اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Religion
A Summary of the Quran Sessions and Three Fundamental Questions; Part 2 of 4
In part two, Farhad Shafti argues from a textual approach that the Qur’an is not exclusivist but pluralist. He says he has not “inferred” pluralism from the Qur’an, but rather has seen nothing else in it. A presentation by Mehdi Iranmanesh on Sedanet.
Mahdi Iranmanesh
AuthorA Summary by Mehdi Iranmanesh of Farhad Shafti's Views Presented in the Series of Sessions on "The Quran and Three Fundamental Questions"; Part Two: Is the Quran Exclusivist or Pluralist?
To receive the PDF file, refer to the end of the page
"Second Question: Is the Quran Exclusivist or Pluralist?"
A Note from Farhad Shafti: I am grateful to Sedanet and my dear friend, Mehdi Iranmanesh, for their efforts in producing the following written summary of the five sessions on "The Quran and Three Fundamental Questions" held at Sedanet in a very short time. I am also grateful that they gave me the opportunity to revise it before publication, although this caused a delay in the release of this text. In the review, I tried to enhance the coherence and clarity of this text, which was originally spoken word and dialogue, while preserving its oral nature, with some editing, and in some cases, rearranging and minimally adding some explanations.
As stated in the text, the main question is, in fact, what use the Quran is to us today. To explain my answer to this question, however, I had to pass through the bottleneck of two other fundamental questions: first, who is the audience of the Quran, and second, whether the Quran has a pluralist view of religion or an exclusivist one. After answering these two questions, one can address the question of the Quran and our present time with a more refined perspective.
I would like to explain two points in this note. First, the discussions of these three questions are interdependent. The answer to the third question is based on the answers to the first and second questions. For this reason, reading the final parts of this text without at least a review of the first and middle sections may obscure the basis and logic of the argument. The second point is that in answering these three questions, by virtue of the subject matter, the flow of thought gradually moves toward the intended destination. I believe that the understanding and belief I have presented on various subjects only become clear as we approach the final discussions.
Summary of the Answer to the First Question: Who is the Audience of the Quran?
Based on the discussion in the first part of this text, the Quran has a direct specific audience, an indirect specific audience, and a general audience, but the Quran's discourse is based on the direct specific audience. That is, those who were present at the time and place of the revelation. The focus of this discourse on this group of audiences was because, according to the tradition of Abrahamic religions, the Prophet had to make the truth clear to them with the help of revelation through explaining the truth and warning. In this process, the believers and non-believers among the direct specific audience gradually separate from each other, and reward and punishment are meted out to them in this very world. The Quran's references and addresses to various religious and social groups were specific to the people who were present at the time and place of the revelation, unless proven otherwise by contextual evidence. Accepting this narrative is very effective in understanding which commands, judgments, and recommendations in the Quran can be generalized to the post-revelation era and which are specific to that era.
Introduction
It was mentioned that the answer to the first question was the plowing of the ground of thought, in the sense that a large part of that answer is, in fact, a reminder of something we already knew.
The answer to the second question is like planting a seed in the ground of thought so that we can harvest the crop for the third question. For us, who want to reach the third question, knowing whether the Quran's narrative is exclusivist or pluralist in its outlook is important. Furthermore, it should be noted that a pluralist view of the Quran also existed among our predecessors, but Dr. Shafti has tried to look at this issue systematically and based on the text of the Quran, not merely selecting some verses and discarding others. [1]
This matter is important because if someone is to critique this view, they themselves must also be able to present a systematic view—of, for example, exclusivism—in the Quran.
He has written two more detailed articles in Persian:
1- Scholarly Pluralism or Exclusivism? [2]
2. The Quran: Exclusivist or Pluralist? [3]
In the first article, some rational arguments for religious exclusivism were addressed, as well as rational critiques raised concerning religious pluralism.
In the second article, about 100 verses were examined and cited, and in that same article, reference was also made to his English article, which contains new points as well.
At the very outset, it should be noted that on this subject one can argue rationally. One can argue empirically, and one can argue textually/scripturally. But he has pointed out that his argument is neither rational nor empirical, but textual, meaning it depends solely on the text of the Quran.
He also does not claim to be uninfluenced by rational arguments in favor of pluralism, and believes that we are children of this time and its theories, and certainly, whether we know it or not, our thoughts are influenced by the thoughts of our predecessors and especially our contemporaries. Nevertheless, he has said: "What I do know is that it was not the case that, for example, I read the works of John Hick, who is one of the great philosophers of pluralism, and then went to see whether such an inference could be drawn from the Quran or not.
It was not like that for me. When I saw pluralism in the Quran, I did not even know John Hick properly. Another point is that I did not 'extract' pluralism from the Quran; rather, I saw nothing other than pluralism in the Quran at all.[4] That is, just as someone who is an exclusivist[5] is astonished by a pluralist reading of the Quran, I too am astonished that anyone could have an exclusivist reading of the Quran."
2. Is the Quran Exclusivist or Pluralist?
We will present this discussion in five sections:
0 Explanations regarding exclusivism and pluralism
0 The main section: Attention to three categories of verses
0 A cursory review of some verses cited by religious exclusivists
0 The limits of pluralism according to the Quran
0 Quranic pluralism and non-Abrahamic religions
1-2. Explanations regarding exclusivism and pluralism:
In brief, exclusivism holds that only one religion is the religion of salvation; the rest are false or abrogated and do not attain salvation, or at least not the highest salvation. Exclusivism sometimes takes a softer form, which is called inclusivism.
Inclusivism holds that only one religion possesses the whole truth, and other religions possess part of the truth. That is, those parts of other religions that my religion also affirms are acceptable, and the rest are either wrong or incomplete, and ultimately it will end up that either only my religion saves, or only my religion leads to the highest salvation[6].
Relativism can be summarized as follows: since truth cannot be known, each group's understanding of the truth can be considered truth for that group. In a sense, it is as if not only the understanding of truth but truth itself is relative; therefore, every understanding of truth is correct.
Pluralism says that more than one religion can be the true religion. Pluralism has two aspects: theoretical (truth) and practical (salvation). The theoretical aspect, or truth, is that humans' interpretations of truth can differ. We may have two religions (or two spiritual paths), each having an understanding of truth that differs, but one of them is not necessarily wrong. Practical pluralism (salvation) looks at salvation and says that more than one religion (or spiritual path) can lead us to salvation or the highest salvation[7].
