Abstract This article examines the strengths and the weaknesses of a review titled A Study of Literary Style from a Linguistic Perspective or a Return to Traditional Studies, written by Davoud Pourmozaffari on Ziya Qasemi’s book, “Literary Style from the Linguistic Perspective”. It demonstrates that, for the most part, the review is based on unfounded assumptions and provides readers with inaccurate information. The review fails to engage with the stylistic analyses presented in the book, which constitute its core subject matter. Instead of addressing the book’s main themes, the author raises mostly peripheral and incorrect criticisms, repeatedly attempting to generalize minor flaws to the work as a whole. Alongside acknowledging the review’s strengths, this article employs examples and detailed explanations to highlight the fundamental shortcomings of the review. These include: reliance on incorrect assumptions; neglect of stylistic issues; pedantic focus on marginal aspects such as literary devices and English equivalents, seemingly intended to imply the book’s author lacks literary proficiency; a biased analytical approach aimed at comprehensively rejecting the book; dissemination of inaccurate information to readers; and misrepresentation of fundamental points that are clearly articulated in the book. Introduction Academic criticism, as a fundamental pillar of scholarly development, requires deep expertise, methodological impartiality, intellectual honesty, and strict avoidance of bias or haste. This article presents a critical evaluation of a review titled A Study of Literary Style from a Linguistic Perspective or a Return to Traditional Studies authored by Davoud Pourmozaffari on Ziya Qasemi’s book “Literary Style from the Linguistic Perspective”. The primary objective of this research is to systematically analyze the claims, arguments, and methodological approaches employed in the review to determine whether it adheres to established academic and ethical standards of scholarly criticism. Preliminary examination reveals that, rather than engaging with the theoretical and analytical core of the book—namely, its novel stylistic framework grounded in generative approach and markedness concept—the reviewer predominantly focuses on peripheral issues such as English equivalents, literary devices, and minor textual details. Throughout the critique, the author frequently relies on unfounded assumptions and provides readers with distorted information, seemingly aiming to undermine the credibility of both the work and its author. This study seeks to document and substantiate, through textual evidence, the limited strengths alongside the structural, methodological, and substantive flaws of the review, thereby clarifying the essential criteria for responsible academic criticism. Materials & Methods This research adopts an analytical-critical design and employs a descriptive-analytical and comparative textual methodology. The primary materials consist of two texts: first, the book “Literary Style from a Linguistic Perspective” (first edition, 2014; second edition, 2018) as the target of criticism, and second, Pourmozaffari’s review published in June 2019. The methodology proceeded in several stages. Initially, key propositions and core claims made by the reviewer were extracted and categorized. Each claim was then cross-verified against the original text, internal citations, analytical chapters (particularly Chapter 5), and the theoretical foundations advanced in the book (generative grammar, Jakobson and Trubetzkoy’s markedness theory, and the operational definition of style based on selection, innovation, and norm-deviation). Additionally, the reviewer’s academic background, referenced sources, and the alignment of his arguments with established principles of scholarly criticism were assessed. In the subsequent phase, discourse analysis and descriptive statistics were applied to calculate the frequency of directional and absolute terms to quantify the reviewer’s bias and rhetorical framing. The second edition of the book, published a year prior to the review, was also compared against the criticized version to verify claims regarding outdated references and lack of updates. This multi-layered approach enabled a comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the review from theoretical, methodological, and academic ethics perspectives. Discussion & Results The findings indicate that the reviewed critique suffers from five fundamental structural and scholarly deficiencies. First, a lack of specialized expertise and adequate knowledge in modern linguistics and stylistics; the reviewer, relying on a traditionally oriented thesis and citing elementary or irrelevant sources, demonstrates insufficient understanding of generative approach and markedness concept, which form the theoretical backbone of the book. Second, misrepresentation of facts and dissemination of inaccurate information; for instance, the reviewer claims the book offers no definition of style, whereas the concluding sections explicitly define style as “the marked status of a specific set of linguistic elements resulting