Alfarabi (870-950), on multiple occasions, develops rigorous accounts of an ideal political regime governed by the wisest rulers. Alfarabi, as a careful reader of the Greek philosophers, masterfully has built a regime in speech. Alfarabi more than his Greek instructors, Plato and Aristotle, had to contemplate the possibility and desirability of a universal regime or as he called ma’murah min al-ardh “inhabited world.” Not only did Islam proclaim a universal message to the entire humanity, but also Muslims, soon after the death of Muhammad, took this message to their hearths to spread Islam through jihad and futu ?h, conquests. Living under the reign of the Abbasids, whose territory stretched from India to the North Africa, for Alfarabi’s Muslim contemporaries, trying to create a universal regime was not only a political ideal, but also an everyday reality. Unlike Plato and Aristotle, whose main focus of political philosophy’s inquiries was Greek polis, for Alfarabi’s the major philosophical concern was a universal regime. Islam as a young religion displayed a great deal of political ambitions for realizing a universal regime. Alfarabi made the possibility of a universal virtuous regime as a centerpiece of his philosophical deliberations. A universal virtuous regime would be possible only if the required state of perpetuated wars was just; furthermore, it would be possible if compelling philosophers to rule was a just act. Some recent interpretations, affected by modern ideologies, take the position that the ancients’ attempts, including Alfarabi's, to build cities-in-speech was a blueprint for establishing an ideal political regime in reality. I challenge this view. I argue that Alfarabi advances effective arguments against the possibility of a universal virtuous regime in subtle ways. In the next step, I explore that if he argues against the possibility, what would be his reasons for constructing a city-in-speech? The motivation behind building these cities-in-speech is educating the soul. In fact, education of the soul is the fundamental problem of the ancients’ political science.

This paper attempts to explain that Leo Strauss (d. 1973) was a Platonic political philosopher through analyzing Strauss’ esoteric reading of Ab? Nasr al-F?r?b?’s (d. 951) understanding of the relationship between philosophy and religion. Although al-F?r?b? is known by some scholars of his attempt to reconcile philosophy and religion, Strauss argues that al-F?r?b? believed in the irreconcilability of philosophy and religion. Strauss also argues that al-F?r?b?’s refraining from attacking religion should be interpreted in line with Plato’s political philosophy that advocates the political and social usefulness of religion. This paper explains that Strauss came to such a conclusion based on reading al-F?r?b? esoterically. By focusing on Strauss’ own esotericism, this paper serves two purposes: first, rereading al-F?r?b?’s understanding of the relationship between philosophy and religion; and second, determining which one of the three main scholarly interpretations of Strauss seems to be more accurate. The three interpretations are: considering Strauss to be a Jewish philosopher who mainly discusses Jewish themes; considering Strauss to be an esoteric writer who hides atheism and destructive political ideas; and defending Strauss by considering him to be a Platonic political philosopher whose main concern is renewing the discussion of the best political order. The paper is divided into three sections. The first section attempts to contrast Strauss with other scholars who wrote about al-F?r?b? to answer the question of why Strauss came to different conclusions regarding al-F?r?b?. The second section serves two purposes: summarizing and evaluating Strauss’ esoteric interpretation of al-F?r?b? as well as explaining how Strauss’ esotericism was understood by different academic trends. The third section, which serves as a conclusion, argues that the best description of Strauss is that he was a Platonic political philosopher. Although it is true that Strauss esoterically interpreted medieval philosophers beside al-F?r?b?, this paper focuses primarily on Strauss’ reading of al-F?r?b? and secondarily on Strauss’ reading of other medieval philosophers, particularly Maimonides (d. 1204), since Strauss’ view of esotericism does not change from reading a philosopher into reading another. Additionally, this paper takes into consideration that although Strauss’ philosophical project involved an attempt to rethink Islamic medieval philosophy, Strauss’ real target was modern times. In other words, Strauss’ return to Islamic medieval philosophy was mainly a challenge for modern philosophy’s claim of the self-sufficiency of reason and its philosophical, theological, political, and moral consequences.