2-2. The main section: Attention to three categories of verses
Here we will pay attention to three categories of verses on the following subjects:
0 The Tradition of Sending Prophets in the Quranic Narrative
0 The Criterion for Salvation in the Quranic Narrative
0 The Diversity of Religious Law in the Quranic Narrative
Since the verses in each section are numerous, in each case we will focus on one or a few key verses, and also, to avoid prolixity, we will not separate the theoretical (truth) and practical (salvation) aspects of pluralism.[8]
1-2-2 The Tradition of Sending Prophets in the Quranic Narrative:
The basic claim here is that the mission of the prophets was local.
The discussion is not that, for example, since the Prophet of Islam's mission was in Arabia, non-Arabs should not become Muslims. We know that many of the great scholars of Islam were not from Arabia, nor even from the Arab people, and in particular, many of those who played a significant role in preserving and delving into the Islamic sciences were Iranian. Here, however, we only want to understand God's tradition, and we are certainly investigating within the scope of the Abrahamic religions. After this, attention can also be given to non-Abrahamic religions and other images of God present in those religions, such as the image of an impersonal God.
So that there is no dispute over the translation of the verses in this section, all translations have been chosen from the Quran translation of Hossein Ansarian, a learned and traditional scholar who most certainly and very seriously believes in religious exclusivism. The exact translation, along with his explanations, is provided in parentheses. To make better use of this writing, if specific words are of interest, we will highlight them in the verse and in the translation.
"وَهَذَا كِتَابٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ مُبَارَكٌ مُصَدِّقُ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَ لِتُنْذِرَ أُمَّ الْقُرَى وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِهِ وَهُمْ عَلَى صَلَاتِهِمْ يُحَافِظُونَ" (۶:۹۲)
(And this [the Quran] is a blessed Book which We have sent down, confirming the scriptures that were before it, and [its revelation] is so that you may warn the Mother of Cities [Mecca] and those around it; and those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it, and they are constant in guarding their prayers.)
We have several verses in which the Prophet is told, "We sent you to this specific people":
"ِتُنْذِرَ قَوْمًا مَا أُنْذِرَ آبَاؤُهُمْ فَهُمْ غَافِلُونَ" (۳۶:۶)
(That you may warn a people whose fathers were not warned, so they are heedless [of the truths].)
The same is stated about other prophets:
"وَآتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ وَ جَعَلْنَاهُ هُدًى لِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَلَّا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْ دُونِي وَكِيلًا"(۱۷:۲)
(And We gave Moses the Book and made it a means of guidance for the Children of Israel, [and in that Book, We guided them to this truth] that you should not take any guardian and disposer of affairs besides Me.)
And this is stated as a general law:
"وَ لَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَسُولًا أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ هَدَى اللَّهُ وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِ الضَّلَالَةُ فَسِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ" (۱۶:۳۶)
(And certainly We raised in every nation a messenger, [saying]: "Worship Allah and shun false deities." Then among them were some whom Allah guided, and among them were some upon whom error was deservedly decreed. So travel through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.)
We will later point out what can be understood from these verses, and we will address the question: Did all nations have prophets? In the previous verse, the word "ummah" (nation) was used. In this verse, a similar meaning is conveyed with the word "qawm" (people):
"وَيَقُولُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَوْلَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ آيَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّهِ إِنَّمَا أَنْتَ مُنْذِرٌ وَ لِكُلِّ قَوْمٍ هَادٍ" (۱۳:۷)
(And those who disbelieve say, "Why has a sign [other than the Quran] not been sent down to him from his Lord?" You are only a warner [not a performer of miracles, to perform miracles whenever, for whomever, and for any irrational purpose], and for every people there is a guide.)
Why a prophet comes from among every people themselves can also be understood from the Quran. The Quran emphasizes that the Prophet was from these very people (with the same culture) and spoke their language:
"إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ" (۱۲:۲)
(Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran so that you might exercise reason [about its truths, concepts, allusions, and subtleties].)
In Surah Fussilat, it states that if the Quran had been in a foreign tongue, they would have said, "We are Arabs, so why has something foreign come to us?"
"وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا أَعْجَمِيًّا لَقَالُوا لَوْلَا فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ أَأَعْجَمِيٌّ وَعَرَبِيٌّ قُلْ هُوَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا هُدًى وَشِفَاءٌ وَالَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ فِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرٌ وَهُوَ عَلَيْهِمْ عَمًى أُولَئِكَ يُنَادَوْنَ مِنْ مَكَانٍ بَعِيدٍ" (۴۱:۴۴)
(And if We had made it a non-Arabic Quran, they would have surely said, "Why are its verses not explained in detail [in our language]? Is it a foreign [and incomprehensible book] for an Arabic-speaking [and eloquent] people?!" Say, "It is, for those who believe, a guidance and a cure." And those who do not believe—in their ears is deafness, and it is, [for all its clarity and obviousness], obscure and incomprehensible to them. Those are being called from a far-off place.)
This also appears as a general principle in the Quran:
"وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ رَسُولٍ إِلَّا بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ فَيُضِلُّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ" (۱۴:۴)
(And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people, so that he might clearly explain [the message of revelation] to them. Then God lets go astray whom He wills [as a consequence of their stubbornness and enmity] and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.)
Quranic scholars have explained that in such verses, "tongue" does not only mean language in the sense of language. "Tongue" is a metaphor for the culture that lies behind that language. Language is, in fact, the representative of that culture. We see this emphasis on "being from among yourselves" in the verses of the Quran.
In Surah Al-Baqarah, we have:
"... أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولًا مِنْكُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمْ مَا لَمْ تَكُونُوا تَعْلَمُونَ" (2:151)
(... We have sent among you a messenger from yourselves, reciting to you Our verses and purifying you [from every kind of outward and inward defilement], and teaching you the Book and wisdom, and teaching you that which you did not know.)
When we encounter the phrase "a messenger from yourselves" in the verse, it does not mean from humankind in general; it means from the Arab people.
In Surah At-Tawbah, we have:
"لَقَدْ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ عَزِيزٌ عَلَيْهِ مَا عَنِتُّمْ حَرِيصٌ عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ" (9:۱۲۸)
(There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] deeply concerned for your [guidance], and to the believers is kind and merciful.)
Also, in a supplication narrated from Abraham in Surah Al-Baqarah, we have:
"رَبَّنَا وَابْعَثْ فِيهِمْ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِكَ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ" (۲:۱۲۹)
(Our Lord, raise up among them a messenger from themselves to recite Your verses to them, and teach them the Book and wisdom, and purify them. Indeed, You are the Almighty, the All-Wise.)
