One may say that The Open Society and Its Enemies (OS) offered in 1945 the first complete elaboration of the general approach proposed by Karl Popper, namely his ‘critical rationalism’, a bold generalization of the fallibilist falsificationism in the domain of the empirical sciences masterly proposed in Logik der Forschung (1934). The political content of The OS has been critically discussed. Nevertheless, not all people insist on the equally important moral dimension of the book, giving it its UNITY, I submit. Without morality, no critical discussion, no REASON, no open society, let us say in a nutshell. I would argue that according to Popper, a strictly Christian morality of love would not be the appropriate emotional companion of critical rationalism, but that the less demanding moral emotion of sympathy or compassion is perhaps necessary to give it its force against violence. I give some support to this line of argument. In my view, Popper proposed a somewhat unarticulated critical rationalist ‘emotivism’ of sorts. The emotion of compassion is necessary for triggering our moral decisions and values, which are the ultimate basis of the choice for a REASON against violence.

UNITY of the Divine Essence falls into two categories: a) one as being simple or indivisible, composed of nothing; (unicity; absolute oneness) and b) the other as Being with no partner or like (UNITY). Most of the Pre-Suhrawardi and Pre-Sadrian theologians and philosophers have thought of the UNITY of the Divine Essence as a numerical UNITY. At least, they did not make explicit references to the theory of the true UNITY of the Nessassary Being. According to the Qur'anic verses, traditions and rational proofs, the UNITY of God is not a numerical UNITY of some kind, for numerical UNITY has the following characteristics:) it is theoretically possible for it to multiply;) it is practically possible for it to multiply;) it has essence and is existentiality limited;) it cannot coexist with all other things and it cannot encompass them sovereignly;) it lacks qualities of all other things;) it can be predicated by littleness. Since these characteristics do not inhabit the Divine Essence, the UNITY of God is not numerical. To affirm the true UNITY of God and to negate His numerical UNITY, one can have recourse to two proofs, i.e. ‘a simple reality includes all other realities’ proposed by Mulla Sadra and ‘a thing per se does not multiply’ suggested by Suhrawardi.

Continuous change of appearance of the UNITY of essential REASON of the architecture of one nation at the physical body of buildings (or accidental features and forms) at the regular connected periods of the history is the main subject of this article. We are proposed to say (from the unitary view of the Islamic doctrine, and throughout a closed style of its philosophical expression) that: every being in the universe, or even every great and unique architectural monument, is accurate, on time and regular, properly placed, and REASONably identified, and in decision, good and perfectly responsive, only at the limited duration of its own integrated cultural, educational, economical and technical time and life. In other words, and looking at the universal complementary and harmonizing order of life, in every relevant subject, and from both the quantitative and qualitative points of view, the defined systemic structure of cultural, educational, functional, economical, technical and formal geometry of every good building is only properly identified and responsive, when it is designed, placed, oriented, built and appeared in its own proper place and unique time. And then, we should be recognized that such a building of last (with its exact functional, geometrical and other specific cultural and … feature) never be allowable to be (completely or partly) built again in any other places and times of the present or future, (especially, in the most probable unreal and inappropriate form, measure and function). In a more clear and defined saying, we are going to talk about a noble principle (or even a certain rule) of unitary doctrine of Islam, and remember it to the some asleep, neglectful or careless architects and master managers and directors of culture of a nation, that: the universe (including its outwardly numerous, multiple and individual parts and organs which have been come into existence and disappeared, in an eternal and unlimited duration of time and an indefinite expansion of place) is a unique and alive truth and a book – form reality by an united structure and integrated parts and completing organs, from which, anything can be omitted or added completely and all of a sudden. And even the apparently omitted and replaced parts or dead organs have never been actually missed from the whole and timeless life of the universe, or absent or ineffective in every momentary act of the entire system and it’s including operating parts and organs. And then, (in an exact similar responsibility of every person on the subject of keeping any book’s ordered structure and it’s including parts, phrases and even singular words) we cannot and not to be REASONably allowed and morally permitted to unconscious and unaware change, omit, add, copy, repeat or replace any small, tiny and apparently unimportant or big and especially chief part of our surrounding environment (including its architectural elements and buildings). In response to the question of the REASON of correctness of any REASONable change or creating new buildings in an existing planned site, we say that, respecting the unitary essence and infinity of the REASON’ life and also the Oneness and UNITY of all of the apparently individual REASONable decisions, plans and acts, every new (but knowledgeable and in balance) act, eternally has been exactly looked and calculated in the preexistent orderly and completing presented system of universe. In other words, every art and architecture’ coming into existence (it’s becoming materialize or appear, with its all quantitative and qualitative specific adjectives) in a particular period of time and in an orderly environment, has an undividable UNITY and unbroken relationship with that period and environment, in such a way that every probable imagination of any kind of division and separation between them is equal with their incompletion and existence’ breakdown. Indeed, it is the REASONable essence and unchangeable reality of everything that (relating to the Life, process of penetrating and completion of the united collection of creation move through the river bed of time and place and in every moment, and on the sensible appearance’ screen, has an unbroken complementary course of change in both qualitative and quantitative accidental features. And therefore, the knowledgeable essence of a thing, in relating to its own time and place, and in relation with past and feature, remains everlasting and unchangeable, and so it must be recognized such a perpetual part of the involved site by the Moslem architects in their new designs and building projects.

