The main purpose of this work is to present short biographical accounts of the lives of the scholars who were either natives of or visitors to Nishapur from the beginning of the eighth century to the first quarter of the thirteenth century.

160 f. / Submitted by Suelen Reis (suziy.ellen@gmail.com) on 2013-04-25T18:56:20Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao_Denise Rocha.pdf: 1182375 bytes, checksum: d379f51b1b4a48ddb91a4e9b24ed4701 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Maria Auxiliadora Lopes(silopes@ufba.br) on 2013-04-30T19:53:09Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao_Denise Rocha.pdf: 1182375 bytes, checksum: d379f51b1b4a48ddb91a4e9b24ed4701 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-04-30T19:53:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao_Denise Rocha.pdf: 1182375 bytes, checksum: d379f51b1b4a48ddb91a4e9b24ed4701 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2004 / A presente dissertação de mestrado intitulada Formação de Juristas Leigos: a experiência de uma ONG com educação popular na Região Sisaleira investiga a efetividade da educação popular enquanto instrumento de transformação social e democratização das relações sociais no campo. O caminho metodológico seguido teve como ponto de partida aqueles que se encontram atingidos pela problemática, por isso, os planos de estudo e projeto elaborado foram sendo traçados com base no processo, na história do movimento, com suas contradições, avanços, recuos, fracassos e conquistas. O papel do pesquisador é o de dar voz a esses atores para que eles passem da conduta de simples respondentes da ordem estabelecida, para as condutas criticas e transformadoras da realidade. Com base em um estudo de caso sobre o Programa de Formação e Monitoramento de Juristas Leigos - experiência de educação popular desenvolvida pela Associação de Advogados de Trabalhadores Rurais no Estado da Bahia (AATR), na região Sisaleira do Estado - buscamos analisar as teorias que inspiram a capacitação das entidades e movimentos sociais, sua articulação com temáticas nacionais e locais como: cidadania, democracia, direitos humanos, políticas públicas e outros. / Salvador

O presente trabalho consiste no estudo da atuação de dois juristas no contexto do regime militar brasileiro (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal, ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), foi aposentado compulsoriamente em janeiro de 1969, em decorrência do Ato Institucional n° 5/1968; Raymundo Faoro, presidente do Conselho Federal da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) entre 1977-1979, tornou-se importante interlocutor da sociedade civil com o Governo Geisel, pelo retorno da democracia. As obras dos dois juristashistoriadores, respectivamente Coronelismo, enxada e voto: o município e o regime representativo no Brasil (1949), e Os donos do poder: formação do patronato político brasileiro (1958), reeditadas em 1975, também são analisadas, a partir de tema específico: o poder público e o poder privado no Brasil e sua relação com o desenvolvimento incompleto da cidadania no país. Apesar de adotarem perspectivas teóricas distintas, as obras servem à compreensão do debate clássico da historiografia brasileira entre privatismo e patrimonialismo, o que não as reduz a categorias estanques. Por sua vez, retratam dois perfis intelectuais: Faoro, o pensador de temas abrangentes, sem a formação técnica de historiador, e Leal, representante das primeiras gerações dotadas de saber acadêmico especializado. / The present essay aims at investigating the performance of two jurists throughout the Military Government in Brazil (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal Minister of the Supreme Court (STF) retired compulsorily in January 1969 as a consequence of the Institutional Act number 5/1968; and Raymundo Faoro President of the Federal Council of the Brazilian Lawyers Order (OAB) from 1977 to 1979 became an important interlocutor between civil society and the government of President Geisel, on behalf of the return to democracy. Additionally, the works of these two jurists and historians, respectively: Coronelismo: municipality and representative government in Brazil (1949), and The Owners of Power: the Formation of Brazilian Political Patronage (1958), both re-edited in 1975, are under analyses due to a common topic: the incomplete development of citizenship in Brazil and its relation to public and private power in the country. Despite of adopting a different theoretical perspective, both works are helpful to the understanding of the classic debate on Brazilian historiography between Privatism and Patrimonialism, although these are not depurate categories. Furthermore, these works portray two very distinct intellectual biographies: Faoro, a thinker of broad themes, who had no technical studies in History; and Leal, who represents the first generations of a specialized academic knowledge.