According to the Quran's account, this tradition continues on the Day of Resurrection as well:
"وَيَوْمَ نَبْعَثُ فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَ جِئْنَا بِكَ شَهِيدًا عَلَى هَؤُلَاءِ وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ" (۱۶:۸۹)
(And [mention] the Day when We raise up within every nation a witness against them from among themselves, and We bring you, [O Prophet of Islam!], as a witness against these; and We have sent down the Book to you as a clarification of all things, and as guidance, mercy, and good tidings for those who submit [to God's commands].)
"These" here refers to the direct addressees of the Quran.
We do not see this tradition in the Quran of a prophet being sent to all the worlds. Of course, exclusivists cite certain verses in this regard, which we will examine. They emphasize that the issue is not whether, because the Prophet came for his own people, others should have become Muslims or not. The issue is that, based on the Quran's account, the procedure for sending prophets is that every prophet comes to his own people. That other peoples can subsequently enter the religion of that prophet does not contradict this procedure.
Now the question arises: what does this discussion have to do with the issue of pluralism? Their answer is that this procedure of "every prophet for his own people" is closer to the requirements of pluralism than to the requirements of exclusivism. In contrast, for example, a procedure in which a prophet is sent with a multilingual and multicultural message, or several prophets are sent in coordination to different parts of the world, is closer to the requirements of exclusivism.
۲-۲-۲ـ The Criterion for Salvation in the Quran's Account
If we were to look for the criterion for salvation in the Quran in a single word, it is purification (tazkiyah).
"قَدْ أَفْلَحَ مَنْ تَزَكَّى"(۸۷:۱۴)
(Indeed, he who purifies himself [from inner and outer vices] has succeeded.)
This same criterion, when expanded, becomes faith and righteous deeds, which appear frequently in the Quran. Their claim is that when God speaks about the salvation of human beings and brings up the matter of faith and righteous deeds, He is, in fact, "factoring out" the religious law (Sharia). One of the most explicit verses of pluralism is one that appears in the Quran in two places with slight differences:
" إِنَّ الَّذينَ آمَنُوا وَ الَّذينَ هادُوا وَ النَّصارى وَ الصَّابِئينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَ الْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَ عَمِلَ صالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ وَ لا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَ لا هُمْ يَحْزَنُون" (2:62)
(Indeed, those who have believed [in appearance], and the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians—whoever [truly] believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous work—for them is their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.)
This is one of the most explicit verses for pluralism, showing that whether you are a Muslim, a Jew, etc., the criterion for your salvation is faith and righteous deeds. What is common among these groups is faith and righteous deeds, and what differs is the religious law (Sharia).
The Quran struggles against this exclusivist mentality of "I must be this or that." In the above verse, it also speaks of the Christians, the Sabians, and so on. Who are the Christians? You know that Jesus did not come to bring a new religion. He was a reformer. Nevertheless, a group called Christians, and a sect among them called the Nazarenes, existed in Arabia. The Quran does not say you were mistaken from the beginning and were never meant to be Christians and should have remained Jews. In this verse, the Quran has nothing to do with these theoretical debates.
The same applies to the Sabians. There is much debate about who they were—followers of John the Baptist or Abraham... What seems apparent is that they were a group that was very ancient in religious terms, and their original beliefs and thoughts had likely undergone change.
In this verse, God does not say your beliefs lack authenticity. Rather, He states that whatever your name and creed—whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, or Sabian—this is what I want from you: faith in God and the Last Day, and righteous action. It is here that this verse "factors out" the form of religion, the title of religion, and the religious law. Ayatollah Taleghani's commentary in "A Ray from the Quran"—though he certainly believed in religious exclusivism—is worth reading under this verse and contains valuable points.
From his perspective, a major portion of Surah Al-Baqarah is a struggle against the idea of religious exclusivism. The following verse from Surah Al-Baqarah is also very telling:
"And they say, 'Be Jews or Christians, and you will be guided.' Say, 'Rather, the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth, and he was not of the polytheists.'" (2:135)
(And they said: Become Jews or Christians so that you may be guided. Say: It is not so; rather, the religion of Abraham must be followed, who turned toward God and was never of the polytheists.)
Here, the Quran has not criticized the Jews and Christians, but rather a mentality, and that is the pluralistic mentality. It might be said that only Jews and Christians are mentioned in this verse; let us pay close attention to the following verse in Surah An-Nisa:
"It is not according to your wishes, nor the wishes of the People of the Book. Whoever does evil will be recompensed for it, and he will not find for himself besides God any protector or helper." (4:123)
([Recompense and punishment] is neither according to the [vain] desires of some of you [Muslims], nor according to the [empty] desires of the People of the Book. Whoever commits an evil deed will be recompensed for it; and besides God, he will find no guardian or helper for himself.)
This verse tells the Muslims and the People of the Book that salvation is not according to your wishes, and then brings the same criterion of faith and righteous action in this verse and the next, meaning salvation is not the monopoly of any group.
There are verses in the Quran that speak about the salvation of the People of the Book at the time of the Prophet:
"You are the best nation produced for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in God. If only the People of the Book had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." (3:110)
(You are the best community that has been brought forth for [the reform of human societies]; you enjoin what is good and proper and forbid what is evil and wrong, and you believe in God [based on inquiry, knowledge, truthfulness, and sincerity]. And if the People of the Book had believed, it would certainly have been better for them; some of them are believers [in the Quran and the Prophet], and most of them are transgressors.)
Note that in the above translation by Hossein Ansarian, the phrase [to the Quran and the Prophet] is not part of the translation but his own commentary, which is why it appears in brackets. The discussion here concerns the very People of the Book who were contemporaries of the Prophet and directly addressed by the Quran; among those very people are believers, not that they are believers because they came to believe in the Quran and the Prophet. Moreover, believing in the Quran and the Prophet does not necessarily mean changing one's religion and becoming a Muslim. This point will be further explained in this same section. The interpretation that their becoming believers means they became Muslims is entirely incompatible with the apparent meaning of the verse. The Quran does not call Muslims "People of the Book," even if they were previously among them. The end of the verse says that if the People of the Book believe, it is better for them; then, concerning those same People of the Book, it says: مِنْهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ. Among them are believers. This is also clear from the preceding and following verses. In the same surah, three and four verses later (113 and 114), it states:
"لَيْسُوا سَوَاءً مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ أُمَّةٌ قَائِمَةٌ يَتْلُونَ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ آنَاءَ اللَّيْلِ وَهُمْ يَسْجُدُونَ. يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَ الْيَوْمِ الاَخِرِ وَ يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَ يَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَ يُسَارِعُونَ فىِ الْخَيرْاتِ وَ أُوْلَئكَ مِنَ الصَّالِحِين".