The relationship between religion and rationality has been a controversial issue. Its implications are not limited to the realm of ideas but have extended to the social and political aspects. In this article, the relation between religion and REASON has been examined inspired by the Islamic views. Two approaches have been considered: maximal rationalism and minimal rationalism (fideism). These two extreme views have been criticized for paving the path for examining religion, rationality, and relationships. This article consists of a subsumptive UNITY in which religion and REASON are taken in a whole-part relationship. Accordingly, each part of religion is either in principle or in practice REASONable. We have argued that rationality is more expansive and encompasses religion. Finally, the implications of this view for religious education are explored. These include REASONable explanations of religious teachings, and practical suspension of judgments, highlighting dialogue, and fostering critical questions.

The entanglement with the lower self has always been a profound affliction of humankind, leading to ruin, loss, delusion, and estrangement from the truth. In Rumi’s Masnavi, the struggle between REASON and the self is portrayed as essential for the elevation of REASON, guiding it toward enlightenment and liberating it from the snares and impurities of the commanding ego (Nafs-e Ammarah). Such liberation, in Rumi’s view, draws the human being nearer to divine truth. The self, according to Rumi, is the shadow of human existence and a veil obscuring divine reality. Only divine light, manifest through REASON, has the power to lift this veil and disclose the truth. This study examines the confrontation between REASON and the self in the Masnavi. Adopting an analytical approach, it explores the subject through Sufi teachings, illustrative examples, and moral-didactic narratives. A precise statistical review reveals that out of the 962 stories in the Masnavi, 146 address the conflict between REASON and the self. Among these, 55.47% are rooted in mystical parables, while 44.53% are drawn from didactic and instructional tales. These figures, grounded in Rumi’s Masnavi Manavi, provide clear evidence of the central role this theme plays in his work.

Is there any domain beyond REASON that is paradoxical and the oppositeof REASON?This question always makes mysticism face philosophy. Therefore the two domains of REASON and beyond REASON and the relation between them have been always attended to by the Gnostics and students of gnosis and religion in both the Christian West and Islamic East. W.T. Stace maintained that the judgments of the domain of REASON are paradoxical, interpreting a phrase of Meister Eckhart.Mulla Sadra has offered an interesting thesis in this field interpreting Aynolgozat and Ghazalis words. This thesis reveals minute details that have been ignored. In this paper we have used comparative method to show the depth of his view.