L’objectif principal de notre travail est une recherche sous forme de description analytique qui se concentre sur le champ de l’histoire juridique plutôt qu’à proprement parler dans le domaine juridique. La recherche se concentre sur la réforme de la législation siamoise influencée par la France et ses juristes sous les règnes de Rama V et Rama VI (1868-1925). C’est parce qu’au XIXe siècle, la présence des Occidentaux fut à l’origine de difficultés dans le royaume du Siam (Thaïlande), notamment le privilège d’exterritorialité. L’ancien système juridique compilé dans la Loi des trois Sceaux ne correspondait plus à la situation dans laquelle se trouvait le pays face à la présence grandissante d’étrangers y faisant par exemple du commerce. Donc,les rois Rama V et Rama VI décidèrent de réformer le droit siamois en l’occidentalisant, espérant ainsi parvenir à faire abolir le privilège exterritorial. / The main objective of our research is research in the form of analytical description that focuses on the field of legal history rather than strictly in the legal field. The research focuses on the reform of the Siamese law influenced by France and french Counsellors during the reigns of Kings Rama V and Rama VI (1868-1925). In the nineteenth century, the presence of Westerners were causing difficulties in the Kingdom of Siam (Thailand), including the privilege of extraterritoriality. The old legal system compiled in the law of the three seals no longer corresponded to the situation in which the country found itself faced with the growing presence of foreigners are making such trade. So, Kings Rama V and Rama VI decided to reform the law of the country in the Westernizing manner, hoping to reach abolish extraterritorial privileges.

O presente trabalho consiste no estudo da atuação de dois juristas no contexto do regime militar brasileiro (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal, ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), foi aposentado compulsoriamente em janeiro de 1969, em decorrência do Ato Institucional n° 5/1968; Raymundo Faoro, presidente do Conselho Federal da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) entre 1977-1979, tornou-se importante interlocutor da sociedade civil com o Governo Geisel, pelo retorno da democracia. As obras dos dois juristashistoriadores, respectivamente Coronelismo, enxada e voto: o município e o regime representativo no Brasil (1949), e Os donos do poder: formação do patronato político brasileiro (1958), reeditadas em 1975, também são analisadas, a partir de tema específico: o poder público e o poder privado no Brasil e sua relação com o desenvolvimento incompleto da cidadania no país. Apesar de adotarem perspectivas teóricas distintas, as obras servem à compreensão do debate clássico da historiografia brasileira entre privatismo e patrimonialismo, o que não as reduz a categorias estanques. Por sua vez, retratam dois perfis intelectuais: Faoro, o pensador de temas abrangentes, sem a formação técnica de historiador, e Leal, representante das primeiras gerações dotadas de saber acadêmico especializado. / The present essay aims at investigating the performance of two jurists throughout the Military Government in Brazil (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal Minister of the Supreme Court (STF) retired compulsorily in January 1969 as a consequence of the Institutional Act number 5/1968; and Raymundo Faoro President of the Federal Council of the Brazilian Lawyers Order (OAB) from 1977 to 1979 became an important interlocutor between civil society and the government of President Geisel, on behalf of the return to democracy. Additionally, the works of these two jurists and historians, respectively: Coronelismo: municipality and representative government in Brazil (1949), and The Owners of Power: the Formation of Brazilian Political Patronage (1958), both re-edited in 1975, are under analyses due to a common topic: the incomplete development of citizenship in Brazil and its relation to public and private power in the country. Despite of adopting a different theoretical perspective, both works are helpful to the understanding of the classic debate on Brazilian historiography between Privatism and Patrimonialism, although these are not depurate categories. Furthermore, these works portray two very distinct intellectual biographies: Faoro, a thinker of broad themes, who had no technical studies in History; and Leal, who represents the first generations of a specialized academic knowledge.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-05T17:40:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 26 / Nenhuma / A questão de fundo da presente pesquisa trata por evidenciar se, diante da crise da tradição crítica moderna, ainda é possível avançar no campo do pensamento jurídico crítico. Em torno desta questão, foi necessário traçar um itinerário de avaliação dos pontos fundamentais da tradição crítica ocidental, seu esgotamento e suas conexões com o pensamento jurídico. Pode-se, assim, evidenciar que esse processo de crise geral, na filosofia, no pensamento social e no direito, denominado crise pós-moderna, decorria justamente do esgotamento da matriz epistemológica dominante (metafísica da consciência) que estabeleceu as bases do modelo cientificista. Percebeu-se, ademais, que