(](All of the People of the Book] are not alike; among the People of the Book is an upright community [who observe the rights of God and people], reciting the verses of God during the hours of the night, and they prostrate [before the Divine Presence in humility and submission]). [In the shade of the Quran and the prophethood of the Prophet] they believe in God and the Last Day, enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and hasten to good deeds; and these are among the righteous.
Again, in Hossein Ansarian's translation, [In the shade of the Quran and the prophethood of the Prophet] is his commentary based on his exclusivist religious perspective.
The verses on the salvation of the People of the Book are more numerous than this, and other verses have been referenced in the article "The Quran, Exclusivist or Pluralist?", but among them, verses 82 to 84 of Surah Al-Ma'idah are particularly worthy of reflection. These verses refer to a group of Christians being saved, meaning the designation here is even more specific than "People of the Book." It certainly cannot be said that the Quran continues to call those Christians who became Muslims "Christians." Again, here, verse 83 states that some Christians, upon hearing what was revealed to the Prophet, say, "We have believed." Here too lies the same point: believing is not the same as changing one's religious law and becoming a Muslim. This point is further elucidated in section 2-3 of this writing.
The conclusion is that a God who does not look at sects and requires faith and righteous deeds from the followers of religions to attain purification is not a sectarian God but a "pragmatic" God. This is a term he has raised several times in his other talks and writings.
3-2-2. Diversity of Religious Law in the Quranic Narrative
According to narrations, one of the Jews from around Medina had committed adultery and, according to the law of the Torah, had to be stoned. A group of Jews said, "Let us take him to Muhammad; perhaps he will issue a lighter ruling." Verse 43 of Surah Al-Ma'idah criticizes them, asking why they come to you for judgment when they have the Torah, in which is God's ruling:
"وَكَيْفَ يُحَكِّمُونَكَ وَعِنْدَهُمُ التَّوْرَاةُ فِيهَا حُكْمُ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يَتَوَلَّوْنَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ وَمَا أُولَئِكَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ" (۵:۴۳)
(How do they make you a judge when they have the Torah, in which is God's ruling? Then they turn away after that, and [this turning away is a sign that] they do not believe [even in the Torah]).
If they were supposed to abandon their own religious law and accept the Prophet's law, this verse would have had a different tone; instead of asking why they come to you when they have the Torah, it would have criticized their intention and their failure to act upon the Prophet's ruling. The occasion of revelation for this verse does not negate the principle to which the verse points. This same principle, without a specific occasion of revelation, appears four verses later:
"وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْإِنْجِيلِ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ" (۵:۴۷)
(And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.)
Then this same principle is reiterated with greater emphasis in the following verse:
"وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنْكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَا آتَاكُمْ فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ إِلَى اللَّهِ مَرْجِعُكُمْ جَمِيعًا فَيُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ" (۵:۴۸)
(And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a clear way.
And if Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.)
The above verse is one of the clearest verses in the Quran on the subject of pluralism.
In Surah Al-Baqarah, it is stated:
"وَلِكُلٍّ وِجْهَةٌ هُوَ مُوَلِّيهَا فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ أَيْنَ مَا تَكُونُوا يَأْتِ بِكُمُ اللَّهُ جَمِيعًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ"(۲:۱۴۸)
(For each [religious community] is a direction toward which it faces. So race to [all that is] good. Wherever you may be, Allah will bring you forth [for judgement] all together. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.)
Let us note the phrase "فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ" in this verse and in verse 48 of Surah Al-Ma'idah, which is an indication that both verses refer to the same subject.
In Surah Al-Hajj, we also have:
"لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ جَعَلْنَا مَنْسَكًا هُمْ نَاسِكُوهُ فَلَا يُنَازِعُنَّكَ فِي الْأَمْرِ وَادْعُ إِلَى رَبِّكَ إِنَّكَ لَعَلَى هُدًى مُسْتَقِيمٍ"(۲۲:۶۷)
(For every religion We have appointed rites which they perform. So, [O Muhammad], let not the disputers contend with you in the matter. And invite to your Lord. Indeed, you are upon straight guidance.)
These verses tell us that the Quran recognizes the diversity of religious laws. To even say that it merely tolerates the diversity of religious laws is an understatement. According to these verses, this diversity of religious laws was God's own doing.
In Surah Al-Ma'idah, we have:
"وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ أَقَامُوا التَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنْجِيلَ وَ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْهِمْ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ لَأَكَلُوا مِنْ فَوْقِهِمْ وَمِنْ تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِهِمْ مِنْهُمْ أُمَّةٌ مُقْتَصِدَةٌ وَكَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ سَاءَ مَا يَعْمَلُونَ" (5:66)
(And if only they had upheld the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed [provision] from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them is a moderate community, but many of them – evil is that which they do.)
Some say that what is meant by “that which has been sent down to them from their Lord” is the Quran. Allameh Tabatabai states that the word “aqamu” (they establish) precludes interpreting “مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْهِمْ” (what was sent down to them) as the Quran, and that this phrase refers to the other revealed scriptures of these faiths. [9]
On this basis, Dr. Shafti’s understanding of the Quran is nothing other than pluralism. He believes that one must adopt a systematic approach when engaging with the Quran. In this discussion, and in much greater detail in the essay “The Quran: Exclusivist or Pluralist?”, which references around one hundred verses, the approach to the Quran has been a systematic one, meaning that a narrative of the Quran has been derived based on an understanding of the interrelationship of Quranic verses and concepts. If someone challenges pluralism in favor of exclusivism using a verse or verses, they must also clarify the status of the other verses; that is, they must present their understanding of the coherence of the verses and the resulting narrative. Therefore, arguing that a verse has another meaning, or that there is another verse that seems to say something else, does not settle the matter.
3-2. A Brief Review of Some Verses Cited by Religious Exclusivists
- The term “Alamin” (the worlds) in the Quran:
We said that we do not see in the Quran the tradition that a prophet was sent to all the people of the world. We have verses that say of the Prophet: “a reminder to the worlds,” or “a mercy to the worlds,” or “a warner to the worlds.” Firstly, these verses cannot be considered as abrogating the verses “Umm al-Qura and those around it.”
That is, to say that God initially intended to send the Quran to the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula but later decided to send it to the entire world! Abrogation does not mean that God changes His mind.
Secondly, the Quran emphasizes the reason for sending this book to the inhabitants of Arabia: because their language is Arabic.
And also, they had not had a warner before this. Thirdly, many of the verses that speak of “the worlds” regarding the Prophet’s mission are, according to the well-known order of revelation of the surahs, earlier than the verses that say, “We sent you for Mecca and its surroundings.”