from repetition.” Furthermore, the deliberate omission of the second edition and Chapter 5, which is entirely dedicated to stylistic analysis, constitutes a significant distortion. Third, the use of nitpicking and unjustified generalization to the entire work; by isolating minor inaccuracies in literary devices or English equivalents, the reviewer attempts to project an image of the author’s overall incompetence, despite hundreds of carefully analyzed examples elsewhere in the book. Fourth, overt bias and reputation-damaging rhetoric rather than scientific critique; lexical analysis reveals a heavy reliance on absolutist and dismissive phrasing aimed not at fair evaluation but at persuading readers of the book’s worthlessness. Fifth, a fundamental misunderstanding of the position of literary stylistics within the interdisciplinary field of literary linguistics, coupled with a conflation of period style and individual style. Despite these major flaws, the analysis acknowledges minor strengths, such as meticulous verification of references and a legitimate concern regarding the need for more theory-driven stylistic research in Persian literary studies. However, these isolated merits cannot offset the foundational deficiencies. Conclusion Based on the findings, it is concluded that Pourmozaffari’s review of “Literary Style from the Linguistic Perspective” fails to meet the scientific, methodological, and ethical standards required for credible academic criticism. Rather than engaging with the book’s theoretical core and its innovative stylistic framework grounded in generative approaches and markedness concept, the critique remains fixated on marginal details, relies on false premises, ignores major analytical sections and the updated edition, and presents readers with a distorted portrayal of the work. The employment of unscientific tactics—such as extrapolating minor errors to condemn the entire text, inverting key definitions, and exhibiting clear linguistic bias—demonstrates a disregard for impartiality and disciplinary expertise. The ultimate conclusion is that scholarly criticism must be grounded in deep subject-matter knowledge, fidelity to source material, attention to the latest editions, and a balanced assessment of both strengths and weaknesses. The criticized book, through its operational definition of individual style, its integration of generative linguistics with stylistics, and its systematic analysis of marked elements through repetition, remains a valid and pioneering reference in Persian stylistic studies. This research underscores the necessity of revising editorial standards for publishing critiques in academic journals and reinforces the imperative of expertise, objectivity, and scholarly responsibility toward the academic community.

Abstract This article employs Norman Fairclough’s framework of Critical Discourse Analysis to examine Montesquieu’s “Persian Letters”. It aims to explore the linguistic, narrative, and discursive mechanisms that enable both the reproduction of and confrontation with dominant discourses of the Enlightenment era (despotism, Orientalism, patriarchy). Selected letters are analyzed at three levels: description (linguistic and rhetorical features), interpretation (relationship between text and its conditions of production/reception, polyphony, and intertextuality), and explanation (social action of the text, revealing ideology and power relations). Findings indicate that Montesquieu, through humor, lexical contrasts, the epistolary form, defamiliarization, and polyphony, creates a space for indirect critique while simultaneously reproducing dominant discourses. On the other hand, the work remains entangled in Orientalist stereotypes, highlighting a paradox within the Enlightenment project. The letters of harem women and eunuchs play a central role in recovering the agency of silent subjects and articulating resistance to despotism. Furthermore, Zarinkoob’s response to the question of Iranian identity demonstrates the continuity and complexity of the East-West discursive dialogue through identity redefinition. Ultimately, “Persian Letters” is not merely a reflection of the historical-social conditions of the Enlightenment but, as a multi-layered and paradoxical discursive practice, actively participates in reproducing and critiquing dominant discourses. This research exemplifies the capacity of Critical Discourse Analysis for understanding classic political-cultural texts. Introduction Montesquieu’s “Persian Letters” (1721) is widely recognized as a seminal work of the French Enlightenment, employing the fictional correspondence of two Persian travelers, Uzbek and Rica, to satirize and critique European society. However, beneath its witty surface lies a profound discursive complexity: the text simultaneously reproduces and challenges the dominant discourses of its age—namely, Orientalism, despotism, and patriarchy. This study investigates how Montesquieu, through linguistic and narrative mechanisms such as humor, lexical contrasts, the epistolary form, defamiliarization, and polyphony, creates a space for indirect critique while remaining