University of Tehran POLITICAL QUARTERLY 1735-9678 45 3 2015 09 23 State’s alternatives in Islamic as well as critical discourse State’s alternatives in Islamic as well as critical discourse 533 550 55575 10.22059/jpq.2015.55575 FA Hadi Ajili Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations. Faculty of Law and Political Sciences. Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran Ali Esmaeili Ardekani PhD Candidate, Department of International Relations. Faculty of Law and Political Sciences. Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran Journal Article 2014 06 16 One of the most important theoretical concepts in international relations is the concept of ‘state’, in relation to which all of the theories and discourses reflect their viewpoints. However, sometimes there are said to be falls in state-nations. Islamic-Jurisprudential discourse and critical Western discourse, admitting the role of state as a key element in international relations and respecting the independence and sovereignty of states in their teachings, do not limit their analysis to this level since some of their discussions move well beyond the concept and they question the pivotal role of government in their theorizations. This study is an attempt to discuss the nature of the criticism required in both Western and Islamic critical discourses as well as their alternatives. The main question here is what effects have the natures of the government's criticisms in both discourses had on the alternatives proposed by each? And the tentative answer expressed as a hypothes is that besides ontological differences, the criticism of the government in terms of its inefficiency in relation to the universal human nature has led these discourses to alleviate the problems in proposing their alternatives and find human excellence in benefiting their talents and instincts. One of the most important theoretical concepts in international relations is the concept of ‘state’, in relation to which all of the theories and discourses reflect their viewpoints. However, sometimes there are said to be falls in state-nations. Islamic-Jurisprudential discourse and critical Western discourse, admitting the role of state as a key element in international relations and respecting the independence and sovereignty of states in their teachings, do not limit their analysis to this level since some of their discussions move well beyond the concept and they question the pivotal role of government in their theorizations. This study is an attempt to discuss the nature of the criticism required in both Western and Islamic critical discourses as well as their alternatives. The main question here is what effects have the natures of the government's criticisms in both discourses had on the alternatives proposed by each? And the tentative answer expressed as a hypothes is that besides ontological differences, the criticism of the government in terms of its inefficiency in relation to the universal human nature has led these discourses to alleviate the problems in proposing their alternatives and find human excellence in benefiting their talents and instincts. https://jpq.ut.ac.ir/article_55575_b2c6a69cb348f63b04e272ad9679e5fa.pdf