o próprio pensamento crítico foi, paradoxalmente, pautado por esta metafísica desde a modernidade. Como alternativa teórica a tudo isso, a pesquisa buscou, então, dialogar com a genealogia crítica (Foucault) e a Hermenêutica Filosófica (Gadamer), no sentido de estas serem leituras capazes de apontar os fundamentos de uma crítica mais radical, ou / The background question of this research aims at evincing if, considering the crisis of the modern critical tradition, it is still possible to advance in the field of the critical juridical thought. In relation to this question, it was necessary to trace an evaluation of the fundamental points of Western critical tradition, its exhaustion and its connections with the juridical thought. This process of general crisis in philosophy, in the social thought and in Law, called postmodern crisis, was a result of the exhaustion of the dominant epistemological matrix (consciousness metaphysics), which established the basis of the scientificist model. Besides, the critical thought itself was, paradoxically, marked by metaphysics since modernity. As a theoretical alternative, this research intended to establish dialogue with the critical genealogy (Foucault) and the philosophical hermeneutics (Gadamer), since these readings can indicate a more radical critique, that is, one addressed to the foundations of the model esta

Magister Artium - MA / Imāmah, (imamate) literary means leading, and khilāfah (succession) means representative. but, in the terms of "Islamic concept", the medieval theologian and jurists has termed it «Religious–Political leadership».1 the major dispute concerning the imamate surrounding the question of investiture to exercise the prophet’s comprehensive authority (Wilāyah‘āmah), as the temporal and spiritual leader of the ummah (community). From demising of the prophet, the matter of imamate, between Ash‛arī and Shī‘ah (twelve) there are two main opinions. Ash‛arī’s views are prevalent among the early Muslims headed by Abûbakar and his associates regarded the imamate to be right of the ummah (nation), and they chose Abûbakar. The Shī‘ah implicitly rejected the previous opinion, and maintained that the leadership was passed on through a special designation. This regarded the imamate divinely invested in ‘Ali ibn Abī Ţālib, the prophet cousin and son-in-law. Therefore, controversy between Ash‛arī and Shī‘ah on the question of leadership arise after the prophet returns and coherences to the two fundamentals central points: First: The nature of the relationship of the prophethood to the political leadership. The Shī‘ah regarded political leadership as an extension of the prophetic mission after the demise of the prophet: «Meaning that political leadership is not simply political rule but it is the corollary of the interpretation of religion, and takes imamate in depth interpretation»2. Other hands, Ash‛arī consider and include it in the matter of masāliħ Al ‛āmah (public interest). The Islamic jurists definite the masāliħ al ‛āmah (public interest), any issue whether it is religion or matter of world that could not fixed with fact proof from holy Qur'ān and prophet’s tradition. Therefore, the matter of caliphate emerges it in the masāliħ al-‛āmah (public interest) which, relies on human agency. Second: The contract of political leadership and authority between the problematic of mutual consultation and divine appointment. This point focus on ‘aqd (contract) of khilāfah (repress- entative of God) between leader and ummah (nation) and evolves around the problem of consultation, mainly in the Ash‛arī’s view, which is based on "selection system". So, in the historical experience, it can be noted that the consultation as mechanism in the choosing the ruler was not achieved as an "organized system" neither in the period of the rightly guided caliphs, nor in the periods of dynastic rulers. The imamate as a «supreme leadership» had a major problem issue in the contemporary scholars, both the Islamic and secular, since it was announced in the modern context Dawlah (government), which based on nationality and separated from religious hegemony. Its dialectic, in the present article, is to deal with theological and judicial theory. Therefore, in 1979, the Islamic council of Europe published a «concept of Islamic state». Most of the figures shaded are based on the Khomeini's thought (the founder of Islamic republic revolution of Iran), and Karāchī’s Muslim council scholar (they constituted Ash‛arī view). In the Islamic state, the Khomeini thought based on «the Islamic state is constitutional; Government is based on law and the Paramount legislative authority resides on God himself». On the other hand,«the Islamic state» shaped as «the principals of an Islamic state which centers on the supremacy of God, citizens rights and proper government» 3 Therefore, caliphate it is difficult to separate or detach from prophethood in the perspective of the commentary and interpretation of equally the Qur'anic and Sunna texts. So, difference between Ash‛arī and Shī‘ah around immāmah (leadership in Islam) are based on the theological principles which rise from the problem of cosmology, divine justice and human destiny. Therefore, the difference can be based on the idea (thought) about these theological principles.