entangled in the very stereotypes he ostensibly criticizes. The central research question is: How does “Persian Letters” function as a discursive practice that both perpetuates and subverts hegemonic discourses of the Enlightenment? Addressing this paradox is crucial for understanding the inherent limitations and contradictions of Enlightenment thought, as well as the text’s active role in shaping modern debates on power, identity, and resistance. Materials & Methods This research employs Norman Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as its theoretical-methodological framework. The primary material consists of selected letters from “Persian Letters” (translated into Persian by Hasan Arsanjani, 1941), chosen through purposive sampling based on their explicit representation of key discourses: Orientalism, despotism, and patriarchy. The analysis proceeds through three levels: (1) Description – examining linguistic and rhetorical features (e.g., metaphors, irony, lexical oppositions); (2) Interpretation – analyzing the relationship between the text and its conditions of production and reception (18th-century France), as well as intertextuality and polyphony; (3) Explanation – situating the text within broader socio-historical contexts to reveal hidden ideologies and power relations. Additionally, the study incorporates a brief intertextual reference to Abdolhossein Zarinkoob’s response to Montesquieu’s implicit question of Iranian identity, demonstrating the continuity of East-West discursive dialogue. Discussion & Result The analysis reveals a fundamental paradox running through “Persian Letters”. At the descriptive level, Montesquieu skillfully uses irony and lexical contrasts to destabilize naturalized ideologies. For instance, Letter 28 contrasts Islamic prohibition of wine with French taxation of it, exposing hypocrisy on both sides: Persian nobles violate their own religious laws, while the French state profits from a vice it condemns. Similarly, Letter 26 uses a Persian traveler’s astonishment at Venice (“a city built on water”) to defamiliarize European achievements, challenging the reader’s assumed normality. At the interpretative level, the epistolary genre and the “estranged eye” of the Persian protagonists create polyphony and intertextuality. Multiple voices—those of Uzbek, Rica, harem women, eunuchs, and European interlocutors—compete, allowing contradictory interpretations. The letters of harem women (e.g., Zelis, Roxane) and eunuchs gradually recover the agency of silenced subjects, turning from passive objects of representation into active critics of despotic power. At the explanatory level, the study uncovers Montesquieu’s simultaneous reproduction of Orientalist clichés: the East is portrayed as static, despotic, sexually confined (the harem), and feminized, while the West is depicted as dynamic, rational, and free—even when criticized. This paradox shows that Montesquieu, despite his relativism and critique of European absolutism, cannot escape the dominant Orientalist discourse of his time. However, the final letters (notably Letter 68, Roxane’s suicide note) mark a turning point: Roxane declares her spiritual independence even in death, stating, “I have kept my soul free.” This act of resistance transforms her from a victim into a tragic heroine, demonstrating that no system of domination can fully extinguish human agency. Furthermore, Zarinkoob’s historical response to the question “How can one be Iranian?” reframes identity not through Orientalist stereotypes but through a fluid, justice-oriented cultural heritage, exemplifying a counter-discourse that continues the dialogue. Conclusion This CDA-based study concludes that “Persian Letters” is not merely a reflection of Enlightenment social conditions but an active, multilayered, and paradoxical discursive practice. Montesquieu successfully critiques European despotism, religious hypocrisy, and social inequality by using the voice of the Oriental “other.” Yet, he remains trapped within the very Orientalist framework he seeks to undermine, reproducing stereotypes of Eastern despotism, the confined harem woman, and an immutable “spirit” of Eastern societies. This internal contradiction is not a failure but a revealing feature of the Enlightenment project itself: its claim to universal reason was often blind to its own cultural biases. Crucially, the recovery of agency by female and eunuch characters within the text subverts the patriarchal and despotic discourses from within. Roxane’s final letter, in particular, offers a powerful model of resistance that transcends mere rebellion, affirming inner freedom against external control. Therefore, Persian Letters serves as an exemplary case for Fairclough’s CDA, demonstrating how classic politico-cultural texts can simultaneously reproduce and challenge hegemonic ideologies. The study opens new avenues for interdisciplinary research in political philosophy, postcolonial studies, and comparative literature, showing that critical reading must attend not only to what texts explicitly argue but also to the paradoxical ways they embody the very structures they oppose.