What we see in the Quran is that “Alamin” does not everywhere mean all of humankind. “Alamin” can mean everyone within a certain scope. In such verses, “Umm al-Qura and those around it” specifies the context and scope of “Alamin,” meaning all those who are in Mecca and its surroundings. But in another context, it can mean all human beings, such as in “All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.” In this respect, “Alamin” in the Quran has the same usage as, for example, “everyone” in Persian or English. These words are also not always used to mean all human beings in the world.
On the other hand, in cases like “a mercy to the worlds,” even if we accept that “Alamin” here refers to the entire world, no one denies that the Prophet of Islam can be a mercy to the entire world. No one denies that the Quran’s warning, in its general sense, can be a warning to all the people of the world.
- The verse on the dominance of the true religion over other religions:
Another verse from which religious exclusivism is sometimes inferred, and which is generally considered explicit in indicating the universality of the Prophet’s mission, is this verse:
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, and sufficient is Allah as Witness.” (48:28)
But where, in reality, is this explicitness? This verse is repeated three times in the Quran with slight variations. In two verses (9:33, 61:9), it refers at the end to the polytheists of Quraysh. The third verse appears in Surah Al-Fath, and the verse before it is about the conquest of Mecca. Based on these contextual indicators, what is meant by “to manifest it over all religion” is within Arabia itself, and its emphasis is on the polytheists. Once again, “Umm al-Qura and those around it” is the criterion for understanding the semantic framework of these verses.
Those who hold a universal understanding of these verses will inevitably conclude that, up to this moment, God and the Messenger have not succeeded in the purpose of religion. Based on a local understanding of these verses, however, the conclusion is that they have been very successful. Of course, this is a secondary point; success or lack thereof has no bearing on the interpretation of the verse.
- The word Islam in the Quran:
In Surah Al-e-Imran, verse 19, the principal religion is called "Islam," and verse 85 states, "وَ مَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلامِ ديناً فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَ هُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخاسِرين" - (3:85) (And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers). Some infer religious exclusivism from these verses.
One must pay close attention to the usage of "Islam" and its derivatives in the Quran, and particularly in this set of verses in Surah Al-e-Imran. Verse 52 of Surah Al-e-Imran calls the disciples of Jesus Muslims, verse 67 calls Abraham a Muslim, and verse 83 says that whatever is in the heavens and the earth is submissive to Him. Islam and its derivatives in all these verses (indeed, in the entire Quran) are used in their literal sense, meaning submission. In Surah Al-Baqarah, Abraham and Jacob advise their sons: "... وَلَا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلَّا وَأَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ - 2:132" (and do not die except while you are Muslims), and in verse 102 of Surah Al-e-Imran, the exact same advice is given to the believers in the Prophet. In verses 19 and 85, where Islam is called the only accepted religion, what is meant by Islam is not the Sharia of the Prophet, but submission to the Truth.
- The word al-nas in the Quran:
Another word cited by exclusivists is the word "al-nas" (people), with the assumption that the verses in which al-nas is mentioned refer to all the people of the world. However, Arabic, like many other languages, does not use words in such an absolute sense. Al-nas also takes its meaning from its context, and in the Quran, it sometimes means all human beings in the world and sometimes a limited group of people in a specific time and place.
- The Quran's insistence that the People of the Book believe:
Sometimes the exclusivists' evidence is a verse or verses in which there is an insistence that the People of the Book believe.
"الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِنْدَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنْجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُمْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَائِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالْأَغْلَالَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُوا النُّورَ الَّذِي أُنْزِلَ مَعَهُ أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ" (7:157)
(Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel, who commands them to do right and forbids them from wrong, makes good things lawful for them and prohibits them from bad things, and relieves them of their burden and the shackles that were upon them. So those who believe in him, honor him, support him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him—it is they who are the successful.)
We will address three points on this matter:
First, does the Quran say that the People of the Book must believe in the Prophet? The answer is yes.
Second, does the belief of the People of the Book mean abandoning their own religion and following the Sharia of the Prophet? No, this is merely an unfounded presupposition and contradicts the verses mentioned in section 2-2-3. The Quran speaks of the jinn, and in verse 2 of Surah Al-Jinn, it says that they believed in the Prophet. It is a certainty in the Quran that every people has a prophet from among their own kind. The Prophet did not bring a Sharia for the jinn. The jinn do not follow the Sharia of the Muslims. Yet the verse says they believed.
In Surah An-Nisa it is stated:
"O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray." (4:136)
(O people of faith! Believe in God and His Prophet and the Book He has sent down upon His Prophet, and the Book He sent down before [in truth and sincerity]. And whoever disbelieves in God, His angels, the heavenly books, His prophets, and the Day of Resurrection has certainly fallen into a far-reaching misguidance.)
It tells Muslims to (not disbelieve in and to) believe in the previous prophets and their books. Muslims do not follow the religious law of the previous prophets, but they believe in those prophets. Believing is different from abandoning one religious law and accepting another. It is our false assumption that establishes a necessary connection between these two.
The third point is that when it tells the People of the Book to believe, does it mean all the People of the Book in the world? Absolutely not. It means the People of the Book in Umm al-Qura and its surroundings,[10] and that too in the era of the Prophet.
In summary, the Quran does not call all the People of the Book in the world and for all eternity, but rather the People of the Book residing in the Arabia of the Prophet's era, to believe in the Prophet, and what was meant by believing in him was not following his religious law.
The Quran's account can be stated as follows: God has sent a prophet to the land where you reside, O People of the Book. Religiously, you are cousins of this prophet, and he himself says that he confirms the essence of what you say. The least that was expected of you was not to harass him and not to be hostile to him. But you harassed him, were hostile to him, colluded with the polytheists, and conspired. It would have been fitting for you to support him and to benefit from him yourselves. He is a prophet and, with the aid of revelation, can lighten some of the hardships of your religious law for you. In this sense and in this way, you would remain upon your own religious law and upon the true religion.
Meanwhile, we remind you that our discussion here is an intra-textual one. If we introduce reason, exclusivism finds itself in a very defensive position, and indeed, many of the pluralists' reasons are rational ones. We only point out that if someone considers following the Prophet of Islam to be the only path to salvation or supreme salvation, many questions arise. For example, a person born to Muslim parents usually becomes a Muslim, and one born into a non-Muslim family remains non-Muslim. Why is salvation or supreme salvation in the divine system so dependent on one's place of birth?
Or why does the religion that is the only saving or supremely saving religion (in the view of its followers) no longer have a prophet? Do we today have a unanimous reading of this only complete religion, and are we Muslims united with one another, or do we generally live in felicity?
Do these conditions, on the whole, help Muslims in propagating the religion? Where do divine wisdom, universality, and mercy fit into this account?
