Transition in humanities is a classical discussion. Formation of community is based on knowledge and once we intend to form a community then we have to be facilitated with the necessary knowledge for that.
 
Knowledge for community building obliges us to have the humanities proper for a religious community and to clarify our objective in a bid to know our final destination in building a community. In other words community necessitates building a foundation of humanities. It is so much important that change in the humanities has been a serious demand of the leader of revolution.
 
In the first step the meaning of change in humanities and the reason why the Supreme Leader's focus on that have to be clarified. Also the reason why this demand has not been proposed for the experimental and mathematic sciences has to be discussed. The reason is that the contemporary humanities are suffering two issues; first its foundation is based on anti-religious hypotheses and the battle which broke out between science and religion has continued up to now. If someone wants to study this contrast, he has to study "Religion and Science" (1935) by Bertrand Russell. This contrast led European thought to an illogical stance. This illogical stance is that in general whatever related to religious issues, are by default prejudged as unscientific and rejected and this has been the foundation for humanities. In short what is brought by religion is wrong and rejected.
 
How did the world shrink?
 
There is a problem with European thought: Europe summarizes the whole world in Europe and limits the whole logic and thinking of the world in its own logic and thinking. For instance it extends its judgment of the church to all religions, and then religion means church religion.
 
Unfortunately when our intellectuals want to follow the west, they extend the view of the west towards church on Islam while based on my studies, most of the European philosophers and founders of western humanities are not familiar with Islamic thoughts at all while most of our contemporary philosophers are familiar with the western thoughts to some extent. I have been a philosophy student of Ayatollah Mottahari (1919-1979) and Ayatollah Beheshti (1928-1981). Both these professors related their views on western philosophy. While Shahid Mottahari bared one view on Hegel, Shahid Beheshti had another interpretation when both had come to those different views having studied the same reference philosophy texts by Hegel. Muslim thinkers had studied on Hegel, having their own (sometimes contrasting) views. We studied some major works by Hegel translated by Shahid Beheshti based on which he criticized the book. This is while some European philosophers have not even heard the name of Mulla Sadra (1571-1640) or our other outstanding philosophy figures. Even if they are familiar with the name of Avicenna (980-1037), they are still so unacknowledged about his thoughts that one wonders how they dare to express their views in philosophy discussions without enough study on the important philosophical thinking of the world. This unfamiliarity of the European thinkers is the result of a vain view among them and that is a self-magnification while underestimation of others. Western thought has one basic foundation and that is beyond Europe, people are not human beings.
 
Westerners do not consider non-Europeans as human beings. Rather they take him as an animal which is supposed to serve them. The most honorable European is he who provides the most service for other Europeans. Therefore; the psychological background in European thinking is that basically there is no thought, religion and human being rather than what Europeans know. Based on that, Europeans do not have a look at the scientific production of other people especially those by the Muslims. I have studied in London with my PhD dissertation on "Liberty and Causality in Islamic thinking". My professor demanded for European references meaning that if I wanted to use Mulla Sadra's views, then it would be scientifically valueless for the European thought. In a European thinking and contemporary humanities, Avicenna, Mulla Sadra or any other Muslim thinker is valuable only when he is quoted and confirmed by a European writer and this is the thinking foundation of the west.
 
Free will: Subject for Humanities
 
Muslim Iranian scientists have to basically criticize western view on humanities. We have to know what method formed European thinking and which psychological atmosphere has formed this thinking. Humanities have a basic difference with experimental and mathematic sciences because medicine is also in relation with man though we do not count that as a subdivision of humanities. Humanities focus on free will. Man has two sides; both are subjects for scientific studies. One is mandatory like man's physics which acts and reacts based on nature and man's free will plays no role in its function (though it contrasts a view in mysticism that if man strengthens his determination then he can turn mandatory issues to optional ones) we call this field of human behavior as "Natural Behaviors" and that is a scientific issue which although in relation with human being, is a subgroup of experimental sciences. Still another subgroup of humanities discusses "free will" as its main subject. The way I live, what to wear, what to eat and….etc. are all included in this field. The main difference between man and animal is clarified in following human behaviors because in other behaviors man is not different from animals. All humanities are formed in this field and the future and destiny of man is related to humanities.
What is determination and where does it come from? Determination has three preliminaries: vision, verification and fervor. It means that when man is determined to do something he has to form a vision of that, then confirms its benefits and then his enthusiasm is stirred to do that, he is determined and finally he does it. This simple step proves that free will is based on a range of beliefs. For instance, if I believe that God exists, then it certainly influences my choices and my optional behavior. Then the question is: Is there a relation between belief and option? Humanities, in fact, discover the relation between these beliefs and behaviors. If we imagine a belief for man and say that man has nothing to do with God and that a discussion on God is unscientific, then our presuppositions will all be materialistic. If in European humanities, you wish to discuss man, then you have to choose man himself: A man apart from God. Contemporary humanities in west intend to justify man behavior with a presupposition and that is a belief which is the basis for a choice beievs that there is no God. This type of humanities is based on a humanist presupposition.
 