Abstract The present research deals with the descriptive and explaining analysis of the data collected in the book "Gender and Empire" to show how successful this work has been in analyzing the topics of colonial studies. The innovation of the subject starts from adopting the approach of gender studies, in which the social roles and role functions of the two sexes, as well as gender relations in the mechanism of colonialism, are discussed. Methodologically, the present study is based on a qualitative approach and is based on documentary study of the collection of articles of this work. The findings show that the chapters of the book have a historical aspect and are mainly focused on the encountering between colonists and natives in the early colonial period, and are indifferent to the Middle East narrative of British colonialism and the interaction of colonists with Muslims. It overlooks the kinship systems and, as a result, passes through various situations effective in gender subjugation during colonialism. However, it introduces the strategic exercising power of the colonizers, including direct and organized rejection, as well as structured discrimination on the one hand and attempts to assimilate. At the same time, it deals with issues related to gender, including race, violence, migration, childhood, medicine, missionary life, imperial rule, and finally decolonization during the 18th to 20th centuries. In conclusion, the critical reading of these texts has data on the emergence and manifestation of native identities in the struggle of daily situations of power and resistance. Today's world, which found its arrangement in the new world order after World War II, with a confrontation between the two great powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as the gradual liberation of colonial countries, the formation of an alliance between European countries in the form of regional pacts and their subordinate organizations, and the establishment of the United Nations, has generally reorganized our historical perception of the history of the world. To the minds of the current generation, the violent and turbulent historical past of these societies is unknown. Their efforts to conquer and colonize other countries are less worthy of study and analysis. This is partly due to the culture-building of dominant countries in order to erase the effects of exploitation, violence, and subjugation. Therefore, although colonialism has ended in the form of governance, the colonial process has not left the minds and continues to have the upper hand in the way the past is read and the production and reproduction of its own story. Gender studies that examine the status of women and the relationships between the sexes in relation to each other and social institutions are significant. Despite this importance, due to the dominance of patriarchy over the structure of the scientific institution and knowledge production, the subjectification of studies, and the formation of thematic circles of discussion and opinion, this field of study is not considered important, does not have much priority in Third World research programs, and is marginalized as a free discussion. Despite the complexities of the subject and the multiple layers of discussion, it has been basically passed over in a simply and cannot be considered important enough to find its own independent research path as a substantive nature. The book “Gender and Empire”, however, examines the history of British colonialism with a focus on gender, and in this respect, its critique is important. Materials & Methods In terms of methodology, the present study is a qualitative approach based on a documentary study of a collection of articles published in the book “Gender and Empire”. Qualitative document analysis is a type of theoretical analysis of findings that is made possible here with the help of a specialized theoretical apparatus of social sciences. Regarding ethical considerations, it should be said that in the present study, the ethical aspects of library study, including the originality of texts, honesty, and trustworthiness, have been observed. Discussion & Result The writing of “Gender and Empire” is an important step in preserving and documenting the experience of colonialism, racism, the exercise of power over indigenous people, the use of naked violence, and the like, especially against women. The contribution of this book is to shed light on the dimensions of women's experience on both the colonial and the colonized sides, to show that reducing the forms of actors of this period to three major groups of colonizers, immigrants, and natives is a reduction of a complex reality in which actors had completely different experiences depending on gender, age, and social status. Talking about women cannot be without considering children and telling the stories of the forced transportation of Indigenous Australian children. The authors have also tried to address the issue of motherhood in their own way and show the meanings it has, whether during the initial period of the colonial invasion, during the colonial period, or in the liberation and nationalist movements. Health, as one of the most important topics in women's and family lives, goes beyond addressing women's diseases and addresses the issues of femininity and masculinity treatment. Introducing a wide range of resistance practices and related strategies in the face of the oppressive power of the colonialists is one of the golden parts of the different chapters of the book, which demonstrates the power of the powerless. The book focuses on nationalist struggles and introduces women's activities in this regard. Unfortunately, however, and during the discussions, we clearly understand that colonial societies continue to fail to preserve the name and status of their active and militant women due to gender stereotyping. Conclusion This type of literary criticism reminds us that language is a discursive matter, and therefore, it is not possible to formulate a narrative that is consistent with the reality of the situation by constructing an imported language. It also encourages us to consider the researcher's principles, foundations, and analytical strategies in examining the cultural and political implications of the authors, as is evident from the multiplicity of these works. Adopting such an approach moves us away from confronting Eastern women as passive, humble, and naive (in Fanon's words) and leads us to new positions of identity. First, identifying the context and relationships that seek to disempower them, and second, the resistance positions they choose by adopting activist strategies. At the same time, this recognition opens the way for criticism and perhaps identifies them as a political group that has long stood out with a unique subjectivity against the usual reading of Third World women as victims, passive and objectified.

