The contrastive analysis of languages is one the most important for recognizing the coherent templates to train vocabularies, grammar, Semantics and pragmatics in different levels. In this regard, the present study investigates the contrastive analysis of Persian and Arabic based on sentence. The authors try to study syntax (sentence) of Persian and Arabic from the views of Semantics by descriptive-analytical and contrastive approach. For realizing to syntactical contrastive, a criterion common to both Persian and Arabic was presented studying syntactical issues in three areas including phrases, clauses and sentences. The mentioned criterion is based on semantic. In this way, the changes that were made for transferring the meaning between the two languages were explained to help translators and language learners.

the transition from structuralism and entering the semiotic stage shows that the meaning is plural and multiplicative, not pre-determined and also is without a fence that provides the opportunity to read multiple and dynamic readings in discourses . due to the fact that semiotics is exclusively done through explaining the aspects of the signs text , it can be a suitable tool for studying religious discourse . therefore , in this paper, ", has been chosen , one of the challenging discourses in the Holy Qur'an under the title of "Sura of the Monafiqun , to understand the formation structures of the production and perception of meaning, , the techniques they try to hide their true face and the strategies of the holy quran to reveal their true face. the research method is descriptive - analytical based on the semiotics tool. The results of the results of the relations between signs of Surat al-Monafiqun show that hypocrites used different strategies and methods for hypocrisy, the most important of which is the emotionalization of the discourse space. in addition, the Holy Quran always chooses the signs of challenge, contradiction, opposition, and change in front of the signs of the hypocrites, to guide the emotional flow which was created by the hypocrites to recognition and recognize their true faces .

Although the terms “ school, System and science” are used extensively in the literature of Islamic economics, there is little agreement about their meaning and relationship. This paper studies these three concepts and their relationship. According to the hypothesis of the paper, the propositions of Islamic economics only include theological and scientific propositions. Based on the research findings, the Islamic economics school outlines the basic framework and strategic principles of economic activities based on Islamic teachings. Islamic economics expounds the economic facts derived from the theoretical and practical teachings of the Islamic school, and describes, explains and predicts the relationships between independent and dependent variables. However, in terms of content, the Islamic economic System and propositions of policy making in Islamic economics, have no identity independent from the school and the science of Islamic economics; rather, they are a combination of normative and scientific propositions of Islamic economics. Islamic economic policy is the result of the simultaneous use of normative and scientific Islamic economics to provide the operational means needed for the fulfillment of the economic goals of Islam. The Islamic economic System, in its general form, is like an umbrella that covers various sectors such as school, science and politics of Islamic economics.

A derivative (mushtaq) in Sadra’s philosophical jargon, he claims, is what mystics call as "name" (Ism). Elsewhere proposing a subtle distinction between names, descriptions and essences he mentions the word “name” on a par with derivatives. In Mafatih-alghayb he puts this view forward that opposite to real things, mental universal intelligibles are capable of being referred by names. Moreover he claims that there is a hierarchy (species, genus…) of names in divine world on a par with things in real world. Later he rejects the very point of view that only universal essences (quiddities) are capable of being named and surprisingly add particulars as well as secondary intelligibles to the inventory of those who are referred by naes.He seems to enjoy an incredible double status in talking about meanings; a narrow point of view and a wide one; the latter being more evident when addressing reference-less names and name-less references. To be sure, the most novel aspect of Sadra’s theory is on naming the God (Allah). In Al-Asfar, he argues that the name of the God is a name for everything, and the reference of his name, is what referred to by every name. Having this singular property be satisfied, it is hard, if possible, to match ordinary theories of meaning to that of Sadra. That’s why I think those philosophers, Sajjad Rizvi for example, who use modern jargon in their interpretations of Sadrian theory of meaning, do mistakes.

The phrase "Ḥadīthunā" appears in several categories of well-known hadiths, including the difficult and complex traditions. The texts and Isnad of these hadiths are generally reliable, and there is no serious doubt about attributing them to the impeccable Imams (AS). What is questionable, however, is the meaning of this phrase and the intended message of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS). In this article, an attempt has been made to first identify the juristic conceptualization of the apparent and initial meaning of "Ḥadīthunā" based on the process outlined in the book "Ḥadīth Understandin Method." Then, internal and external indicators, especially within the hadith tradition, have been examined. Based on this endeavor, we have concluded that "Ḥadīthunā" refers to the exalted status of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) and their unparalleled virtues and perfections. This conclusion contradicts a few traditions in which "Ḥadīthunā" are translated as the sublime and scientific content of their words. However, this initial conflict is resolvable. The proposed solution is to consider the lofty sciences and knowledge found in their words as part of their existential virtues.

In Saussure's thought، language is a passive and collective، universal System of signs، agreed upon by the members of a community، which is installed and fixed in their minds like software. The signs of language only gain their value، role، and meaning in relation to each other within the System، and they are contrasted with one another. Therefore، it is not the form، gender، or other characteristics that determine the role، value، and meaning of a sign، but the structure، rules، and conventions. In fact، it is language that makes speech and thought possible by creating distinctions. In this way، the source of meaning in structuralist thought is language، which، according to the features assigned to it، exists before the speaker and text. This study، using a descriptive-analytical method، aims to explain Saussurian structuralist Semantics while highlighting the shortcomings of this approach. The result of the study shows that Saussure’s structural semiotic System is like a dictionary، where signs are mechanically connected to referents in a closed، collective System، and signs are distinguished from one another in a structural order. As a result، the word is considered the unit of meaning study، and linguistic knowledge is treated as encyclopedic knowledge. When we consider the word as the unit of meaning study، we assume that words have meaning before being placed in a sentence، whereas the meaning of a word cannot be analyzed independently of the context it is used in، the prevailing atmosphere، and the information stored in the memory of language users