamic theology, political Islam, and extremism. The analytical framework focuses on three interconnected levels: textual structures, interpretive strategies, and socio-political contexts. Through this multi-layered approach, the study identifies patterns of meaning construction, mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, and links between religious discourse and power relations. Data analysis involves thematic coding, comparative interpretation, and contextual reconstruction. Particular attention is given to how key concepts such as faith, apostasy, community, and authority are redefined across different historical periods. This method allows for tracing both continuity and transformation within takfiri discourse. Discussion The findings demonstrate that takfir in the medieval period was embedded within broader struggles over religious authority and political legitimacy. While early scholars emphasized caution in declaring unbelief, later developments increasingly associated doctrinal deviation with political disloyalty. This process intensified during periods of instability, when religious certainty was mobilized to restore social order. Ibn Taymiyya played a pivotal role in consolidating elements of this discourse by linking faith to practice and expanding the scope of heresy and deviation. Although his writings were context-specific, their structural features enabled later reinterpretation in radically different environments. Contemporary jihadist movements selectively appropriated these elements and detached them from their historical context. ISIS, in particular, absolutized meaning and eliminated interpretive pluralism. Takfir became a comprehensive system for defining loyalty, legitimizing violence, and organizing political authority. In this framework, neutrality and ambiguity were rendered impossible. In contrast, the discourse of Islamic unity promoted by the Islamic Revolution emphasizes ethical rationality, communal solidarity, and institutional mediation of differences. It rejects the naturalization of takfir and stresses the moral responsibility of religious authority. However, the study also reveals internal tensions within this discourse, including risks of politicization, bureaucratization, and rhetorical reduction. These limitations suggest that unity cannot be sustained solely through ideological commitment. It requires continuous institutional support, intellectual openness, and mechanisms for critical self-reflection. Without these conditions, even anti-takfiri discourses may lose their transformative potential. Conclusion This study concludes that takfir should be understood as a historically constructed and politically embedded discourse rather than a purely theological deviation. Its persistence is closely linked to crises of authority, identity, and governance. ISIS represents the most radical manifestation of this logic, where religious absolutism becomes the basis of systematic violence. The Islamic Revolution offers an important counter-discourse grounded in unity, rationality, and managed pluralism. While it possesses significant theoretical and practical capacities to challenge takfiri logic, it also faces structural and ideological challenges that require ongoing critical engagement. Ultimately, confronting takfir requires more than doctrinal refutation. It demands sustained efforts to strengthen ethical interpretation, institutional mediation, and social trust. Only through such comprehensive strategies can the cycle of religious exclusion and violence be effectively disrupted. این پژوهش با هدف تحلیل سیر تحول گفتمان تکفیر از دوره میانه اسلامی تا جهادگرایی معاصر و داعش، و نقد آن از منظر گفتمان وحدت اسلامی در تفکر انقلاب اسلامی انجام شده است. سؤال اصلی تحقیق آن است که گفتمان تکفیر چگونه در پیوند با ساخت قدرت بازتولید شده و تفکر انقلاب اسلامی تا چه اندازه توانسته است بدیلی نظری و عملی برای این گفتمان ارائه دهد. فرضیه پژوهش بر این مبنا استوار است که تکفیر پدیده‌ای تاریخی و گفتمانی است که در شرایط بحران و منازعه قدرت فعال می‌شود و وحدت اسلامی، در صورت نهادینه‌سازی و پذیرش نقد درونی، می‌تواند پادگفتمانی مؤثر در مهار آن باشد. روش تحقیق کیفی و مبتنی بر تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی است که با بهره‌گیری از منابع تاریخی، فقهی و سیاسی انجام شده است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که داعش تجلی رادیکال مطلق‌سازی معنا در گفتمان تکفیری است و تفکر انقلاب اسلامی، با وجود ظرفیت‌های مهم نظری و تجربی در نقد تکفیر، خود در معرض چالش‌هایی چون ایدئولوژیک‌شدن و ضعف نهادی در مدیریت اختلاف قرار دارد.