4-2— What is the boundary of pluralism based on the Quran?
When we say the Quran is pluralistic, what does this mean? Does it mean that every religion and every spiritual path is acceptable? Dr. Shafti's answer is that for someone whose criterion is the Quran, not all paths can be acceptable. Just as exclusivism has a floor, pluralism also has a ceiling and is not absolute. But where is the ceiling of the Quran's pluralism built?
He expresses the answer to this question as follows:
“The Quran, like many other spirituality-oriented texts, addresses human ethics in three relationships: 1, ethics in the human being’s relationship with their surrounding environment (especially other human beings, and then animals, plants, and inanimate objects), 2, ethics in the human being’s relationship with themselves, and 3, ethics in the human being’s relationship with their perception of the Divine Essence (which in Abrahamic and similar religions is referred to as God). Throughout the Quran, the self-aware human being is guided toward goodness of character in these three relationships and is warned about wrongdoing in these three relationships. Wrongdoing in the human being’s relationship with their surrounding environment, especially other human beings, is what is commonly known in everyday speech as bad character, misconduct, unfairness, and similar expressions. Wrongdoing in the human being’s relationship with themselves is usually referred to with expressions such as self-indulgence, capriciousness, and futility, and wrongdoing in the human being’s relationship with the Divine Essence is interacting with Him in a manner unbefitting His station, the worst form of which is polytheism (shirk) — Indeed, polytheism is a tremendous wrongdoing (31:13). These three relationships are, of course, not isolated from one another and are interconnected.
Based on this formulation, I interpret the boundary of pluralism in the Quran as follows: any religion, creed, or doctrine that encourages its followers toward bad character in one or more of the three relationships above has no place within the breadth of Quranic pluralism. Such a belief has crossed the boundary of Quranic pluralism and is rejected from the Quran’s perspective. In other words, a pluralist Muslim who follows the Quran, if they discern that in a religion or creed bad character in one of these three relationships is praised, recommended, or commanded, will deem that religion or creed, despite being a pluralist, to be false and misguided.”[11]
5-2— Quranic Pluralism and Non-Abrahamic Religions
What has been discussed so far focused on pluralism within the scope of Abrahamic religions. Does Quranic pluralism also include non-Abrahamic religions? Dr. Shefti’s answer, based on the explanation that follows and considering the boundary drawn in the previous section, is “Yes”:
1-5-2— What Are the Quran’s Limitations and Why Is Understanding Its Limitations Important from the Perspective of the Claim of Pluralism?
The reality is that in addition to capabilities, the limitations of a phenomenon also help us better understand the application of that phenomenon. That is, just as understanding the capabilities of any phenomenon before us helps us better understand the application of this phenomenon, understanding the limitations of this phenomenon also helps us better understand its application. When we are dealing with a book like the Quran, understanding both the capabilities and the limitations is important. What is meant here by limitation is not deficiency. Deficiency is defined in relation to the application of a phenomenon, not its limitations. For example, ordinary eyeglasses do not record scenes; one could say they have a limitation in this regard. This limitation, however, is not a deficiency because recording scenes is not among the applications of eyeglasses.
Let us return to the Quran. The Quran is in human language, and human language is limited. There are certain boundaries. Here, he points to some of these boundaries and then discusses the theology of the Quran so that we can thereby look at the issue from a higher perspective and, in fact, plant a seed for the final conclusion.
We know that the Quran has a set of propositions about the phenomena around us and also about history. There are researchers who believe that the Quran is even ahead of the science of its time, and with every new discovery, they search for a verse to say, look, the Quran already said this.
To the point where, for example, someone had derived the speed of light from the Quran. This issue has gone so far that some even question recorded history, because the Quran has recounted history in a different way. And there are also those who, if the Quran has made a prophecy that has clearly not come to pass, still justify it. He says, of course, I do not agree with these friends, and I agree with those researchers who believe that the basis of the Quran's statements is not to unveil the reality of science or history for us; rather, the Quran uses the information and knowledge of the people of its own time to convey its meaning. That is, for instance, if the Quran's audience believes the sun and moon are in a particular way, the Quran, assuming this very belief, asks how it is possible that this sun and moon have no God. Or, considering the culture of the Abrahamic religions (the Biblical culture) that had a foothold in the land of revelation, the Quran uses the historical narratives of this very culture to convey its meaning to the audience and influence them.
Therefore, the core of the discussion is that these are not statements to unveil reality, but rather statements to use the conception the audience has of reality, in order to transmit the message.
One of the Quranic researchers, Mr. Mohammad Ali Tabatabai, along with Mrs. Saeedeh Mir Sadri, recently presented an article at the Quranic Discussions Association, the summary of which was that although the picture the Quran gives of the cosmos is a picture specific to itself, this picture bears a great resemblance to the Babylonian astronomy of that time.
The Quran wants to convey a message and is compelled to express that message within the vessel of the conception that the direct addressees of the revelation had of reality. Thus, a truth has come, but this truth is depicted within the framework of the limited human culture of that time and place. What lies outside this framework does not enter the Quran. For this reason, the Quran neither rejects nor accepts non-Abrahamic religions, but due to this very limitation, it does not bring them into the discussion, or more precisely, they fall outside the framework of the Quran's discussion.
Here, we address another limitation by looking at the theology of the Quran:
We have two Quranic terms: Hamd (praising God for what He is = You are this) and Tasbih (declaring God transcendent / deeming Him far removed = You are not that, You are better). In encountering a phenomenon, "You are not that" is always easier than "You are this." The Quran also says, "Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth exalts Allah" (62:1, 64:1), "And the thunder exalts [Allah] with praise of Him" (13:13); Tasbih is even the work of thunder. Everything performs Tasbih of God. If there is Hamd, in most cases this Hamd is also accompanied by Tasbih, meaning a kind of praise alongside an acknowledgment of falling short in recognition, like this very verse about the thunder's Tasbih. Only in seven places, from the words of someone and directly, is Hamd qua Hamd mentioned, five of which are about the people of Paradise. One place is in Surah Ibrahim, verse 39, where Abraham praises God for granting him two children in his old age.
Another place is in Surah An-Naml, verse 15, where David and Solomon praise [Him] for the virtue bestowed upon them. In other words, the Quran has mentioned Hamd either from the words of the people of Paradise or from the words of the prophets, very rarely, and has even limited that to a specific matter: the granting of Paradise, or children, or virtue. That is, even in this Hamd, more than describing the Praised One, gratitude to the Praised One is presented.
We do not wish to enter into the discussions of apophatic and cataphatic theology, but if we were to, on this basis it can be said that the Quran is closer to apophatic literature.