Abstract The Iranian Islamic Revolution, despite a wide range of structural, cultural, and economic explanations, appeared sudden and unpredictable to many observers at the time of its occurrence. In “The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran”, Charles Kurzman advances the theory of “anti-explanation” and the concept of the “viability” in order to address this paradox by emphasizing actors’ subjective perceptions and the breakdown of stabilized expectations. The central research question of this study is whether the anti-explanation approach provides a coherent and sufficient analytical framework for understanding the Iranian Revolution or merely serves as a complementary perspective to classical explanatory models. The findings indicate that while this theory effectively highlights human agency, historical contingency, and the role of perceived feasibility in collective mobilization—thereby exposing important limitations of deterministic approaches—it encounters serious theoretical and methodological challenges as an independent explanatory framework. The reduction of revolution to belief in possibility, the failure to explain the origins of such belief among initial actors, the neglect of macro-structural processes, the symbolic capital of the clerical institution, and the role of intellectuals, along with reliance on retrospective interviews, constitute its principal limitations. Overall, anti-explanation functions less as a substitute for established theories and more as an analytical complement that expands understanding of cognitive dynamics and moments of rupture in revolutionary processes. This study employs a qualitative methodology, combining internal and external critique within a descriptive-analytical framework. Introduction Charles Kurzman's “The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran” proposes a radical departure from conventional revolutionary theory through "anti-explanation." Rather than seeking structural causes or cultural predispositions, Kurzman argues the 1979 revolution was fundamentally unpredictable and resists retrospective explanation. Instead, he foregrounds lived confusion, fluid perceptions of viability, and micro-interactions through which Iranians constructed a shared belief that revolution had become possible. This article systematically evaluates Kurzman's framework, assessing whether anti-explanation offers a necessary alternative, a valuable supplement to structural theories, or a logically and empirically problematic departure from social scientific inquiry. Materials & Methods This study employs internal and external critique. Internal critique examines anti-explanation's logical coherence, conceptual precision, and explanatory adequacy, identifying theoretical circularities and undefined concepts. External critique tests Kurzman's claims against established qualitative research standards, historical evidence from primary and secondary sources, and a set of competing explanatory frameworks drawn from diverse traditions (structural, discursive, cultural-symbolic, and political-economy approaches) that collectively demonstrate the Iranian Revolution has been subject to rigorous scholarly explanation. These competing accounts were selected to represent the full spectrum of explanatory strategies, from macro-structural analyses of economic and geopolitical factors to micro-level studies of symbolic and discursive practices. The dual framework enables a comprehensive assessment that neither dismisses Kurzman's insights prematurely nor accepts them uncritically. Evaluation proceeds through four criteria: methodological validity of data collection, conceptual coherence, logical consistency and explanatory adequacy, and compatibility with historical evidence. Specific textual indicators are identified for each criterion. The analysis pays particular attention to the book's reliance on retrospective interviews, its treatment of core concepts such as confusion and viability, and its engagement with historical facts. Discussion & Results Methodological validity: Kurzman builds his theory primarily upon retrospective interviews and memoirs, yet provides no explicit criteria for interviewee selection, omitting geographical, class, age, gender, or political distribution. Generalizing from individual cases constitutes a fundamental analytical error. While acknowledging memory reconstruction problems, he offers no systematic strategy to control for this bias, merely noting that conventional approaches face similar difficulties. The absence of a transparent sampling strategy and the reliance on post-hoc narratives weaken the empirical foundations of anti-explanation. Conceptual coherence: The core concept of "confusion" remains critically underspecified. No distinction is drawn between objective ambiguity and subjective confusion. Evidence for confusion admits alternative interpretations: asking "what will happen?" may indicate active information-seeking; changed opinion may reflect conscious reassessment. The theory thus rests on a conceptually underspecified foundation that conflates structural uncertainty with individual mental states. Logical consistency: The viability theory encounters fundamental circularity. If belief in viability depends on estimates of others' participation, the theory cannot explain how the initial few hundred protesters came to believe in the movement's viability before mass participation existed. Kurzman offers no mechanism for this initial belief formation, merely invoking "determination and enthusiasm." Resolving this circularity would require reference to structural factors (clerical influence, symbolic capital, intellectual discourse, economic transformations) that Kurzman neglects. The theory therefore fails to account for its own starting point. Historical evidence: Kurzman presents the politicization of fortieth-day commemoration ceremonies (chehelom) as a 1978 innovation, despite documentation during the Constitutional Revolution. He overlooks Ayatollah Khomeini's 1963 politicization of Shi'a concepts. He secularizes martyrdom, equating it with patriotism while neglecting its theological status. Juxtaposing anti-explanation with competing frameworks reveals a dual picture. No single explanation is comprehensive, partially corroborating Kurzman's concern about insufficiency. However, their collective illumination of structural, intellectual, symbolic, political, and economic dimensions shows insufficiency does not equal impossibility. Conclusion Kurzman's anti-explanation offers valuable insights into experiential dimensions of revolution but falls short as an independent framework. It is compromised by methodological weaknesses in retrospective accounts, conceptual imprecision regarding confusion, logical circularity, and historical inconsistencies. These shortcomings circumscribe rather than negate its contribution. Anti-explanation is best understood as a complementary perspective enriching understanding of how revolutions are lived and perceived, not a rejection of explanation. The insights of anti-explanation into the subjective perceptions of actors can complement, rather than replace, the structural explanations that remain indispensable for understanding revolutions.