O dogma da neutralidade na prestação jurisdicional nasce juntamente com o Estado moderno liberal como corolário do princípio da separação dos poderes e como tentativa de minimização da influência do subjetivismo do julgador sobre as decisões tomadas. Naquela época, acreditava-se que somente julgamentos pautados estritamente nos comandos legais é que seriam justos, porque respeitariam a vontade popular expressa nas normas. Entretanto, ao lado desse imperativo, que ainda se faz presente na atualidade, parece haver uma crise do sistema democrático, que vê reduzida paulatinamente sua representatividade, com a consequente perda da legitimidade das leis, até então expressão da vontade popular. Diante desse quadro, o presente trabalho se propôs a problematizar, filosoficamente, o imperativo de neutralidade na prestação jurisdicional, indagando a respeito de sua adequação ao contexto social brasileiro contemporâneo. Para tanto, recorreu-se à obra de LUIS ALBERTO WARAT, jusfilósofo que, dentre outras contribuições, desenvolveu a concepção de senso comum teórico dos juristas, como tentativa de evidenciar a existência de uma série de representações, imagens e crenças consolidadas na ciência e na prática do Direito, que são tidas como enunciados científicos mas que não passam de mero senso comum cristalizado e carregado de ideologia. Assim, a partir da obra waratiana, situada no contexto da Filosofia da Linguagem, tentou-se responder à seguinte questão: é possível cogitar de neutralidade na prestação jurisdicional se os magistrados, em sua prática cotidiana, lidam com um saber jurídico repleto de ideologia e se o próprio ato de conhecer não parece sujeito a critérios de objetividade? A conclusão a que se chegou é que a atuação judicial não é, e nem pode ser, neutra. E, também, que a neutralidade no exercício da magistratura, frente a um cenário de profundas desigualdades sociais, não é desejável, porque implica a manutenção e reprodução do senso comum teórico dos juristas, com a consequente perpetuação do status quo e o aniquilamento do potencial transformador da magistratura. / The dogma of neutrality in adjudication comes together to the Modern liberal state as a corollary of the principle of separation of powers, in attempt to minimize the influence of the subjectivism of the magistrates on the decisions taken. At that time, it was believed that only judgments based strictly on the ruled legal commands were fair, because they respected the popular will expressed in their standards. However, alongside this imperative, which is still present nowadays, there seems to be a crisis of the democratic system, which loses gradually its representativeness, so that the laws are not more expression of the will of the people. Considering this situation, this work intended to question, philosophically, the need for neutrality in adjudication, asking about their adequacy to Brazilian contemporary social context. Therefore, appealed to the work of LUIS ALBERTO WARAT, author that, among other contributions, developed the concept of theorist common sense of jurists in an attempt to prove the existence of a series of representations, images and beliefs statements in science and practice of Law, which are regarded as scientific statements but are only common sense crystallized and loaded with ideology. Thus, from WARATs work, which is situated in the context of Philosophy of Language, we tried to answer the following question: Is it possible for judges to act with neutrality if they, in their daily practice, deal with a legal knowledge full of ideology and the act of knowing cannot reach objectivity? The conclusion reached is that the judicial action is not and cannot be neutral. And, also, that the neutrality of the magistrates is not desirable, considering the scene of deep social inequalities in Brazil contemporary, because it involves the maintenance and reproduction of common sense theory of lawyers, with the consequent perpetuation of the status quo and the annihilation of the transforming potential from the judiciary.