Since a civil case is dealt in civil courts, its proceeding must be stopped until a final judgment is given on a criminal case that was filed before or during the proceeding of the civil case. Is the rule "to stop a civil case by criminal case", is binding on a civil judge and the litigants of the civil lawsuits? Whether this rule has been established for the benefit of litigants or public interest? Legislators have made a civil judge obliged to stop the civil proceeding until a final judgment in the criminal case. As such, the above rule is a supplement to "authoritative criminal order on civil case". Authors try to study the subject by dividing it into three parts: the first section deals about the basis of the aforementioned rule hence, shows REASONs for the existence this rule and its relations with the public order. The second section speaks about a comparative condition, and regulation to file the criminal case and the UNITY of the facts in criminal and civil cases, and then deals about the necessity of the union of the litigants in criminal and civil lawsuits. The third section is an attempt to study the effects of this rule.

This study explores the distinguished Persian Sufi mystic Shaykh Maḥmūd Shabestarī’s Golshan-e Rāz, or The Rose Garden of Mystery. Adopting a hermeneutic approach, it scrutinizes the intricate spiritual journey towards divine realization delineated in Shabestarī’s poetry, utilizing qualitative content analysis of original texts and interpretations by scholars such as Lāhījī and Ibn Turka Iṣfahānī. The main question the paper addresses is this: “How can the spiritual journeyer overcome obstacles—particularly ‘otherness’—and achieve UNITY with the divine Essence within the framework of Islamic mysticism, as interpreted through Shabestarī’s teachings in Golshan-e Rāz?” To answer this inquiry, the paper addresses pivotal questions concerning Shabestarī’s depiction of the spiritual journeyer’s path, its stages and challenges, and the critical role of the human form in divine manifestation. The study underscores the necessity of overcoming duality and distinction, alluding to the transformative nature of the journey that necessitates self-purification and the cessation of otherness. Findings from this study provide an enriched understanding of Shabestarī’s thought, contributing to the discourse on Islamic metaphysics. It presents valuable insights into the spiritual journeyer’s path, offering a comprehensive interpretation of the challenges, practices, and transformative experiences leading to divine realization and UNITY.

In some point of view, neither Michel Foucault nor Ibn Khaldun are considered philosophers in the conventional classifications, but both are very  important in intellectual and, of course, in philosophical contexts, especially for those who are interested in the deep study of human life from the perspective of political thought.The main concern of two thinkers, one in the 14th century, the other in the 20th century, is the issue  of power, although neither of them provided a precise definition of it. In this article, an attempt has been made to show the place of power and domination in the political thought of both thinkers by examining the thoughts of two thinkers. And in search of an answer to this question, how did Asabiyyah and industry of religion in Ibn Khaldun's thought and social control through self-technology and discipline in Foucault's thought lead to the expansion of the domination of power? This article is written by analytically comparing the opinions of two thinkers based on Ibn Khaldun's most important book called Muqaddimah and Foucault's late works

One of the most frequent rules in various areas of demonstrative jurisprudence of Two Major Sects of Islam religion is a rule that is known among Shīʿa as “tolerance in the evidence of traditions” (Arabic: التسامح فی أدلّة السنن) and in Sunnī as “latitudinarianism in documents” (Arabic: التساهل فی أسانید). Believers in the general application of this rule have based it for REASONs such as consensus (Arabic: إجماع), tradition famous through practice (Arabic: الشهرة العملیّة), and rational judgement (intellectual judgement) and a group of aḥādīth (Arabic: أحادیث, plural form for ḥadīth, literally “talk” or “discourse”) called “Akhbar-e- Man Balagh” (Arabic: أخبار من بلغ). The understanding of the aforementioned narrations and the extent of application of this rule has caused a conflict of opinions among scholars. The narrations containing the excellences of suras of the Holy Book of Quran is one of the fields of application of the rule of tolerance. The present research has explained the types of exposure to this group of narrations based on the rule of tolerance by using descriptive-exploratory method and using library sources and seeks to find a suitable approach about narrations of the excellences of suras (chapters) of the Holy Book of Quran. The interaction with these narrations is organized based on a special reading of the rule of tolerance in the selected approach, which is based on a rational interpretation of the contents of Man-Balagh (Arabic: من بلغ)’s narrations and is compatible with the indications of some verses and traditions. The use of weak narrations containing the excellences of suras (chapters) will be permissible based on this approach considering three conditions and without any certainty of attributing these narrations to Sharʿ (Islamic rules).