Abstract This article provides a critical review of Patrick Deneen's book, “Why Liberalism Failed?”, reconstructing its central argument: that the current crises of liberalism stem not from a deviation from its founding principles, but from the historical and internal fulfillment of this intellectual tradition. Deneen views liberalism not merely as a political regime or a set of policies, but as a comprehensive philosophy regarding humanity, freedom, politics, economics, culture, and education. According to him, modern liberalism's emphasis on radical individualism, self-foundation, and absolute liberation from traditional and social constraints has led to the weakening of mediating institutions, the erosion of shared culture, the expansion of social inequality, the dominance of technology, and a crisis of democratic legitimacy. In addition to systematically outlining the book's main themes—ranging from the concept of "counter-culture" and the critique of technocracy and liberal education to the analysis of neoliberalism and liberal democracy—this article critically evaluates its theoretical and methodological shortcomings, including conceptual ambiguity in the definition of liberalism and the predominance of interpretative readings over empirical and comparative evidence. In the concluding section, the relevance of this critique to Iranian society is examined, demonstrating that although liberalism in its classical sense has not been established in Iran, Deneen's internal critique can serve as an important analytical framework for understanding contemporary crises in governance, technocracy, education, and political economy in Iran.

Abstract Contemporary management theories, such as those of Chris Argyris, are based on a materialistic and reductionist paradigm that limits man solely to psychological and behavioral dimensions and ignores his spiritual dimension, genuine agency, and transcendental goals. This article, with an analytical-critical approach and an interrogative method, has reinterpreted these ideas in the light of Quranic anthropology. The research findings show that Quranic anthropology emphasizes five basic pillars: man's free will and responsibility, his dual dimension (material and spiritual), a worship-oriented view of work, determining justice and trustworthiness as the organization's goal, and respecting the inherent dignity of man as a moral boundary. In contrast, theories such as Argyris's, by reducing the complex dimensions of man, diminishing agency and responsibility, and focusing on purely material goals, lack comprehensive moral support. As a result, moving beyond reductionist management paradigms requires relying on this rich Quranic anthropology to realize organizations in which justice, preservation of human dignity, comprehensive growth, and accountability are achieved in a balanced manner with efficiency.
Introduction
Management and organizational behavior theories rooted in Western humanist paradigms often assume a one-dimensional view of human beings, reducing them to merely material or psychological entities. Among the most influential of these is Chris Argyris’s perspective in “Personality and Organization”. Argyris posits an inherent incompatibility between the psychological needs of mature individuals—such as autonomy, responsibility, and self-actualization—and the hierarchical, controlling structures of formal organizations. This conflict, he argues, is the primary source of dysfunctional behaviors including apathy, excessive ambition, and withdrawal from the organization. Despite the significance of this theory in advancing concepts like double-loop learning and individual development, a fundamental question remains regarding the comprehensiveness of its anthropological foundations. The central problem addressed by this study is a Qur’anic critique of Argyris’s assumptions, aiming to transcend reductionism and achieve a holistic model based on revealed teachings. The objective of this paper is to critically reassess the anthropological underpinnings of Argyris’s theory across four axes—human nature, free will, basic needs, and the ultimate goal of behavior in organizations—from the perspective of the Holy Qur’an.

