Critical discourse analysis is a process for the revelation of hidden thoughts and ideologies in a text (discourse). One of the theorists of critical discourse analysis is Theo van Leeuwen, whose theory of "social actors" and "social action-reactions" seeks to legitimize or de-legitimize some actors, their actions and goals. The methods of legitimizing an object or delegitimizing it are the basis of this theory. The four main strategies for legitimizing discourse are: 1) validation, 2) moral evaluation, 3) rationalization, and 4) myth-making. Each of these four methods has various forms and in this research, the poems of Malek al-Sho'ra Bahar and Haji Qader Kooi have been examined from the perspective of approaches for legitimizing discourse. Findings show that in the poems of Bahar and Haji Qader Kooi de-legitimization is more frequent than the legitimization. The models of de-legitimization used by the poets are adopted from Quranic verses, ancient kings of Iran and the glorious history of ancient Persia and some other civilized countries. Following the examples of the Qur'an and the ancient kings and by quoting the words of the Prophet (PBUH) and the elders of ancient Iran, Bahar and Haji Qadir have delegitimized the government of their time through accreditation and mentioning the negative attributes of the dominant system and members of the governing body. Also, both poets allude to the heroic mythology of ancient Persia so as to enthuse the people into action against the government and de-legitimizing that government.

This paper addresses the issue of how purchasing managers can develop the purchasing department's legitimacy within an organization. A qualitative exploratory approach based on six cases has been used since: (1) there has not yet been a research performed on this topic; and (2) an analysis of internal legitimization strategies must take into consideration the context and the nature of the relationships among departments. Our analysis shows that in order to create, maintain or increase the purchasing department's internal legitimacy, purchasing managers have to do very well about two complementary strategic orientations: (1) identify and attract the best suppliers; (2) identify and implement collaborative processes and coordination mechanisms that cannot be duplicated by competitors. In fact, supply managers actually develop legitimization strategies based internally and externally, since a higher level of internal legitimacy can also be supported partially by external stakeholders, who then influence the other departments' and top management's perceptions. Our study also shows that the strategies used by purchasing managers take different forms depending which legitimacy dimension (cognitive, pragmatic, or moral legitimacy) they are trying to influence. Moreover, a purchasing department's legitimacy strategy is developed based on a few important factors: (1) where the purchasing department stands at a given time in terms of the contribution perceived, similar to a "balance sheet" evaluation; (2) the purchasing personnel's technical and relational competencies; and (3) the extent of their implication in the strategic choices leading to the development of a competitive advantage for the organization they work for. It seems that any effort to take steps based on coherent legitimization strategies could help improve both a purchasing department's legitimacy level and its development level. From this standpoint, this study also shows that the purchasing department's internal legitimacy is a crucial driver of purchasing practices.

Following the 9/11 attacks, the US, as a part of its "war on terrorism", attacked Afghanistan and Iraq to lead what was called a campaign to liberate all the people from terrorism and direct them towards freedom and democracy. In the years that followed, thousands of people were killed, injured, and lost their homes; thousands of people tried to find refuge in other countries; and incalculable losses were incurred. Terrorism, however, was not stopped and terrorist activities spread all over the world. This costly and damaging policy with all its negative consequences was made possible by legitimizing strategies of US administration. This article seeks to analyze the legitimizing discourse of the Bush administration through metaphor and predicate analysis. The findings show how American officials and in particular President Bush, by relying on hegemonic discourses such as liberalism and American exceptionalism, constructed a new representation of the self and the other through which US practices and policies could be justified.

The Saljuqs were Turkish peoples, they dominated Iran and Iraq and established the foundations of a powerful government in these areas. They had accepted Islam before getting strong in Islamic territories, therefore from the begining they grasped to take the legitimacy through taking confirmation from Abbasid caliphs just like the other previous governments in Iran.Togril, the founder of the Saljuq dynasty, affected by his Iranian minister, Amid-ulmulk kunduri, didn’t change the relations between monarchy and caliphate in comparison with previous rulers, Ale Buwayhids. He accepted this thought that monarchy is a divine right and it is given to the Abbasids and it is assigned on the behalf of them to the rulers like Toghril. In the time of Togril and Successors, the relations between caliphate and monarchy changed fundamentally and sanjar publicized the idea that sovereignty is assigned to him directly on behalf of god through heritage or personal deserts. Therefore, the role of caliph weakened severely in Saljuq governmental structure and Sanjar stated that the only reason for respect to caliphate is following the tradition of their predecessors.

