'Western humanities are built based on a deception," General Secretary of the World Forum for Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Thought underscored.

 
General Secretary of the World Forum for Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Thought, Ayatollah Mohsen Araki in an exclusive interview with Asre Andishe expressed his viewpoint over the human sciences. What follows here is the gist of remarks he made with the Journal.
 

What is “willingness” and where is it raised from? The will has three preparations:
conceptualization, acknowledgment and fervency. That is to say that if an individual wills to do something, first of all, he must have an image or concept from it. Then, he must acknowledge it as a beneficial thing, and after all, the fervor to that thing is created. He wills, and he does the thing.

This simple argument implies that the arbitrary behaviors of human beings are based on a chain of beliefs. For instance, if I would believe that God exists, all my behaviors and selections will be affected. Here comes a question: in terms of relations between belief and selection, are there any rules? The task of humanities is to answer this question and in the case of a “yes”, it must discover those rules. If we consider a belief as a “assumed principal” of the man and say that there are no relations between God and man, man should not mention the name of the God, and if he does so, the argument will be rendered “unscientific”, our assumptions will become materialistic.

If one would aim to talk about human in western humanities, he has to consider only the human subject or human himself: a human disconnected from God. Humanities, in the West, try to justify man behaviors through a supposed principal. What is this supposed principal? The principal is, however, that there is no God and this must be the source of selections. This type of humanities is based on a humanistic default assumption.

Scientific Deception, Hidden Assumptions

Western humanities are built based on a deception: instead on denying the existence of God, they argue based on the notion that human, and only the human, is the subject of science, because he is an exterior objective reality. Is this true? The western scholars do not bring the accuracy of this assertion into debate. They clearly ban others, in some cases, to even think about this. This overlaps what “Ibn-al-Taimmiah” used to say. In ideology of “Ibn-al-Taimmiah” some questions should not be asked, because they are unscientific. I had a professor named “Vaiel Iz-al-Din” who had some lectures in the university and taught “the methodology of Ibn-al-Taimmiah”. If I say that “Wahhabis” and “Daesh” are rooted in England is because I witnessed the efforts cinducted by them to introduce the ideology of Ibn-al-Taimmiah as the only Islamic ideology.

I am not saying this because of fear or estimation; I have witnessed and felt this trend closely. This professor, in one of his lectures, told that some questions are basically wrong and they should not be asked. This way, such questions are removed from the circle of science and cognition. He gave us an example: who created the God? Both “Ibn-al-Taimmiah” and “Bertrand Russell” were asked about the answer to this question. Their conclusions were different.

Russell believes that because the “issue of God” is not a scientific one, this question is irrelevant and un-answerable. Ibn-al-Taimmiah, too, believes that this question is of no basis. Once, in the class, I told my professor that “what you are saying is not true, there is not such a thing as a wrong question.” Every question, anyway, is a question and it is only a proposition which can be true or false. When you are informing someone about something, the information can be true or false. But let us say someone wishes that his or her father were alive; this is wish. It cannot be true or false. The question about the creator of the God is in the same category; so it cannot be false.

This question has been raised by our philosophers and they have answered it properly. This question has a background question: why we need a “reason” for something? We must answer this question first. When one asks that “who created God?” he is actually asking about the “reason” God was created. First, we have to argue that why creature needs a “reason”? We actually assume the creature as a thing that “may” or “may not” exist. This means that, somehow, the existence is not the essential of a creature, but a possibility for it.
/SR