Materials & Methods
This research employs an analytical-critical method of the istinṭāqī (hermeneutic-interrogative) type. In this approach, key propositions of Argyris’s theory are first formulated systematically. These propositions are then transformed into direct questions posed to the text of the Qur’an. By referring to authoritative verses and exegetical works—including al-Mīzān, Tasnīm, Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān, as well as the writings of Motahhari, Mesbah Yazdi, and Javadi Amoli—answers are extracted and serve as the basis for critique.




Discussion & Result
The findings reveal that the Holy Qur’an presents a comprehensive system across the four domains:1. Human Nature: Humans are two-dimensional beings (corporeal-spiritual) endowed with an immutable, divine nature (fiṭrah). Verses such as “The nature [made by] Allah upon which He has created mankind” (Q. 30:30), “And we have certainly honored the children of Adam” (Q. 17:70), and the prostration of angels before Adam (Q. 38:72) demonstrate inherent dignity and existential nobility that no organizational structure may violate.2. Free Will: Will and choice are intrinsic to humanity; even social and organizational structures cannot negate this principle. The verse “So whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve” (Q. 18:29) emphasizes fundamental agency and direct accountability. 3. Basic Needs: Alongside material and psychological needs, higher innate needs—such as worship (Q. 51:56), pursuit of justice (Q. 57:25), quest for knowledge (Q. 20:114), and faith in the Hereafter (Q. 18:7)—also guide human behavior within organizations.4. Ultimate Goal of Organizational Behavior: The ultimate purpose of organizational activity transcends profit and productivity; it is the realization of justice (qisṭ) and equity, fulfillment of trusts, and the flourishing of the earth within the framework of divine responsibility (Q. 4:58; 57:25). In this view, the organization is a moral, duty-oriented institution, not merely a profit-making machine. Furthermore, the findings expose three fundamental reductionisms in Argyris’s theory: Critique of Substantial Reductionism (One-Dimensionality): By ignoring the spiritual dimension and divine fiṭrah, Argyris reduces humans to purely material-psychological beings. This perspective fails to explain the need for meaning, ethical commitment, and altruism in organizations. The Qur’an, affirming the “best form” (aḥsan taqwīm) and the breathing of the divine spirit, presents a two-dimensional human being; neglect of the spiritual dimension renders organizational design incomplete and constraining. · Critique of Determinism (Relativization of Free Will): Argyris’s dual model of mature/immature personality effectively traps humans within organizational structures, reducing free will to “choice within structure” rather than choice of structure itself. The Qur’an, emphasizing intrinsic reason and will, and through direct address “Did I not enjoin upon you…” (Q. 36:60-61), considers humans as free and responsible beings whose agency cannot be negated by structures. · Critique of Materialistic-Utilitarian Teleology: Argyris defines the organization’s goal as maximizing productivity and psychological satisfaction, lacking any supra-organizational ethical framework to constrain power. The Qur’an, by introducing justice, trust, and servitude as transcendent ends, liberates the organization from pure profit-orientation and establishes human dignity as a red line of management.

Conclusion
This study demonstrates that moving beyond Argyris’s reductionist paradigm toward a Qur’anic anthropology proposes five essential pillars for organizational theorizing: (1) the human being as free and accountable; (2) the human being as a two-dimensional (material-spiritual) entity; (3) work as worship and a field of trial; (4) justice and trustworthiness as the ultimate goals of the organization; and (5) inherent human dignity as a red line of management. These pillars can serve as the foundation for designing structures that, while maintaining efficiency, foster spiritual growth, ethical conduct, and human excellence within organizations. The paper concludes by emphasizing that a Qur’anic critique of management theories is not an absolute rejection but rather a completion and elevation of those theories through a monotheistic worldview.

Abstract In today's era, organizations are one of the main foundations of society and their management is the most important factor in their life, growth, and development. Managers use a set of management approaches to manage organizations efficiently. Many factors influence these approaches, and Islamic values are also among these influential factors in Islamic societies. Following the study of the influence of Islamic values, Gillian Forester has compiled a book called "The Influence of Islamic Values on Management Practice". Accordingly, the purpose of this article is a deep analysis of this book. Since this book has not been translated in Iran, the criticism of this book can open a way to remove the ambiguity and clarify the thinking of the author of this book. For this purpose, relying on the documentary method, in the first step, the book is examined from the point of view of content and then from the point of view of structure. After the investigations, the points that can be developed in the book have been mentioned in order to enrich and improve it in the next editions.