O dogma da neutralidade na prestação jurisdicional nasce juntamente com o Estado moderno liberal como corolário do princípio da separação dos poderes e como tentativa de minimização da influência do subjetivismo do julgador sobre as decisões tomadas. Naquela época, acreditava-se que somente julgamentos pautados estritamente nos comandos legais é que seriam justos, porque respeitariam a vontade popular expressa nas normas. Entretanto, ao lado desse imperativo, que ainda se faz presente na atualidade, parece haver uma crise do sistema democrático, que vê reduzida paulatinamente sua representatividade, com a consequente perda da legitimidade das leis, até então expressão da vontade popular. Diante desse quadro, o presente trabalho se propôs a problematizar, filosoficamente, o imperativo de neutralidade na prestação jurisdicional, indagando a respeito de sua adequação ao contexto social brasileiro contemporâneo. Para tanto, recorreu-se à obra de LUIS ALBERTO WARAT, jusfilósofo que, dentre outras contribuições, desenvolveu a concepção de senso comum teórico dos juristas, como tentativa de evidenciar a existência de uma série de representações, imagens e crenças consolidadas na ciência e na prática do Direito, que são tidas como enunciados científicos mas que não passam de mero senso comum cristalizado e carregado de ideologia. Assim, a partir da obra waratiana, situada no contexto da Filosofia da Linguagem, tentou-se responder à seguinte questão: é possível cogitar de neutralidade na prestação jurisdicional se os magistrados, em sua prática cotidiana, lidam com um saber jurídico repleto de ideologia e se o próprio ato de conhecer não parece sujeito a critérios de objetividade? A conclusão a que se chegou é que a atuação judicial não é, e nem pode ser, neutra. E, também, que a neutralidade no exercício da magistratura, frente a um cenário de profundas desigualdades sociais, não é desejável, porque implica a manutenção e reprodução do senso comum teórico dos juristas, com a consequente perpetuação do status quo e o aniquilamento do potencial transformador da magistratura. / The dogma of neutrality in adjudication comes together to the Modern liberal state as a corollary of the principle of separation of powers, in attempt to minimize the influence of the subjectivism of the magistrates on the decisions taken. At that time, it was believed that only judgments based strictly on the ruled legal commands were fair, because they respected the popular will expressed in their standards. However, alongside this imperative, which is still present nowadays, there seems to be a crisis of the democratic system, which loses gradually its representativeness, so that the laws are not more expression of the will of the people. Considering this situation, this work intended to question, philosophically, the need for neutrality in adjudication, asking about their adequacy to Brazilian contemporary social context. Therefore, appealed to the work of LUIS ALBERTO WARAT, author that, among other contributions, developed the concept of theorist common sense of jurists in an attempt to prove the existence of a series of representations, images and beliefs statements in science and practice of Law, which are regarded as scientific statements but are only common sense crystallized and loaded with ideology. Thus, from WARATs work, which is situated in the context of Philosophy of Language, we tried to answer the following question: Is it possible for judges to act with neutrality if they, in their daily practice, deal with a legal knowledge full of ideology and the act of knowing cannot reach objectivity? The conclusion reached is that the judicial action is not and cannot be neutral. And, also, that the neutrality of the magistrates is not desirable, considering the scene of deep social inequalities in Brazil contemporary, because it involves the maintenance and reproduction of common sense theory of lawyers, with the consequent perpetuation of the status quo and the annihilation of the transforming potential from the judiciary.

By way of five microhistories focusing on the lives of Cecelia Davies Sylvester, Hannah Director, Leon Koerner, Harry Adaskin, and Nathan Nemetz, this study examines various modes of integration for Jews within particular periods of British Columbian (BC) history. Each microhistory explores the boundaries that were crossed and fostered by Jews whose careers and social contributions led them outside the confines of the established Jewish community. These Jews represent the vanguard of Jewish integration for each era to which they contributed.