The foundation of any government and sovereignty lies in its legitimacy. Legitimacy, on one hand, establishes the right to rule for the governing power and, on the other, leads to the recognition and acceptance of this right by the general public. In Islamic-era Iran, rulers derived their legitimacy from Arab caliphs and, in some cases, through domination or by appealing to ancient historical precedents—until the Mongol invasion transformed the sources of legitimacy. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study aims to compare the process of legitimization between the Mongol Ilkhanids and the Timurids, based on their utilization of the cultural potential and appeal of Shia Islam.The findings indicate that although both ruling dynasties exploited the potential of Shia Islam for political purposes and cultural assimilation within the majority society, Shia jurists cooperated and assisted the Ilkhanids more than they did the Timurids. This contributed significantly to the growth of Shia Islam, both in terms of the freedom of action for Shias and the union of Shia Islam and Sufism during the Ilkhanid era. On the other hand, both the Ilkhanids and Timurids made extensive efforts to legitimize their rule through the construction of religious buildings and the reflection of religious themes in the architecture of the period.Research Objectives:To examine the process of legitimization of the Mongol Ilkhanids and Timurids based on their use of the cultural potential and appeal of Shia Islam.To investigate how the Ilkhanids and Timurids sought legitimization through the inscriptions on buildings from their respective periods.Research Questions:How did the process of legitimization of the Mongol Ilkhanids and Timurids unfold based on their utilization of the cultural potential and appeal of Shia Islam?How was the legitimization of the Ilkhanids and Timurids reflected in the inscriptions on buildings from their respective periods?

The Battle of Chaldiran was a pivotal event during the formation and consolidation of the Safavid state, as it dealt a heavy blow to the seemingly invincible image of Shah Ismail and significantly undermined his legitimacy. The shock of this defeat forced pro-Safavid historians to reconsider how the battle was represented in historical narratives. This article, through a descriptive-analytical approach, seeks to explore how historiographical sources of the Safavid era responded to this military failure. An examination of the representations of the Battle of Chaldiran in the histories written during Shah Ismail’s reign and afterward reveals two distinct narrative strategies. The first appears in works such as Habib al-Siyar and Futuhāt-e Shāhī, where denial and marginalization of the defeat dominate. Futuhāt-e Shāhī completely omits the event to avoid tarnishing the king’s image. Khandmir also treats the defeat as insignificant, outright rejecting its impact. The second approach, found in post-Ismail historical texts, acknowledges the bitterness of the loss, yet shifts the blame to the Qizilbash forces. These accounts are shaped to preserve the grandeur of Shah Ismail and to protect the foundations of Safavid legitimacy from disruption.

The First Daryush (B.C 486- 522) came to thorn after protracted struggles and several disputes. Immediately after initiating his reign, Daryush called himself the chosen king or the prophet of Ahoura-Mazda in the inscription of Bistoon and thereby he bestowed legitimacy to himself and his descendents. "Why did he call himself the legitimate king?" "How did he do it?" These two questions make the basic questions which this article attempts to answer by discussing the legitimization of power and to bring forth the reasons behind it.  

This paper examines the relationships between language and ideology and how ideology is constructed and presented via different language choices in English editorials published in different socio-cultural contexts. Van Dijk’s (2000a)ideological squarein terms of representation of the self and other was applied to the editorials. Through a comparative analysis of Iranian, Turkish and Saudi Arabian newspaper editorials with different ideologies, the study attempts to reveal how these ideologies are represented differently in the texts regarding civil crisis in Syria in 2012. It aims to show how writers, by using various strategies such asevil doing, humanitarianism, cause of crisis, and history as lesson manipulate the realizations of agency and power in the representation of action to produce particular meanings which are not always explicit for all readers. Data gathered for the analysis were 45 editorials from three newspapers ofTehran Times, Today Zaman, and Arab Newsduring the first half of the year 2012 (15 from each).Careful selection of 6 editorials for qualitative analysis indicates that the three newspapers focus on different aspects of reality and, by using various language strategies, influence readers' understanding of the events.