Horizons of Thought
Volume:1 Issue: 2, Spring & Summer 2015

Even though all Muslims agree upon certain universal religious ideas such as fundamental beliefs, ethical standards and judicial rules (including those related to rituals, civil codes, civil rights, penal law, international law, and other dimensions of Islam), they differ with regard to some particular beliefs as well as some details of the rules and laws. These differences divide them into various sects and orders. It is possible to take two main areas into consideration where these differences are manifested [the most]: One is that of beliefs, which is related to theology. The second is the area of law (in the general meaning of this term), which is related to jurisprudence. A prime example of difference in the first area is the difference between the Asharites and the Mutazilites in theological issues; and an example of the second area where such differences arise is the difference of opinion between the four Sunni schools in jurisprudential problems.One of the well known differences between the Islamic sects is the difference of opinion between the Shias and the Sunnis with regard to the problem of Imamate. The Twelver Shia consider Ali ibn Abi-Talib(a) to be the Imam and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet (s) after his demise. This goes against the beliefs of the Ahl-as-Sunnah who count him to be the fourth Caliph. In reality, the belief in the Imamate of the Twelve Imams (a), with their three qualities of infallibility, God-given knowledge, and designation by God, are the main features of the Imamiyah.

This paper makes an attempt to determine the current family crisis, recognizing its inaugurations and instigates. This attempt directs the reader’s attention by realizing some expositions of the problem and finding a solution for the crisis within the context of moral theology. The family crisis, as we will observe, is on the loss of the moral functions of the family. Today, the lack of moral virtues in the family is one of the greatest threats to the family and is indeed weakening its foundation progressively. Following certain directions of religious teachings, observing moral obligations, and returning to spirituality are some of the solutions examined and scholarly recommended in this research.

The objective of this article is to introduce an Islamic doctrine concerning patience as a moral pillar of belief, in Nahj al-Balaghah. The approach in this study is focused on how Islam conceives of itself.
The universally acknowledged Islamic texts, especially Nahj al-Balaghah, are used as the high point of tradition. The focus is on Maxim 31 of Nahj al-Balaghah which is referred to in this research as «the Hadith of the Pillars». This study uses textual and contextual analysis. The latent and manifest content of the texts are analyzed. According to the study, patience and three other things, meaning certainty, justice and struggle, form the pillars of belief. Patience itself has four branches that shows how enthusiasm for Heaven, dread of the fire of Hell, abstaining from worldly things and anticipation for death create different types of patience in the life of a believer.

Dr. Daneshvar: Dr. Legenhausen, first, I''d like to thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview regarding the Iranian Supreme Leader''s letter to Western youth. We consider this to be a great opportunity for us because we believe you, as a practicing American Muslim living, studying, and teaching for more than two decades in Iran, possess deep knowledge of the West, Islam, and Iran. As such, the insight you can provide us with is invaluable in helping us gain a more accurate understanding of the leader''s letter to Western youth.
To begin, I would like to know how you perceive the significance of the letter.

Cultural imperialism and colonial cultures are both cultural affairs and the gradation of the colonized. There are various forms of colonialism. Originally a traditional form of colonialism came into being by force. After the big countries had well understood that they can no more enter other countries by force, they changed their style. Nowadays, information on the colonized countries as well as their culture are being used as bait by them.
In this article we discuss the importance of cultural influences of colonialism and imperialism on colonial societies. We admit that imperialism already exists in underdeveloped or developing countries which, not only is of no use to these countries, but also very detrimental and dangerous to them. As a result, the intellectuals and members of a committed society have the responsibility to fight this phenomenon. Meanwhile, intellectuals in the colonial countries have fallen short of expectations and have not fulfilled their duty. Now what should we do?

This paper will partly compare the approaches and ideas of two pioneers in Islamic philosophy in relation with the soul-body problem: the philosophical psychology of Mullā Sadrā (Sadr al-Muta''allihīn Shīrāzī 975-1050 AH/1571-1640 AD) and that of Ibn Sīnā (370-428 AH/980-1037 AD). In order to investigate the issue of the soul-body problem in the works of Mulla Sadra compared with those of Ibn Sīnā, we firstly need to gain a general perspective of their respective approaches to Islamic philosophical psychology. Such a perspective could help us to arrive at a more precise understanding of what each has contributed in this area and their differences. Although psychology occupied a vital role in Ibn Sina school of philosophy and his theories in this regard were of great importance in the history of Islamic thought, some major differences nevertheless separate his psychological doctrines from those of Mulla Sadra that appeared in the post-Ibn Sina period. These differences are significant even if we admit that Ibn Sina’s writings were not merely an imitation of the Aristotelian tradition. His ideas, indeed, provided the ground for the later developments of the Iranian mystical philosophy or gnosis (''irfān). This transformation of falsafah is rooted in the philosophical investigation of the soul, or perhaps in the implications that psychological doctrines have yielded for all areas.

The paper seeks to examine the corpus of Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi in light of establishing new ways of constituting the Human and Social Sciences. It is based on the assumptions that the existing social and human sciences are anthropocentric in nature, and were produced within a culture and civilization that place man as the centre and the measure of things. That crucible which has become the origin for the production of knowledge operated within a chaotic West in the early modern and the modern periods. Thus knowledge produced has been secular and disenchanted and sees man as a material object par excellence. As a result, modern man has lost his sense of origin, why he lived and wither he was going. The Infinite Wisdom to Man does not return to the Primordial, but develops a Faustian trajectory. This paper reattaches the Mawlana’s corpus to academic and intellectual levels as it informs daily life and consciousness. We need to reconsume the tenets of a ‘devolutionist’ History, Art, Sociology, Anthropology, and Philosophy. It asks what can the Mathnawi and the Fihi Mafihi contribute to the Humanities from the Islamic perspective. How can it be used to restructure another mode of knowing? What disciplines can the Rumi corpus produce (or reproduce)? The significance of this paper is that it suggests a universalization, and thence, a deethnicization of the Social and Human Sciences, thus embracing the universal while mitigating the uniqueness of man in both his microcosmic and macrocosmic environments.