https://www.rahyaftjournal.ir/article_243607_213448e67db712dafafc8466eb7c709b.pdf

عبدالمطلب عبداله رهیافت انقلاب اسلامی 2980-9118 19 73 2026 03 18 Revisiting Revelation in the Modern Age: A Sociological Study of Allameh Tabataba’i’s and Muhammad Abduh’s Perspectives بازخوانی وحی در عصر مدرن: مطالعه‌ای جامعه‌شناختی در آرای علامه طباطبائی و محمد عبده 123 146 243608 FA پرستو دولابی فارغ التحصیل دکتری تخصصی رشته فلسفه و کلام اسلامی،دانشگاه قم،ایران Journal Article 2025 07 27 The concept of revelation has become one of the most debated issues in contemporary Islamic thought due to the rise of scientific rationalism, historical criticism, and individualistic approaches to religion. These intellectual trends have generated various doubts concerning the divine origin and epistemic authority of revelation. This study aims to analyze and compare the responses of Allameh Tabataba’i and Muhammad Abduh to modern doubts about revelation from a sociological perspective. The main research question examines how these two thinkers reconstruct the legitimacy and meaning of revelation in the modern context. The research hypothesis assumes that Tabataba’i adopts a philosophical–exegetical approach, while Abduh follows a reformist–social model in defending revelation. Using qualitative content analysis and comparative textual interpretation, this study analyzes their major works and related scholarly literature. The findings indicate that both thinkers reject reductionist interpretations of revelation and emphasize its divine origin and epistemic authority, although they differ in their methodological and social orientations. The study concludes that sustaining the relevance of revelation in modern societies requires the integration of rational inquiry, institutional mediation, and social legitimacy. Introduction In the modern era, the traditional understanding of revelation has been seriously challenged by scientific rationalism, historical criticism, and subjective interpretations of religion. These developments have led many scholars and intellectuals to reinterpret revelation as a psychological experience, a cultural product, or a historically conditioned phenomenon. As a result, the divine origin and epistemic authority of revelation have been questioned in both Western and Islamic intellectual contexts. Within Islamic thought, these challenges have generated extensive debates and scholarly responses. Among the most influential figures who addressed these issues are Allameh Tabataba’i and Muhammad Abduh. Although they belonged to different intellectual traditions and historical contexts, both thinkers attempted to defend the centrality of revelation while responding to modern critiques. This study seeks to examine how Tabataba’i and Abduh reconstructed the concept of revelation in response to contemporary doubts. By employing a sociological framework, the research analyzes revelation not only as a theological doctrine but also as a social institution that produces meaning, identity, and legitimacy in religious communities. Materials and Methods This research adopts a qualitative and comparative methodology based on textual analysis and sociological interpretation. The primary sources include the major works of Allameh Tabataba’i, especially his Qur’anic exegesis and philosophical writings, as well as Muhammad Abduh’s theological and reformist texts. Secondary sources consist of academic studies and critical literature related to their intellectual contributions. The analytical framework is derived from the sociology of religion, particularly theories concerning the social construction of meaning, institutionalization of the sacred, and legitimacy of religious authority. Through this framework, revelation is examined as a socially mediated and symbolically structured phenomenon. The method of data analysis involves thematic coding and comparative interpretation. Key themes such as divine origin, epistemic authority, relation to science, historical context, language of revelation, and institutional mediation were identified and analyzed. The findings from both thinkers were then systematically compared to highlight similarities and differences. Discussion The analysis shows that both Tabataba’i and Abduh strongly rejected reductionist interpretations that define revelation as mere psychological experience or intellectual creativity. Tabataba’i emphasized the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of revelation by grounding it in Islamic philosophy and the concept of knowledge by presence. He viewed revelation as a form of divine communication that transcends ordinary cognition and remains immune to error. Abduh, on the other hand, approached revelation primarily from a social and reformist perspective. While affirming its divine origin, he focused on its moral and educational functions in modern society. He aimed to reconcile religious belief with scientific rationality and social progress. Regarding science and reason, both thinkers denied any fundamental conflict between revelation and scientific knowledge. Tabataba’i argued that science and revelation belong to different epistemic domains, while Abduh emphasized the necessity of reinterpretation and intellectual reform. Another significant aspect concerns the language and historical context of revelation. Tabataba’i distinguished between the linguistic form and the transcendent content of revelation, defending its timeless validity. Abduh stressed the adaptability of