This research surveys the sociopolitical thoughts of the second editor of Farhang newspaper (published 1879–1891), and investigates their origins by reconstructing his bio-bibliography. Farhang was the first newspaper published weekly in Isfahan, Iran. It was established upon the order of Mas'ud Mirza Zill al-Sultan (r. 1872–1907), the governor of Isfahan, by his physician, Mirza Taqi Khan Kashani (d. 1886). The newspaper was a venue for writing about the “policy, reform, sciences, industry, advice, trade, and agriculture”. Before long Farhang becomes one of the predominant newspapers in Iran, with an outreach from Europe to Asia, and international connections with other newspaper, such as Akhtar in Istanbul, and with notable scholars like al-Afghani. After the death of Kashani, Zill al-Sultan appointed Mirza Mahmud Khan Afshar Kangawari (ca. 1827–1895/96) the editor. In the current research I first trace the sociopolitical thoughts of Farhang’s new editor through a number of articles that he published before and after his editorship. I show that he was an advocate for modernization and a critic of certain aspects of the Iranian society, especially the traditional pedagogy. For Afshar, reforming the education and the inclusion of women in it were the key to the modernization of the county. Although inspired by the West, Afshar’s modernist views were not divorced from the tradition and religion. Although Farhang is rather renowned among the historians of the Qajar period as a primary source, no one has studied Afshar’s life and career. To find the origins of Afshar’s thoughts, and to put them in the sociopolitical context of the late 19th century Isfahan, I attempt to reconstruct his life and work there. I put together the scattered pieces of information in a wide range of documents, and juxtapose them with an oral account of his life narrated by his granddaughter in order to reach a coherent bio-bibliographical account. I show that Afshar was a Western educated scholar who lived in the West before he started collaborating with Farhang in his mid-fifty’s, and eventually became its editor. Moreover, he worked as a professional translator in Zill al-Sultan’s “Translation Center”, and as a military correspondent in the army of Isfahan. In 1880’s and 1890’s Afshar translates a number of European and Ottoman works on subjects varying from military sciences and politics to logic and history. He was also a Baha’i convert who visited Baha' Allah during the latter’s exile in 'Akka.

This paper aims to investigate the continuation of political philosophy and contemplation on utopia in the later Islamic philosophy primarily through the reading of the works of the recent Iranian Shi`a philosopher and scholar of religion, i.e. `Allama Tabataba'i (1904-1981). Al-Farabi (872-950), as an early Muslim philosopher, addressed utopia in his various works such as (?r?' Ahl al-Mad?nat al-F??ila) in which, man's happiness found through human society that is also compared to a sound body. In such virtues society, the perfect philosopher and prophet are identical. While al-Farabi is claimed as the first Muslim political philosopher, the Farabian tradition of utopian political philosophy did not in general, continue in the Islamic intellectual tradition. The most significant Muslim philosophers wrote extensively on metaphysics and other philosophical questions, but they did not specifically write on utopias. There is no agreement among scholars that Tabataba'i was a political philosopher. While some insist on his contribution to political thought, some others deny it. It is obvious that `All?ma wrote on governance, but we still need to examine whether he was offering simple quietism as a policy or not? Intensifying the importance of this question is that Tabataba'i's last years of life coincided with the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, where Ayatollah Khomeini attempted to put the utopian theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the jurist) into practice. The basic question is his intellectual relationship to the Islamic Revolution. Tabataba'i's earliest writing on politics dates back to his work during his early career after returning from Najaf to Tabr?z. In chapter eleven of his treatise "The Mental Aspects" (al-I`tibariyat), Tabataba'i discusses the concepts and implications of leadership and subordination. Later on, in his important book The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism (U??l-i Falsafa wa Rawish-i Realism) he delves into deeper levels of the discussion. Wilayat wa Zi`amat, (Guardianship and Leadership) is an independent paper in which Tabataba'i develops some of his ideas on governance. Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, his commentary on the Qur'an, also includes discussion of governance. In all these works Tabataba'i categorizes the study of governance under the category of al-I`tibariyat al-`aqliya (intellectual considerations) and acknowledges it as necessary for human society. We will examine the relation between Tabataba'i's moral philosophy and his political philosophy and whether his ideal governance is in accordance with the Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of Jurist) of Khomeini.