During history, justice realization has been one of the most adorable ideals of most cultures and civilizations. To put in other words, since old times, there have been diverse interpretations of justice among different peoples plus their ethical and legal texts. Meanwhile, reflection concerning the history of justice theory from ancient times so far indicates that despite failure in comprehending the objectives in question, this significant point has been proved that the ideal of a good and hannonized society has been the actual demand of all great religions and philosophers in the entire world. Thus, the justice question is one of the most significant issues in political thought (in general) and in political philosophy (in particular) in Islam, the West, and the East. The first prominent work in the political thought history is Plato's Republic (Plato, 1987), and one of the furthermost significant recent works in this regard is John Rawls' Justice as Fairness.
Also at present, the political philosophy stage regarding justice is facing several competing discourses. The issue indicates live presence debate about different alternatives to the justice theory. One of these theories is utilitarianism school, which is rooted in John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham's ideas. They regard the principle of utility as the only origin of just society. Within important theory presented by John Rawls, the theory of social contract talks about fair justice under the support of the liberal state. Contrary to that, the libertarian theory of Nozick and Hayek supports the notion of the neoliberal free market and minimal state. However, the most important challenge in this regard is the communitarian theory that supports “the right of being different” according to Otfried Höffe (Höffe, 2004, p. 101). In the present world, full of religious and ideological communities, it is not acceptable to call for a theory for all people. Postmodern critical thought and post-colonial theory have called the stage of justice theory in inviting the “other.” Within the framework of mentioned objective developments and subjective changes, it is promising to provide new alternatives and theories on behalf of Islam World. Of course, enjoying various historical and intellectual layers, the life-world of Islamic societies can use historical capacity and welcome new patterns simultaneously. The crises of global security, covering the threat of ideological extremists like ISIS, to global warming, poverty and other visible inequalities have exacerbated the need to contemplate and deepen the institutions of social and political justice. While the global communication facilities have paved the grounds for sectors and territories to move in the line of knowledge and development, in many areas, the consolidation of black holes of misery observed. As Christian Delacampagne has argued, concerning justice scale and fair governing, “the health condition of the world is not good” (Delacampagne, 2003, p. 12).The life-world of Islamic societies with a variety of historical and civilizational layers can take advantage of this capacity and pave the way for novel and successful governing strategies.
The authors of this article seek to point out the significance of justice in today's high-tension world and discuss the necessities of the Islamic-Iranian pattern of justice within the Islamic-Iranian Life-world framework. In other words, if one considers the realm of justice and just society in a diversified linguistic and ethnic community like Islam World and define justice as applying moderation, bravery plus independence, then this question shall be raised: How can existing capacities in the Islamic-Iranian intellectual tradition assist this ideal? In other words, may one thinks within the framework of the Islamic-Iranian pattern of justice to reduce the challenge of injustice in the Middle East? If the answer is positive, then the next step shall be to provide necessities and components of the justice theory. Since this article is using the framework of critical normative theory, its principles and significance will be discussed briefly here.
One of the important domains of applying normative theory is the topic of justice. Here, the critical theorists have targeted one of the most significant, continuous and controversial disputes.
Once raising the normative theories of justice, particularly facing the contemporary world problems, three streams are of importance. The first stream is critical liberal approach provided by John Rawls within the framework of “Justice as Fairness”; this theory, which was developed by publishing “Theory of justice” (Rawls, 2004) is regarded as serious progress. In this book, by showing his affiliation with the social contract and normative thought, notably Kant, Rawls seeks to raise a general theory emphasizing human's unified nature and essence, so that the notion of justice as fairness is realized not only at national level but also at world levels. After various criticisms and other considerations, he decided to provide the theory of justice in a more certainmanner in which its western nature was explicitly expressed. By using the theory of social contract, Rawls decided to realize the possibility of establishing a fair or well-ordered society. In Rawls' thought, the unjustifiable shortages of liberal democracy are not neglected from his critical vision (Rawls, 2004).