Scientific tricks and hidden hypotheses
 
Western humanities are based on a deception and that is instead of saying we do not believe in God, they discuss everything based on centricity of man in science because man is an objective reality. Is this reasoning basically correct? Westerners believe that this principle should not be discussed. This is exactly what Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328) says which is exactly in line with western thought. According to Ibn Taymiyyah thought some questions should not be basically questioned because they are fundamentally unscientific. When it is said that Wahhabi and DAESH thought is rooted in the UK is because we found how the Britons intend to introduce this ideology for the only Islamic thought in the world. One of my professors at University, Wael Ezzedin, taught us Ibn Taymiyyah's methodology. In one of his lectures he said many questions are basically inaccurate and should not be asked at all; as a result, they are omitted from science and knowledge. His example was on the creator of God. Now this question had already been posed by Ibn Taymiyyah and Bertrand Russell. Thought they have come to totally different answers.
 
Russell discusses that since the issue of God is not scientific, then this question is unanswerable. Ibn Taymiyyah also rejects the question for being baseless and meaningless. I remember once I said," What you quoted from Ibn Taymiayyh is not correct and we do not have a wrong question." Any question is a question after all and right and wrong are applicable only to the information. When you give a piece of information, then it is either right or wrong. The question on creator of God cannot be wrong because it is subjective. This question has already been posed by our philosophers and has been provided a suitable answer too. Thought this question must be answered after another question has been answered and that is the reason for existence of a cause. When you ask who created God then you are asking the cause behind existence of God; therefore, we have to discuss the necessity of a cause for a creature. That is because we take creatures which can be both exist and not exist. That means that existence is not an innate part of that and its existence is possible. Then what is a possible existence? This is a being whose existence is not from it and since it does not have existence then it needs a cause for that. But then the being whose existence is innate does not need a cause for its existence.
 
Secret to Scientific Transformation
 
The secret and strong reasoning for transformation in humanities is that common humanities starts at a point where thinking is forbidden and there are presuppositions about which there should be no discussion or questioning. You cannot have political sciences without a worldview. Unfortunately, although western humanities are based on materialism, they do not point to that at all. They hide the materialistic ideology and build the foundations of science which is in fact based on inaccurate presuppositions. Humanities are based on a hidden deception. It is quite possible that if the west explained the meaning of their worldview to the people, the fate of humanities could have changed. One of the issues focused by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution is to extract and criticize presuppositions for humanities. If a presupposition is wrong then why should we move in line with that? For instance the issue of human rights is based on a group of presuppositions and if we do not accept those presuppositions or criticize them then many views will automatically be changed.
 
If we criticize humanities' presuppositions then many issues including freedom, human rights, position of women, children's rights and etc… will be another way. A current presupposition is that man is created as a free being and he has the right to be free. This approach to freedom has two meanings; one is that law should not draw any limitation for man's life except for necessary cases. This is a logical approach and we accept that. Law can limit human behaviors with certain reasoning. Another approach agreed by western humanities is that man is not responsible for his behavior and this is quite dangerous. Religious thinking says that man is responsible for his choices and there is a greater being in front of whom man should stand responsible for his acts. Not only man but also the prophets are also responsible for their behavior. The view that there is no ruler beyond law is rooted in this thought which is justifiable in view of Islam. That is the greatest being which is mere justice and that is no one but God Almighty. This is while western thinking does not accept the responsibility of man and as a result tyranny and democracy is formed in western thought.
 
"Transformation Brokers" are incapable
 
The idea of cooperation between seminary and university was an initiation of the late founder of Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini (RA) continued by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution. Unfortunately, this cooperation was not interpreted accurately and was not followed in practice. University is quite familiar with new questions many of which are not posed in seminary. And by seminary we mean religious seminaries in the field of philosophy and Fiq'h. Seminary has provided the answer for some of the questions posed at universities or even among the people. Therefore, there has been answer to questions which have been posed. For instance late Ayatollah Mottahari, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli and Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi have givern proper answer to the questions in their books. But some scientific questions which should not be asked in society have not been asked in seminaries.
 
In scientific arenas we need two groups of people: One is a group of academicians in the field of humanities with whom some challenging and truly scientific questions must be discussed. The other group is seminary scholars who must have deductive reasoning abilities because Islamic humanities necessitate deduction and Ijtihad (deep thinking and legal reasoning for decision making). If the cooperation between the seminary and university realized since the beginning days after the Islamic Revolution, then we would have made much more advancement.
 
The scientific step for transformation in humanities is formation of a ring of scientists who are experts on making questions and scholars who recognize the true answer. A reason for necessity of transformation is that western humanities are based on illogical presuppositions which have two flaws: one is that they are non-discursive and the other is they are hidden presuppositions; therefore, they deceive the addressee. Late Ayatollah Sadr said an advantage of Marxism over Liberalism is that Marxism clearly announces its presuppositions while Liberalism has a hidden form of the same presuppositions. Islamic humanities are based on clear logical principles meaning that from the beginning to the ending point it is based on reasoning and logics and this is one of the advantage of Islamic humanities.
 
If some serious panels of discussion between seminary and university are launched then the process of production in Islamic humanities will start. Why it has not started yet has some reasons: those who are in charge of bringing transformation into humanities do not believe that we can achieve satisfactory results. This feeling of incapability is a shared feeling between both seminary and university scholars. The other problem is that sometimes those responsible for this issue are incapable because this arena demands true experts. The authorities should forget about formalities and invite the truly capable people. At present scholars and capable figures are belittled and that is due to the negative propaganda against them. Those who follow propagandas are different from logical figures since the former act quite passively.