Another limitation is the emphasis the Quran places on some verses being ambiguous (Mutashabihat). This is very important, and we are not concerned with who understands them and who does not. But the very fact that the Quran speaks of verses called ambiguous verses, and these are about categories we cannot comprehend and in which highly allegorical and metaphorical language is used, is significant for our discussion. The same applies when the Quran speaks of the Unseen (Ghayb) and says that absolutely no one has knowledge of the Unseen unless God wills it.
The result is that the Quran, on the one hand, due to its human language, gives us a limited conception of the truth, and in matters related to the realities of life, such as the empirical sciences and history, it has also used the knowledge of its direct audience or the culture with which they were familiar in order to convey a message to them.
A fortiori, when it comes to introducing God Himself, the Quran does not express that absolute truth verbatim in human language; indeed, such a thing is inexpressible in any human speech.[12]
On the other hand, the image the Quran has given was in accordance with and proportionate to its audience. These audiences were Arabs who were greatly influenced by the Abrahamic religions and, because of the idols they possessed, believed in a personal God. The Quran uses this very image that the audience has—and who imagines that the sun pursues the moon and revolves around the earth, or who, under the influence of familiar religious and ritual beliefs of that time, has become accustomed to a personal image of God and on that basis believes, or can believe, that there were an Adam and Eve, that a trust was offered and the mountains refused and it came to humankind—it uses this very thing to convey its message. Why the Quran, and indeed any other sacred scripture, is like this is a matter discussed under the nature of revelation, which is beyond the scope of this series of talks/writings.
He believes that both the personal and impersonal interpretations of God are two images of the truth of God, neither of which is necessarily superior to the other. Each has its own merits.
For example, an impersonal God may be more defensible philosophically, but with a personal God, one can perhaps better establish a personal and reciprocal relationship in practice. The followers of a personal God say that God is just this, and we know nothing beyond it. The followers of an impersonal God also say that God is just this and is not personal, and we know nothing beyond it. The God who is referred to in the Quran in a sense by the term "the Real" (al-Haqq) is neither this nor that. Both of these are images of that truth which he calls the "indeterminate" God ("There is nothing like unto Him"). The indeterminate God is mysterious, and if we do not intertwine mystery with the transcendent, we have called the very principle of the transcendent into question. He must be mysterious in order to be transcendent. Further discussion on this matter can be found in his other article entitled "We and the Mysterious God of the Quran."
If we accept that the image the Quran gives us of God, or the Hereafter, or the coming of humankind into the world, and so on, is an image based on the capacity of the direct audience and proportionate to them, and we also pay attention to the three previous points—namely, the "pragmatic God" for whom it does not matter whether you are Christian or Sabian or anything else, and only faith and righteous deeds matter to Him; and a God who, even within the confines of the Abrahamic religions, sent a prophet to every community; and a God who brought different laws even for the followers of the Abrahamic religions—then we can arrive at a broad perspective on pluralism. In this sense, we approach the idea that the criterion for salvation, the essence of which is purification, becomes a criterion for all followers of diverse spiritual paths, and just as for the Abrahamic religions this criterion is not conditional upon following only one law, the same holds true for non-Abrahamic religions and traditions. Just as faith and righteous deeds are also like this. Faith does not mean belief in that very image of God held by the Abrahamic religions. As was said, the Quran's audience all believed in that God and that image of God. Faith means firming up belief in God, a faith that leads to righteous deeds and leads to spirituality. Righteous deeds are also not limited to acting according to a specific law, but are good deeds done with good intention. This faith can also be in an impersonal image of God.
It is for this reason that we see that gnostic and virtuous human beings are not limited to Muslims, and we see virtuous individuals in different spiritual paths—of course, meaning those paths that address the three ethical aspects mentioned in the discussion of the boundaries of pluralism, and are not heedless of any of them nor negate any of them. These all move in one direction, and it is interesting that we see even in their writings and sayings, despite differences in wording, ultimately all, more or less and in many cases, point in one direction.
- Here a question arises: with this textual view, if he has seen nothing but pluralism in the Quran, why do we see so little belief in pluralism among our own textualists?
His answer is to this effect: yes, most textualists are exclusivists. And although I cannot judge individuals, it seems to me that what the religious community has grown accustomed to and been shaped by due to historical circumstances greatly influences our understanding of the Quran or any other text. I do not claim to be free of that influence, but I keep in mind this saying attributed to Imam Ali in Sermon 176 of Nahj al-Balagha: “Set your opinions before the Quran and critique them (wa ittahimū ʿalayhi ārāʾakum), see which of them can be accepted.” Of course, it is a difficult task, for it is hard to step outside the theoretical framework within which we have been formed. I have not inferred pluralism from interpreting Quranic verses; rather, I see it explicitly in the verses of the Quran.
- Another question: on the one hand, the Quran says We sent a messenger to every community, yet we see that we have no messenger for other peoples?
The answer is that the address here is to the local audience of the Quran, and it speaks within the confines of the Abrahamic religions; that is, it says the communities of the Abrahamic faiths each had a messenger. Yes, if you say, “No, I consider this universal,” then I will ask: where in history do you find a messenger, with those specific Quranic characteristics, for the peoples of Africa, China, Russia, America, and so on?
When the Quran says every community has a messenger, it means the communities of the Abrahamic faiths, which in history were those of the Middle East: the people of Israel, the people of Hud, Yunus, Salih, and so on. Unless we broaden the definition of a messenger and take it outside the Quranic framework, in which case the very nature of this question will change.
End of the discussion on pluralism:
We are faced with two narratives:
The first narrative: a God who created Adam and Eve and brought forth all human beings from their progeny, who has ordained a heaven and a hell for humankind, and then chose a limited region of the earth and sent a few prophets to that region. The last of them came nearly 1400 years ago, and whatever he received as revelation is the very truth, or the only correct depiction of the truth. All other people across the earth must accept this and, based on his sacred law, perform specific acts in order to attain salvation (paradise) or the highest salvation, and it is the duty of his followers to guide the people of the world, through propagation of this religion and this sacred law, to the sole path of salvation or the highest salvation. Many are fond of this story and see not the slightest problem with it.
The second narrative is entirely different:
In this narrative, there is a reality we refer to as the “indeterminate” God. This reality is not objectively perceivable or comprehensible to us earthly humans. Through self-purification and spiritual wayfaring, certain refined human beings have tried to draw near to this reality, and when they drew near, this reality revealed itself to them, but in an image suited to their culture and society. On this basis, different spiritual groups emerged. These different spiritual groups disagree with one another regarding that image. One believes in heaven and hell, another in reincarnation, and yet another in a different image. But they all agree on one thing: that a person’s inner, psychical state in this world affects their state after death, and they all agree that the way to improve this state is the purification and refinement of the soul and psyche. Certain shared concepts also exist in different forms but with roughly similar functions. For example, the concept of trust in God (tawakkul) exists among those who believe in an indeterminate God as well, with the same function but in a different form. The same is true of God-consciousness (taqwā), even if it goes by a different name.
