نشریه معرفت فرهنگی اجتماعی
سال هفتم شماره 2 (پیاپی 26، بهار 1395)

The genesis and survival of society and the relevant issues are among the main debates in the Western world during the Middle Ages up to Enlightenment Era. The change in the way of answering this question is one of the most important foundations of modernity, humanities and social sciences. The basis of this change is ascribed to abandoning the theory of ‘’ the creation of society by God’’ and’’ the social nature of man’’, and due to considering man as ‘’ a naturally unsocial creature’’ and society as ‘’ as something created by man’’. This research seeks to answer these questions in the light of Allameh Tabatabaei’s views reflected in Al Mizan Commentary. Allameh Tabatabaei thinks that man is not a social creature by nature, but because in order to fulfill his needs and so on, he inevitably and forcibly resorts to social life. Social life and society are in need of a kind of law which is consistent with nature and the system of creation to ensure their survival. There is no such a law except that which is enforced by God Almighty in the form of divine legislative guidance. Man’s intellect and innate disposition lack efficiency and capacity in this regard.

The sociology science of Ibn Khaldun is a kind of social thought. Sometimes, it is viewed as another type of modern social theory. If, however, we consider the answer offered by modern social theories to the question about social discipline as sensible, we will perceive the essential difference between Ibn Khaldun’s answer to the question about social discipline and that of modern sociologists. This paper first shows that, due to their aloofness from all religious and metaphysical principles, the theories about modern sociology have a secular identity. After investigating the logic of sociology science and its status in Islamic civilization, the answer which is gives to the question about social discipline is compared with the answer offered by social theories about it. It is concluded that, although Ibn Khaldun, like modern sociologist, Comte (Count), considers intellect to be practical and historical, and therefore, his sociology science differs from the practical philosophy of Muslim philosophers, his ontology and anthropology prevent us from considering sociology science as a kind of modern sociological theory.

Conventionalities and the role they play in man’s social life are considered in the different approaches used in the field of human and social sciences. Among these approaches are the monotheistic approach used in Islamic tradition and the interpretive approach used in the new Western social sciences. Examining the creative and descriptive views about social conventionalities presented by Allamah Tabatabai, a monotheistic philosopher, and the interpretive approach of Pitter Vinch, this research seeks to make explicit the way conventionalities are viewed by each of these two approaches and the similarities and diffrences between their approaches. A study of the methodological principles of these two philosophers, an analysis of their approaches to social conventionalities and a comparison between them show that, when we consider the ontological, epistemological and anthropological principles of these two thinkers, we notice that there are deep differences between them, represented in the fundamental attention given to the nature and natural perfection in Allameh Tabatabaei’s discussion about conventionalities, and in the verbal games of Vinch and the relativism adopted by him.

In Islamic world, the system of caliphate has entered Muslims’ socio-political life with a sacred divine hue. In order to escape the difficulties which encounter the society caused by this system Sunni scholars have refer to fiqh and theology in order to justify this system. But the fiqhi-theological justification is not sufficient per se, and the stability and continuity of this system needs sociological explanation, for without analyzing its theoretical dimensions, it will become groundless. Hence, the social pathology of this system can explain how this system survives. Therefore, Ibn-Khaldun makes use of the capacity of Asharite fiqh and theology and gives a sociological explanation of the system of caliphate basing his view on the theory of fanaticism. This paper investigates the way Ibn-Khaldun explains caliphate system and the sociological view about the existing capacities in the Islamic communities. Then, concentrating on the concept of ‘fanaticism and the approach of acceptability in Ibn-Khaldun’s thought which is based on fanaticism and splendor, the paper criticizes the friction of his fundamentals with the category of legitimacy.

Leisure is often used to mean either ‘’ time free from any kind of work or other duties’’ or ‘’a range of recreational and intellectual activities which are taken into consideration in this period of time’’. Due to the various dimensions of this word, the two meanings of leisure have been studied or its different aspects are worth investigating. Owing to their axiological status, educational capacities and mission, divine religions, including Islam pay attention to the prescriptive, contingent and normative aspects of the word. One of the ways of understanding the positions of Islamic texts is to refer to the views of the thinkers who have dealt with the position of religion on this topic and the related injunctions according to Islamic law and commentary of the Qur’an. Referring to the works of Muslim thinkers on different fields, this paper seeks to make explicit and classify the general topics about these positions. This research uses a categorical method in gathering the information and an explanatory, interpretative and independent reasoning-based method in analyzing the findings.

Since the beginning of history religion and art have existed side by side. Art with its meta-material content and divine identity cannot be considered as separate from religion. For this reason the relationship between them has always been challenging. Muslim scientists and thinkers have made great efforts to investigate the relationship between them. The aim of this paper is to investigate and compare the relationship between religion and art in the light of Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Seyyed Morteza Avini’s views. This paper seeks to explain the views of these two thinkers by investigating the principles to which they adhere. Given his definition of Perennial Philosophy and Sunnah, Seyyed Hossein Nasr tends to consider the root of divine doctrines as the source of Islamic art, basing his view on the definition of Sunnah. Therefore, he supports the idea of divine art which is detected in traditional art. Impressed by Fardid, Heidegger, the critical school of Frankfurt and, deeply by Imam Khomeini’s philosophical and mystical view, Shahid Avini establishes a new approach in the field of the art in Iran.

Since the period of Auobiyan’s rule, the dominant scientific approach of Al-Azhar, had been based on transmitted knowledge and exoteric interpretation. At the beginning of his arrival in Egypt Seyyed Jamal introduced intellectual knowledge into Al-Azhar with the aim of changing the views and position of Al-Azhar’s scholars about social phenomena by changing the education system of that institute. Seyyed Jamal always challenged the previous education system and supported the new education system in Al-Azhar. Also, he sought to reform its education policy. He believed that philosophy of Islamic sciences and Al-Azhar University should not be limited to mere theorizations, and that Al-Azhar needed to put the fiqhi issues and theories into practice. He thought of creating an education system which could bring about a socio-political change in an attempt of putting an end to colonialism and dictatorial and imperial system. Using a theoretical and analytical approach, this paper seeks to analyze the role of Seyyed Jamal in changing the educational system of Al-Azhar and evaluate its effect on the Egyptian society.