109 گرا در ایران یسیاسی پسااسلام رالزی و فلسفه لیبرالیسم جان 1 Meysam Badamchi (2017) Post-Islamist Political Theory: Iranian Intellectuals and Political Liberalism in Dialogue. Cham: Springer, ‘Philosophy and Politics: Critical Explorations’ Series. 2 Mojtaba Mahdavi (2011) “Post-Islamist Trends in Post-revolutionary Iran”, Com- parative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 31(1), pp. 94-109; cf. Chantal Mouffe (1993) The Return of the Political. London & New York: Verso. :بنگرید به 3 Jurgen Habermas (2006) “Religion in the Public Sphere”, European Journal of Phi- losophy, 14(1), pp. 1-12; d’ Entreves (1996) Maurizio Passerin & Seyla Benhabib (eds.) Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Polity Press. 4 John Rawls (1980) “Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory”, the Journal of Philosophy, 77(9), pp. 539–540. بنگرید به: 5 John Rawls (1996) Political Liberalism, paperback edition. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 387. 6 Political Liberalism, p. 12. 7 John Rawls (1999) The Law of Peoples; With the Idea of Public Reason Revisited. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England: Harvard University Press, p. 113. 8 Political Liberalism, p. 217. 9 Political Liberalism, p. 249f. عبدالله النعیم: اسلام و حکومت سکولار عنوان نمونه بنگرید به مرور کورزمن بر کتاب به 10 Charles Kurzman (2008) “An Islamic Case for a Secular State” (review of An-Naim’s Islam and the Secular State), The Immanent Frame. 11 John Rawls (1997) “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, The University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), p. 784. 12 “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, p. 786. 13 ibid 14 Andrew March (2009) Islam and Liberal Citizenship: The Search for an Overlapping Consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ی سیاسی تطبیقی در دانشگاه ماساچوست آمریکاست. آندرو مارچ، در حال حاضر استاد فلسفه طور کل دو ی خرد عمومی» رالز و همین ی «بازاندیشی در ایده بنگرید به پاورقی زیر در مقاله 15 از عبدالله النعیم: سکولاراسلام و حکومت و سوی یک اصلاح اسلامی به کتاب “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, pp. 782–783n;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA1OTk2