The second critical current is communitarianism. Such thinkers as Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor and Michael Sandel criticize the justice claims of liberal democracy in their mechanical and atomist interpretation concerning the human being as isolated abstract “individual” and owing “eternal rights.” On this basis, communitarians define a human being as a person belonging to various communities (including family, linguistic and cultural belongings) (Marsh & Stocker, 2008). As the third critical viewpoint, the postcolonial movement has similarly presented its specific interpretation ona sane and just society. At the same time, it will be possible to understand the postcolonial theoretical foundations whose theorists are mainly from the Third World by understanding the historical and epistemological nature of the unequal relationship between the Western world and the subaltern worlds. They believe that the “white western man” has regarded themselves as enjoying a superior civilization; thus they merit governing “non-white” civilizations. Consequently, the nature of political and economic action in liberal democracy throughout past two decades have been a kind of other-building which are marginal, the Third World, Oriental and eventually Muslim communities, and they have considered them as subaltern ones (Gandhi, 2012). It seems that the common point of these three viewpoints is that liberal democracy in its continuous form cannot represent an ideal of justice at the world level despite the failure of communist myth.
Simultaneously, the central weakness of these theories including Rawls' is that Rawls' targeted notion could not succeed in the world by accepting “reasonable pluralism, “unless providing an alternative that covers the shortage. In other words, since Rawls regards his theory as a form of “realistic utopia” (Rawls, 2004, p. 23) he always hopes that the world governments move towards accepting his targeted principles and try to improve the world affairs gradually by observing the severe consequences of hostilities. As hinted above, by adding some Western epistemological and historical foundations, he seeks to classify human societies into three groups: (1) liberal (good) nations (2) decent (acceptable) nations plus (3) outlaw nations. In some critics' opinion, although classifying nations seems consistent with the principles of political theory, it is not in line with establishing equality and difference principles Rawls had emphasized already. In his book entitled “The Law of Peoples,” Rawls interprets the concept of “difference” in an irregular and incorrect way, he, thus, classifies international law and banishes it from the international community, which is an authentic entity (Falsafi, 2011).
In this article, the theory of justice connects a form of a normative and adjusted model of justice, borrowed from Rawls' theory to the plural cultural life-world of the Middle East. Referring to this viewpoint, the part of Rawls' approach that emphasizes the necessity of reinforcing moral-political norms and relinquishes ultimate focusing on the liberal notion of democracy, is paid attention. In the interim, Rawls' civilization diversity and hierarchical order could be regarded as a departure for the plural context of the Iranian-Islamic pattern of justice in the Middle East. However, in the ultimate framework, this pattern avoids Rawls' theory shortages and problems. It means that even though in his book entitled “The Law of Peoples,” Rawls has engaged in a broader concept of justice outside the Western meanness, but his ultimate focus is on that a just world is a world of liberal states; it is regarded as an obvious imperfection. After September 11th some analysts have criticized Rawls and sought to show that Washington's just peace wants to combine Rawls' democratic peace with Fukuyama's end of history (Richardson, 2011).
Thus, such a pattern cannot spread justice in Iran, besides, imposing a pattern of justice for life-world of the Iranian-Islamic will culminate in being monolog situation if it is not .discussed in the public sphere. Since every monolog situation ultimately culminates in using force and obligation, the very situation will be unjust. The justice principles are regarded as valid, reasonable and acceptable if a rational consensus is being resulted from a verbal situation and ideal selection by the members of the very society. As Habermas says, there is no place for monolog and a truth-finder reason for solving the problems. Hence, given the importance of establishing an ideal verbal situation is a pre-requisite for justice plus main faults of Rawls' doctrine including founding on agreement, epistemological relativism, ethical pluralism, considering virtuous and non-virtuous notions and so on are raised, it seems necessary to provide a native Iranian-Islamic pattern of justice in the realm of life-world of the Middle East, which is inclusive and applicable.
Further to this, if a fair governor reflects the harmony adapted to the situation of the world by all its norms, the fundamental question would be how to integrate the quantity and quality of the matter proportionately, so that the expected fundamental idea of justice and fair administration will come true? What we call, the Iranian Islamic model is intended to reflect the civilization and brilliance of its own, which is bound up with literary, historical and ethical rituals. On the other hand, it can be effective for the current success of modern human beings in a modern religious society. Nonetheless, how do we live in the modern world today, so that the character of the “man's presence” (man-centered) and the life-blended with morality and sanctity would be possible? The fact seems to be concerned with those who thought about the ideological and intellectual foundations of Islamic revolution discourse. In a simpler sense, confronting the social division and the plan of justice promises in the Islamic revolution was not merely ideological rather the realization and achievement of the social justice were one of the main goals and objectives of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The Iranian-Islamic pattern has to establish justice in the Islamic world, and whether we can think within the framework of Iranian-Islamic justice, the authors believe that the Iranian-Islamic attitude can pave the way for this purpose.