religious interpretation to changing social conditions. From a sociological perspective, Tabataba’i’s approach reinforces institutional and scholarly authority, whereas Abduh’s model promotes public legitimacy and social engagement. These two strategies represent complementary patterns for sustaining religious meaning measuring. Conclusion This study demonstrates that Allameh Tabataba’i and Muhammad Abduh developed distinct but convergent models for defending revelation in the modern age. Tabataba’i’s philosophical–exegetical approach strengthens the epistemic foundations of religious belief, while Abduh’s reformist–social perspective enhances its practical relevance and social acceptance. Both models reveal that the survival of revelation in contemporary societies depends not only on theological argumentation but also on its capacity to be socially institutionalized and culturally meaningful. Effective engagement with modern challenges requires a balanced integration of rational inquiry, social mediation, and institutional legitimacy. Ultimately, revisiting revelation through a sociological lens provides a comprehensive understanding of how Islamic thought adapts to modernity without sacrificing its core principles. This approach offers valuable insights for future research in religious studies, Islamic theology, and cultural policy. مسئله وحی در عصر مدرن، به یکی از مهم‌ترین چالش‌های فکری در جوامع اسلامی تبدیل شده است. گسترش عقلانیت تجربی، فردگرایی معرفتی و رویکردهای تاریخی‌گرا، زمینه طرح شبهاتی را فراهم کرده است که منشأ الهی و اعتبار معرفتی وحی را مورد تردید قرار می‌دهند. پژوهش حاضر با هدف بازخوانی مفهوم وحی در اندیشه علامه طباطبایی و محمد عبده، به بررسی نحوه مواجهه این دو متفکر با شبهات معاصر می‌پردازد. سؤال اصلی پژوهش آن است که این دو اندیشمند چگونه با بهره‌گیری از منابع دینی و عقلانی، به بازتبیین جایگاه وحی در جهان جدید پرداخته‌اند. فرضیه پژوهش بر این اساس استوار است که علامه طباطبایی با رویکرد فلسفی–تفسیری و محمد عبده با رویکرد اصلاح‌گرایانه–اجتماعی، به دفاع از منشأ الهی و کارکرد معنابخش وحی پرداخته‌اند. روش تحقیق، کیفی و مبتنی بر تحلیل محتوای توصیفی–تحلیلی آثار این دو متفکر است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که هر دو، ضمن رد تفسیرهای تقلیل‌گرایانه، بر اعتبار معرفتی وحی و نقش آن در سامان‌دهی زندگی فردی و اجتماعی تأکید دارند، هرچند در شیوه تبیین و اولویت‌بندی اهداف تفاوت‌هایی میان آن‌ها مشاهده می‌شود.

https://www.rahyaftjournal.ir/article_243608_6e55e322f349b725533cb2f2f23ff651.pdf

عبدالمطلب عبداله رهیافت انقلاب اسلامی 2980-9118 19 73 2026 03 18 Global Decarbonization Policy and Iran’s Position in the Emerging Trade Order: the Reproduction of Inequality in International Trade سیاست کربن‌زدایی جهانی و جایگاه ایران در نظم نوین تجاری؛ بازتولید نابرابری در تجارت بین‌الملل 147 171 243609 FA ندا سعیدی دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین الملل، دانشگاه تهران، پردیس البرز، تهران، ایران نادر میرزاده کوهشاهی دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران سید باقر میرعباسی استاد گروه حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران Journal Article 2025 08 06 In recent years, global decarbonization policy has evolved from an environmental initiative into a regulatory framework shaping international trade. Through instruments such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, production standards, and carbon pricing systems, climate policies now directly influence market access, competitiveness, and global value chains. This study examines how this institutional transformation contributes to the reproduction of inequality in international trade and how Iran is positioned within the emerging low-carbon trade order. The main hypothesis argues that due to asymmetric institutional, technological, and data-related capacities among countries, decarbonization does not necessarily reduce existing inequalities but may instead intensify them, placing Iran in a structurally marginalized position. Using a qualitative methodology based on document analysis, legal-institutional examination, and secondary international data, the findings indicate that Iran’s energy-intensive economic structure, lack of binding climate commitments, and institutional constraints significantly limit its adaptive capacity. Consequently, Iran’s future trajectories are shaped more by structural limitations than by voluntary policy choices. Introduction Global climate governance has undergone a profound transformation in recent decades. What initially emerged as a set of voluntary environmental commitments has gradually developed into a complex regulatory regime with far-reaching economic implications. Decarbonization policies are no longer confined to domestic energy or environmental sectors; instead, they increasingly shape international trade rules, industrial strategies, and market access conditions. Instruments such as carbon pricing mechanisms, emission trading systems, sustainability standards, and carbon border measures have integrated climate objectives into the architecture of global trade. As a result, climate policy has become a key factor in determining competitiveness and participation in global value chains. While this transformation is often presented as a necessary response to climate change, its distributive consequences remain highly uneven. Countries with advanced technological capabilities, strong institutions, and regulatory influence are better positioned to adapt and benefit from this transition. In contrast, energy-dependent and institutionally constrained economies face