Introduction
This study offers a critical review of Gillian Forster’s “The Influence of Islamic Values on Management Practices”, a book that examines the relationship between Islamic values, cultural context, and managerial behavior in Morocco and the broader Arab world. The reviewed work is significant because it attempts to move beyond universalistic management models and explore how religion, national culture, gender, colonial legacy, and social norms shape organizational practices in a specific Arab-Islamic context. This article has been developed in line with a critical review of the book and seeks to evaluate its theoretical and methodological contributions to the field of Islamic management studies.

Materials & Methods
The article adopts a documentary and analytical approach, using the book itself as the main source of data. The analysis is structured around three levels: content review, methodological review, and critical assessment of the book’s innovations and shortcomings. First, the book’s chapters are summarized to provide a clear picture of its overall architecture, including the introduction, the Moroccan socio-cultural context, the discussion of Islamic values, the theoretical framing of management in the Arab world, and the findings based on fieldwork. Second, the methodological foundations of the book are examined through the lens of major approaches to Islamic management, including inferential, reformist, and foundational perspectives. Based on this framework, the book is positioned within an integrative and interpretive methodological orientation, relying on qualitative inquiry and purposive sampling.
The reviewed book uses interviews with 24 senior managers in Moroccan and multinational organizations, organized through a funnel-shaped qualitative structure and coded through open and selective coding. The article assesses this design as a meaningful attempt to capture lived managerial experience, while also noting the need for deeper case-based evidence and more explicit discussion of limitations. The review further evaluates whether the book’s arguments remain faithful to Islamic textual sources, especially the Qur’an and Sunnah, and whether its claims about concepts such as consultation, gender, leadership, and values are adequately supported by primary religious and empirical evidence.

Discussion & Result
The review finds that the book’s main strength lies in its broad and multi-layered treatment of management in Morocco. It does not reduce management to technical procedures; rather, it situates managerial practice within a wider matrix of Islamic values, family structures, colonial history, education, gender relations, and Arab cultural identity. This contextual depth is one of the book’s most valuable contributions. The discussion of Morocco as a social and cultural setting is especially useful because it demonstrates how management cannot be understood apart from historical and civilizational background. Likewise, the book’s effort to derive Islamic values from the Qur’an and integrate them with management theory is a noteworthy contribution to the field of Islamic management studies.
Another major contribution is the proposal of a “fourth paradigm,” which attempts to reinterpret management through the intersection of religion, culture, and gender. This paradigm is particularly relevant for understanding the participation of women in Arab organizations and the role of patriarchal cultural structures in shaping managerial opportunities. The book also presents a useful exploratory framework and combines field insights with theoretical literature, thereby generating a richer understanding of management than conventional quantitative studies often provide. In this sense, the work contributes to knowledge production by linking practice with theory and by identifying a gap between formal academic discourse and the lived reality of managers.
At the same time, the review identifies several limitations. The relatively small sample size of 24 managers restricts the generalizability of the findings. The book also lacks deeper case studies and more concrete examples showing how Islamic values actually influence decision-making, leadership, and organizational culture. In some sections, the relationship between Islamic principles and practical managerial outcomes remains underdeveloped. Moreover, certain interpretive claims, especially those concerning Qur’anic and exegetical issues, require greater precision and stronger scholarly grounding. The review therefore concludes that although the book is intellectually ambitious and conceptually innovative, it would benefit from sharper empirical support, clearer distinction between Islamic teachings and cultural practices, and more nuanced treatment of internal tensions within the Moroccan and broader Arab context.

Conclusion
Overall, the book represents an important step in Islamic management scholarship because it explores the possibility of building a culturally grounded and value-oriented management model for Arab societies. Its most important achievement is that it challenges imported managerial frameworks and proposes a context-sensitive understanding of organizational life. However, its theoretical claims would be stronger if supported by richer empirical evidence, more rigorous source criticism, and a more explicit analysis of the practical implications of Islamic values. The review ultimately shows that the book succeeds as an exploratory and thought-provoking study, but it also leaves room for future research to refine the conceptual model, expand the evidence base, and further develop the relationship between Islamic ethics, organizational leadership, and gender-sensitive management.