Because the scrutiny of different aspects of justice allows us to come out of unjust web we are embedded, and accept that two origins of Iranshahri thought (native tradition) and Islamic thought (emphasizing Imam Khomeini's postcolonial political theory) are necessary for spreading justice in Iran. Thus, we have embarked on a particular selection among theorists of justice in order to analyze justice and provide a pattern of it. In this selection we have commenced from Iranshahri thought hitherto, and on the same basis, on top of the list, we have selected the first Imam of Shiites and the three prominent thinkers of justice in Iranshahri thought (Farabi, Khajeh Nasir Tusi, Khajeh Nizam al-Mulk Tusi) plus in the contemporary time, Imam Khomeini's theory of justice due to some particular reasons, which will be pointed out. The authors believe we can reach a theory of justice entitled “objective-humanly theory of justice in the framework of the Islam space.”
Due to the impact of Iranshahri political thought on some Islam political thinkers plus given the fact that establishing Iranian-Islamic pattern of justice in the life-world of the Middle East is not plausible without considering Iran's history, it seems essential to use analytical-historical method to deal with summarizing the justice occasions in the context of Iranshahri, which is in turn connected with the main thinkers of Islamic political philosophy (Farabi and Khajeh Nasir Tusi), and writing admonition (Nizam al-Mulk Tusi). It is noteworthy to indicate that these thinkers have invited kings and rulers to justice as the most pivotal element in good government establishment. In this section of the article, thus, we discuss justice as the principal component of good government in Iranshahri thought.
In his writings, Farabi has discussed justice in three books: “Civil Politics,” “On the Perfect State,” and “Solitaires of Philosophy.” In Farabi's view, human individuals are not equal, and they are in a hierarchy of abilities and talents based on their merits. Considering the hierarchy is required for continuing a government. In more precise statements, as claimed by Farabi, the Almighty enjoys virtues and perfections, and he has established the universe on the basis of his justice. The polis head should also act as the most perfect and virtuous person in society regarding virtues and rationality, including justice. S/he should establish his/her government on the basis of justice so that the government functions. Due to the very reason, the head of the perfect state should have twelve attributes including enthusiasm for justice plus standing against injustice and cruelty; passion for truth and protest against lie; and moderateness in satisfying his/her desires (Nazerzadeh Kermani, 1997).
Farabi raises just division or public goods and ratifying laws in order to preserve the rights of citizens as the primary task of government plus its survival (Nazerzadeh Kermani, 1997). In his opinion, justice means “to divide public goods belonging to all among all.” Therefore “possibility of partnership” is the distinctive feature of' public and social goods that makes them different from private ones. As these goods belong to all citizens and they are outside private ownership, no one, from the head of state to the lowest ranking person, can vest, occupy, recapture or abuse them. The key point is that there is an equal share of goods for each citizen based on their competence and qualification. Each person has the right .to enjoy a part of' these valuable things consisting with their competencies, and any ups or downs in peoples' shares are regarded as a sort of injustice (Nazerzadeh Kermani, 1997). Therefore, injustice in this sense means getting upper or downer than this share, and if someone gets less or more than his appropriate share, he/she have not only violated not only his/her right but also all citizens. Justice is that the remainder is backed to the owner (person or people). Accordingly, each person owns their own right. In the perfect state (utopia), justice has such an importance that its role is to regulate relations among the components of the state. It connects these components; so in Farabi's view, it is the cause of the survival of state and government (Nazerzadeh Kermani, 1997).
On the other hand, in the history of Iranshahri thought, Khajeh Nasir Tusi's status is significant in political philosophy and his definition of justice matters. Although Khajeh's opinions about justice like other Islamic philosophers are affected by Plato and Aristotle's thought, they are mainly rooted in the Quran and Islam. However, by following Aristotle and Moskuyeh, he has provided some details, which are specific to him amongst successive philosophers. Khajeh's different views on justice in his masterpiece arc as follows: Justice means realizing competencies and talents and considering deservedness and hierarchy, not absolute equality. Similar to Farabi, Khajeh Nasir assumed some definitions for justice including “giving a right to the rightful,” and “placing all things in its right place.” He denied absolute equality but regarded erasing discrimination against those who deserve equality. This justice definition, which is one of the most popular Islamic and Platonic interpretations of the concept, is very significant for Khajeh, and he starts defining this concept by examining the meaning of equality.