disproportionate adjustment costs. Iran represents a critical case in this context, as it combines high carbon intensity, limited access to rule-making processes, and restricted institutional capacity. This study addresses the following central question: How does global decarbonization contribute to the reproduction of inequality in international trade, and how is Iran positioned within this emerging order? Materials and Methods This research adopts a qualitative and interdisciplinary methodological framework combining political economy, international law, and institutional analysis. First, a systematic document analysis was conducted, including international treaties, policy reports, regulatory frameworks, and institutional guidelines related to climate governance and trade. Key sources include documents from the European Union, the World Trade Organization, the OECD, the UNFCCC, and international energy agencies. Second, a legal-institutional analysis was employed to examine how climate-related trade instruments are embedded within existing trade regimes. Particular attention was paid to mechanisms such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, environmental exceptions in WTO law, and technical barriers to trade. Third, secondary quantitative data from internationally recognized databases, such as Our World in Data, WITS, and UN Comtrade, were used to contextualize Iran’s trade structure, emission profile, and market dependence. Finally, scenario analysis was applied to explore possible future trajectories for Iran under different institutional and policy conditions. This approach allowed the study to assess structural constraints and strategic options without relying on speculative forecasting. Discussion The findings reveal that global decarbonization operates as a form of regulatory power that restructures international competition. Rather than functioning solely as an environmental instrument, climate policy increasingly serves as a mechanism for market governance and industrial positioning. Advanced economies have integrated climate objectives into broader strategies of industrial modernization and strategic autonomy. Through standard-setting, technological leadership, and regulatory diffusion, they externalize their domestic policy priorities onto global markets. This process reinforces their competitive advantage and limits the policy space of less-developed economies.For Iran, these dynamics create multiple layers of vulnerability. Its economy remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels, energy-intensive industries, and carbon-intensive exports. At the same time, Iran lacks binding commitments under the Paris Agreement and faces constraints in data reporting, regulatory alignment, and institutional coordination. These structural conditions restrict Iran’s ability to comply with emerging standards and to challenge potentially discriminatory measures through legal channels. As a result, instruments such as CBAM function not only as climate tools but also as de facto trade barriers. The scenario analysis indicates that Iran’s future position will largely depend on structural reforms rather than short-term policy adjustments. Passive adaptation leads to deeper marginalization, while limited technical compliance only delays structural exclusion. Meaningful repositioning requires coordinated industrial, trade, and climate strategies, which remain institutionally challenging. Conclusion This study demonstrates that global decarbonization has become a central component of the contemporary trade order. Far from being neutral or universally beneficial, climate-related trade regulations reflect and reinforce existing power asymmetries. The Iranian case illustrates how structural constraints, institutional limitations, and asymmetric rule-making capacities contribute to the reproduction of inequality. Decarbonization, in this context, functions as both an environmental and a political-economic process. Understanding this dual character is essential for designing effective national responses and for developing more equitable global governance mechanisms. Without addressing institutional disparities, the transition to a low-carbon economy risks deepening global trade inequalities rather than mitigating them. سیاست کربن‌زدایی جهانی در سال‌های اخیر از یک پروژه زیست‌محیطی به یک قاعده تنظیم‌گر در تجارت بین‌الملل تبدیل شده است؛ قاعده‌ای که از طریق ابزارهایی مانند سازوکار تعدیل مرزی کربن، استانداردهای تولید و پیوند با نظام‌های قیمت گذاری کربن، به‌طور مستقیم بر رقابت، دسترسی به بازار و زنجیره‌های ارزش اثر می‌گذارد. مسئله اصلی این پژوهش آن است که این تحول نهادی چگونه به بازتولید نابرابری در تجارت بین‌الملل می‌انجامد و جایگاه ایران در نظم نوین تجاری کربن‌زدا چگونه صورت‌بندی می‌شود. فرضیه تحقیق بر این مبنا استوار است که کربن‌زدایی، به‌دلیل نامتقارن بودن ظرفیت‌های نهادی، فناورانه و داده‌ای کشورها، نه‌تنها شکاف‌های موجود را کاهش نمی‌دهد، بلکه می‌تواند آنها را تشدید کند و ایران را در موقعیتی حاشیه‌ای قرار دهد. روش پژوهش کیفی و مبتنی بر تحلیل اسنادی، تحلیل حقوقی–نهادی قواعد تجارت و اقلیم، و استفاده از داده‌های ثانویه معتبر بین‌المللی است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که ترکیب ساختار انرژی‌محور اقتصاد ایران، فقدان تعهد الزام‌آور اقلیمی و محدودیت‌های نهادی، ظرفیت تطبیق ایران با قواعد تجارت سبز را کاهش داده و سناریوهای آینده را بیش از آنکه تابع انتخاب‌های داوطلبانه باشند، به محدودیت‌های ساختاری وابسته کرده است.

https://www.rahyaftjournal.ir/article_243609_4e2526346178e15d81b7b738ccf80264.pdf