Following Farabi, Khajeh Nasir discusses on just division of public goods among all citizens and believes everybody should have a share according to his/hercompetencies and deservedness. He expresses the issue when he describes “king's laws and prerequisites of moderateness. In Khajeh's attitude, as the survival and stability of state and government are dependent on moderateness, the king must consider the subjects' conditions and preserve the moderateness law. Then, he enlightens the laws and prerequisites of moderateness. The first prerequisite of moderateness is to stabilize the crafts of people. A moderate society is divided into four crafts: the craft of pen, sword, and business plus agriculture. Justice is that none of these crafts departs from its deserved position and no craft tries to overcome other crafts because this departure leads to the violation of moderateness and social affairs turns into corruption. The second prerequisite of moderateness is that the king must consider the citizen's conditions and actions, and further determine their position according to their deservedness and talent. The third moderateness prerequisite includes the necessity for an equal division of public goods among people (Khajeh Nasir Tusi, 1994). Khajeh Nasir, thus, recalls repeatedly these three prerequisites to the king as the required and sufficient conditions of government lasting.
On the other hand, when we are discussing the position of Iranshahri thought, it is necessary to indicate Khajeh's book “Siyasatnama” (Politics Letter). In this book, the robust concept of “justice” as the vital element of government has been mentioned repeatedly. To put in other words, justice causes a government to be last; the kingdom is the God's gift, and the king should thank God by establishing justice. Applying such justice would bring about people's good wishes, which in turn, stabilizes government and causes salvation after death. Thus, the survival of political power depends on justice, and its ruin depends on injustice. Khajeh, therefore, by mentioning a hadith from the Prophet confesses “Power may last with infidelity (Kufr), but cannot continue with injustice (Zulm)” (Nizam al-Mulk Tusi, 1993, p. 6). On the other hand, Khajeh Nizam al-Mulk considers placing everything in its proper place and respecting competencies and deservedness plus hierarchies as the substantial components in lasting government; because according to this definition of Justice, social order is ruined as the result of displacing crafts and classes as well as by dissolving the frontiers between “the low class and high class” people. Therefore, lasting power is based on preserving hierarchy, or in more precise words, it is based on justice as by dissolving social order and the hierarchy of crafts, the state shall be corrupted, and the kings collapsed. Thus, to provide and preserve the government, Khajeh repeatedly uses the concepts of' justice” as “truth” as synonyms in Siyasatnama. “During history, from Adam (PBUH) hitherto, those nations that have established justice and equity, and sought the truth, have lasting power for many years” (Nizam al-Mulk Tusi, 1993, p. 42).
By examining various works (political philosophy and essay writing) of leading figures of Iranshahri era, it is known that justice is the focal point of the political thought of Iranshahri time. In other words, the role and significance of justice have been regarded as the survival of the government, and consequently, it has acted as a criterion for implementing internal and external controller of authoritarian rulers. For that reason, it did not lose its manner as a criterion under pressure of authoritarianism. Thus, in order to provide a certain pattern of justice in the Middle East, we deal with examination of Shiite justice as a pattern for the Middle East life-world against socialist and liberal discourses (as dominant world paradigm).
The category of justice as a meta-historical element is the permanent question of divine religions, particularly the Islamic thought. In the Islamic outlook, justice in itself has a fundamental position about which many have discussed, both in Quran and tradition. Consequently, justice as one of the most controversial religious concepts has been discussed and scrutinized by Muslim thinkers including clergymen and philosophers. The Shiite thought has regarded justice as one of its religious principles, and its historical culture and belief have always considered it as its integral element. The Shiite view not only explains divine prophets, Islam Prophet and Imam's vocation within the framework of spreading justice but also depicts its utopia, which shall be realized by emerging Imam Mahdi (PBUH) solely in the shadow of justice.
As George Jardagh claimed, “the story of Ali regarding justice is one of the valuable heritages that upgrades the human status and human spirit” (Jardagh, 1996, p. 117). Thus, it should be stated explicitly that as one of the most permanent and eternal questions of political philosophy, justice is one of the most fundamental principles of Imam Ali's government without which his government could not be understood properly. We should not regard justice in Imam Ali's thought and lifestyle merely a moral issue but as one of the most fundamental principles of sociopolitical management in his political structure. As George Jardagh points out “justice in Imam Ali's view is not something learned from others, although it became a school afterward, and it is not a plan necessitated by politics, although it became an inseparable component of government, but justice in his moral and spiritual school is a principle connected firmly to other principles, and it has a nature that cannot act against itself, Thus, it is as if seeking justice is the constituting liquid of his corporal structure, it is the blood circulating in his heart and vessels, and a spirit without which corporal life could not continue.” (Jardagh, 1996, p. 64).
A concept repeatedly mentioned in Imam Ali's speech is “negation of every kind of discrimination as well as consideration of deservedness.” In Imam Ali's city of faith, attention to the deprived people's affairs indicate that he has tried to create a wide space for rehabilitating such damages, Of course, it is evident justice in this meaning does not mean absolute equality of individuals, rather is equality among similar deserved ones. Further, as peoples' deservedness is different, differences among people are taken for granted in Islam. Imam Ali's interpretation of these differences is as follows: “as the Almighty has created differences among people's wills, demands plus other manners, and these differences are means of establishing life” (Nahj al-Balagha, Letter. 53).In this direction, by considering economic and social gaps among Muslims in society, and also the formation of a class-based society, Imam Ali pays special attention to the lower classes, namely those who have not any hope for continuing a reasonable and respectful life. In this regards, he says:
“I order you, Maalik, always to keep the fear of Allah in your mind. Regarding the class of the poor and the disabled persons, namely those miserable people who have not any hope in society, it is necessary that they should be looked after, helped and well-provided. The Merciful Allah has explained the ways and means of maintaining and providing for each of these classes. Also, everyone in this class has the right upon the ruler of the State; the least minimum necessities for his well-being and contented living be provided” (Nahj al-Balagha, Letter. 53)
Thus, considering individuals' rights and removing deprivation is the inseparable component of Alavi justice, because he regards “just Imam as one who is guided and guides people as the God's uppermost follower and regards an oppressor leader, who is misled and is misleading, as the worst people” (Nahj al-Balagha, Letter. 53). This attitude has been reiterated in Imam Ali's letter to his agents in a more widespread manner. He emphasizes in his letter to Maalik Ashtar:
“I order you, Maalik, treat people in a kind and good manner. Never treat them like beasts and never regard them as an opportunity for misusing them because they are two categories; they are either brothers,in religion with you, or similar in creation like you” (Nahj al-Balagha, Letter. 53)
Therefore, Imam Ali reiterates to Maalik “avoid monopolizing and allocating things in which all people are equal” (Nahj al-Balagha, Letter. 53). By this sentence, Imam says that the issues in which all people have equal rights should not be monopolized; because concerning the creation, Imam is like all other people, and thus, apart from any conditions, human beings are equal in terms of rights. Consequently, Imam considers right for all people, whether close or far, equally and says: “enforce right for the deserved people, whether close or far” (Nahj al-Balagha. Letter. 53). In Imam Ali's opinion, therefore, the concept of justice and right are closely intertwined, their meaning is connected. Further, one of the most, significant aspects of that meaning is to realize the rights of humans plus negation of discrimination in those spheres in which they are equal.
This section of the article was an attempt at scrutinizing the concept of justice in Imam Ali's view. No doubt that his speech and performance regarding government is the reflection of human historical conscience regarding justice, particularly Imam Ali's government is the only case in Islam history that an innocent Imam had seized political power and led the Islamic society. Certainly, the formation of Alavi state created a new political and spiritual life-world not only for the Islamic society but also for the human history. It provided required conditions for restoring the functions of a justice-seeking government among Muslims in the circumstances the Muslim society had experienced two decades of despair. Toward this end, Imam Ali's government should be regarded as the most prominent pattern of Islamic government after the Prophet's one that provided a different definition of politics and used all powers, for spreading justice, negating oppression and discrimination, and realizing equity in the Islamic society.
Iranshahri thought and Islamic political philosophy experienced recession and weakness in a part of their history. In this period, the problematicity of justice was forgotten, and as the result of Shiite Akhbari School accompanied by authoritarian rulers' repressions, justice has been consigned to obscurity. However, in our time, justice has been revitalized again by a concussive thinker, i.e., Imam Khomeini, and his “Just government,” “just law” and so forth, were paying attention to. Accordingly, justice-seeking and Islamic Awakening Movement engaged a part of Islam World gradually. As a religious thinker with a comprehensive understanding about religion and a rational-mystical look to religion and politics, Imam Khomeini considers establishing Mohammadian Pure Islam as the most reasonable practical way of realizing the oppressed people's rights.
An Islamic government based on monotheism is a just government, and all its consequences are just as well. In this regard, Imam Khomeini says: “Islam highly regards the law as an instrument for realizing the oppressed people's rights since it considers that as means of realizing justice in society. In other words, the law is for enforcing and establishing just social order to realize rights and nurturing elevated humans” (Vahdat, 2011, p. 227). Put differently, from his viewpoint, politics is the knowledge of virtue, justice and guiding human being on a spiritual path. Thus, Imam Khomeini could be considered as one of those who revitalized the Islamic political philosophy.
By scrutinizing Imam Khomeini's various books; we can find out that he explains the determining statements of justice in negating oppression and seeking independence in order to explain the general direction of Islamic Justice. Thus, he criticizes communism and capitalism in the direction of the slogan “neither East nor West.” As he says: “we are now trapped in two currents: the first current anti-communism according to which whoever talks about the oppressed and exploited people plus the oppressors and exploiters, is regarded as a communist. The second current says if one protests against the division of lands and properties, he defends capitalists and feudal. This is while Islam does not agree with neither capitalism nor communism” (Khomeini, 1989, p. 292). “Islam does not agree with oppressor irrational capitalism that deprives the oppressed masses. Preferably, in its texts and tradition, Islam condemns capitalism and regards it as a system against social justice. Islam is not a regime like communism and Marxism-Leninism, which is against private ownership and defends commune. Rather it is a moderate regime that respects ownership in production and consumption in a limited form, and thus, if principles of Islam are implemented, the wheels of a balanced economy will move, and social justice will be realized (Khomeini, 1989). Referring to this quotation, it can be stated in Imam Khomeini's political thought; justice means neither absolute individual freedom for an accumulation of capital nor true equality in terms of using resources of society. Instead, Islam regards equality in existent opportunities as justice.
In more precise words, Imam Khomeini regards justice as a negation of capitalism in order to gain independence: “Islam does not agree with cruel oppressor capitalism that deprives the oppressed masses. Islam condemns capitalism in its texts and traditions and regards it as against social justice. Although some who are trapped in misperceptions about Islamic government have shown that Islam is a proponent of uncontrolled capitalism and tried to blacken the bright face of Islam and pave the way for enemies of Islam plus introduced it as a pro-Western capitalist regime, it is a moderate regime that acknowledges private ownership. Islam respects ownership in a limited way conditioned so that it moves the wheels of the economy and realizes social justice, which is the required condition for a sane regime” (Khomeini, 1989, p. 36). Referring to Imam Khomeini's view, the state should interfere in economic policy in order to support the deprived strata and the poor, control properties of capitalists and create equilibrium in society. On this basis, the state should organize the main parts of economic activities in society and takes responsibility for managing the economy (Khomeini, 1989).
Consequently, it is understood that Imam Khomeini regards justice as a tool for preserving independence and preventing from injustice and corruption. For that matter, Imam Khomeini interprets justice in the shadow of gaining independence and believes that they will pave the way for the oppressed and Imam Mahdi's world government. Imam Khomeini regards supporting the oppressed people, serving the weak people, considering the deprived and emancipating them, eradicating poverty and class gaps as the primary tools for reaching peace. Of course, he considers suitable bed-building in the international system that culminates in destroying the West and East dominant systems, considering human values establishing a just system in the world, and eradicating poverty (Khomeini, 1989). Consequently, Imam Khomeini regarded power and force politics at the international stage as an unjust and cruel system, which is not acceptable for the Islamic Republic, and he denied such an attitude in Iranian foreign policy to which Iranian people cannot compromise (Khomeini, 1989).
We can conclude from this section that despite major theses about justice provided by elites and intellectuals, most of them were not provided within the framework of native thought and never popularized. Justice, thus, (in both western arid eastern versions) could not be effective and could not resolve the problems of justice. While the dominant trends in the Middle Eastern geopolitics paid attention to only one dimension, some intellectual provided a complicated and multidimensional interpretation of the problems of Iran and Islam World. They had found out that the problem of Islam world is not political, religious or underdevelopment. They had realized that political, religious and underdevelopment are the consequences of a more fundamental problem, which is the lack of political independence. Imam Khomeini was one of the prominent figures of the twentieth century who found out that the main problem of Iranian society in particular and Islam World, in general, is the lack of independence in its real meaning. He considered such independence in anti-Western ideology and confrontation with the US, which is the symbol of individual and social independence.
It seemed that the advancement of liberal democracy predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville more than a century ago, had reached its ultimate station; an event celebrated by some as “the end of history. “However, in the noises of this world event, we cannot ignore the opposite voices mainly propounded by ethnic, national and religious rivalries. These rivalries have different reasons. The new international Roman dominance (or the American international dominance) even when it conveys its blessings to non-western societies (and non-assimilated groups in the West) through non-violent means are faced popular resistance due to that they are regarded as lights of imperialist hegemony. Thus, in such political and economic situations, which is indicating “emergence of a long iced night” according to Max Weber's famous quote, we are witnessing the formation of some theories criticizing liberal democrat structures and providing new patterns of justice at a global level. However, by accepting relativism, these theories practically reached the justice pluralism because if a kind of justice has not a constant base distinct from the demands, wishes, and purposes of individuals in a society, then it cannot find strong bases for realizing itself and will move toward realism and conservatism plus being the ideology of dominant systems. Besides, it cannot prove itself. Such theories soak in ideologies, miss their path and goal and practically move in a path contrary to their objectives for which they have been created. Hence, Rawls' view about justice in the West has only effect on liberalism as much as Ash'arism on Sunni Islam, Akhbarism on Shiite Islam and Marx's relativism on socialism. One of the ways, therefore, for preventing a theory from being ideological is that it should be based on general and public principles, which do not change during time and they are valid for all humans in all history. Thus, they are not historic. We call these general principles “absoluteness” which is against “being historical” and “relativity.”
Given the permanent justice problematicity in the Iranian-Islamic Life-world, we tried to provide an Iranian-Islamic pattern of justice, which is consisted of its cultural and social situation and others can use it as an alternative because this approach is comprehensive, i.e. the pattern includes all dimensions and spheres of human personal and social life. Further, it enjoys the potential for explaining and exploring all spheres of life and does not neglect any dimension of human, society and its constituent elements. We can find out the widespread feedbacks of Islamic Revolution doctrine in the recent uprisings of the Middle East region. Reflection about Islamic Revolution discursive principles and constructs indicate that justice, in both conceptual and content aspects, as the most precise and comprehensive attitude, has been propounded in Imam Ali's thought. The issue provided the grounds for theorizing on justice. However, the grounds used these elementary seeds and provided the base concerning justice in Islam, in general, and Iran, in particular, was Islamic political philosophy and Iranshahri thought.
Therefore, processing the theory of justice within the framework of Iranian-Islamic domain is remote from the radical approach (based on ancient values and irrational modernism) that regards Islam as not having any pattern for justice and thus, recommends the western pattern of development and equality including liberal democracy and socialism. Given the importance of independence-seeking, it prevents the Islam World from passiveness against the patterns based on western doctrines and non-native pattern because of more imitation of liberal and Marxist models are not appropriate for establishing justice and independence. Therefore, Islamic experts and thinkers including Sunni and Shiite ones must use Iranshahri justice and Islamic doctrines by paying attention to the requirements of time and place for explaining and operationalizing justice and progress according to the Iranian-Islamic approach. If these components of justice are implemented in the Middle East, the Iranian Islamic system will turn into a successful pattern in the contemporary world. Such ' an issue will not be realized unless a public movement takes place in order to reflect about sublime Islamic concepts and Iranshahri doctrines, and through making it native, a model of justice is provided with an Islamic-Iranian approach to the Islamic Awakening movements. Finally, the purpose of the current paper was to return to the urgent need for the effective theorizing in fair governance, using the experience of the historical, cultural and religious life of our native society, to present the three components formulating such a model. Once, the reputable philosopher, Aristotle hinted “the problem statement is half of the way.” If we borrow Aristotle’s idea for the present paper, it must be stated that attempts to look at foundations of such a theory as an outset to the problem statement are the product of the basic necessity of society today.