According to this second narrative, the major religions and reliable spiritual paths are all different sacred laws and paths leading toward the same destination, but with different images of that reality. Naturally, they may use different methods to reach that reality, but all of these methods emphasize self-purification.
The Quran says in Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 48:
"... To each of you We have prescribed a law and a clear way. And had God willed, He would have made you one community, but He wills to test you in what He has given you; so race to do good deeds. To God is the return of you all; then He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." This verse, of course, within the framework of the Quran refers to the Abrahamic laws, but as discussed, it speaks of a principle that is universal to all true religions and creeds.
Although the methods differ, the criterion, according to the Quran's account, is one and the same, and that is purification (tazkiyah). We have no verse in the Quran that states the condition for salvation in a single word except this verse: قَدْ أَفْلَحَ مَن زَكَّاهَا (Indeed, he succeeds who purifies it). This is very important. Even those verses that say We sent the Prophet to purify them, وَيُزَكّيهِم وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الكِتابَ وَالحِكمَةَ (and to purify them and teach them the Book and wisdom), all of this teaching of the Book and wisdom was for one thing, and that is purification.
Each of these two accounts produces very different results. The pluralist account and perspective, for instance, might perhaps lead us to visit the followers of other religions and present to them the image of truth that has been given to us, or that we have received, and ask them in return, what is your image? This has a benefit that, in research methods, is called viewing a complex phenomenon from multiple angles. A viewing to understand what that phenomenon really is, and regarding that absolute truth, for a better understanding of Him. The validity of this matter can be found in various subjects. For example, if we examine the concept of prayer, as it is depicted for believers in a personal God, also from the angle of those who believe in an impersonal God, we find insights that can help us ourselves in praying, and vice versa.
These different images help us draw closer to a better discovery of the truth. These images change our worldview. An example of this worldview can be seen in the story of Moses and the Shepherd. We have often paid attention to the part of the story where God said to Moses, "You have parted Our servant from Us," and Moses goes to the shepherd and says, forgive me, and "seek no order or rule." The shepherd also says, after what you said, I attained certain revelations, "My state now is beyond speech." This discussion of Rumi's, however, continues:
You see a form that is in a mirror;
It is your form, it is not the form of that mirror.
The breath that the reed-player blows into the reed,
Is suited to the reed, not suited to the man.
Beware, beware! Whether you utter praise or thanks,
Know it to be like the ill-conceived words of that shepherd.
Even if your praise is better in relation to his,
Yet that relation, in relation to the Truth, is also deficient.
That is, you who imagine your praise, your knowledge, is more complete than that of the shepherd, know that this praise and knowledge of yours also stems from your limited image of God and, in relation to the Truth, is utterly deficient and incomplete.
"Now that we have plowed the soil of thought with the answer to the first question and planted a seed in it with the answer to the second, we are ready, in the third part, to harvest the crop through the effort we will make in answering the third question. The third question is: What use is the Quran to us today?"
Dr. Farhad Shafti's Telegram channel:
[1]- Regarding taking a stance on accepting or rejecting the pluralist view of the Quran, Dr. Shafti has a very noteworthy suggestion. He says: "It is good for our audience (especially the younger ones) to try, for now, to step out of the mindset of acceptance or rejection, and the idea that at this stage they must necessarily accept or reject these views, and instead try more to reach a clear understanding of these views. Later, this thought will challenge their other thoughts"—meaning, in truth, there is an opportunity for rejection and acceptance.
[2] Farhad Shafti's critique of Arash Naraghi's view; “Investigative Pluralism or Investigative Exclusivism?”
[3] Farhad Shafti's article titled “The Quran: Exclusivist or Pluralist?”
[4]4 He says: “The reason I started from the text and not reason is that I myself arrived at pluralism through this path. Of course, when I saw the rational arguments, I also found them to be correct. The rational discussion is also very extensive, and the dispute between exclusivism and pluralism (there) becomes much broader.”
[5] Two articles in favor of exclusivism and critiquing pluralist arguments:
Religious Pluralism or Pluralism in Religion by Abdullah Mohammadi and Abdul Hossein Khosropanah, published in the quarterly journal of New Religious Thought, year 6, issue 22; and also an article by Mohammad Hassan Qaramaleki in Qabasat, year 1384 (2005), critiquing the verses used in a pluralistic manner (this issue of the journal is dedicated to pluralism; it was published roughly coinciding with John Hick's visit to Iran).
[6] A term borrowed from Arash Naraghi; see the article Investigative Exclusivism in the Realm of Religion
[7] Whether one can believe in theoretical pluralism without believing in practical pluralism, and vice versa, is a matter worthy of reflection on this subject.
[8] To see more verses along with a separation of the two aspects of pluralism, refer to the article The Quran: Exclusivist or Pluralist?.
[9] Allameh Tabatabai says: It may be said that acting upon the Quran is, in truth, also acting upon the original Gospel and Torah, as those two books gave glad tidings of the coming of the Quran and recommended the Children of Israel to act upon and believe in it... This is a good possibility, but it is not compatible with the word (uphold), because upholding the Torah and the Gospel means preserving them in the same manner as they are, with all their details, not that only the verses that give glad tidings of Islam and the Quran are upheld and preserved while the rest is abandoned; so it becomes clear that what is meant by upholding is the upholding of the Torah and the Gospel. (Al-Mizan, commentary under verse 5:66)
[10] In the Quran, there is not even a reference to the different religious groups that existed outside the Arabian Peninsula.
[11] The Quran: Exclusivist or Pluralist? - Farhad Shafti
[12] . Because understanding that unlimited and absolute Truth with limited human language and consciousness is impossible. In truth, our language and intellect are limited, and with limited tools, the Unlimited cannot be understood. For if you encompass it, it would no longer be unlimited. Therefore, He reveals an image of it to us and says, for example: He is the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden. But as soon as a person wants to form a conception of Him, He says: “There is nothing like unto Him.” This shows the mysterious nature of God.
.
PDF: A Summary of the Quran Sessions and Three Fundamental Questions; Part 2 of 4
PDF: A Summary of the Quran Sessions and Three Fundamental Questions; All Parts
.
Discussion1 comments
قرآن مدعی است که مبنای وحی و نزول از خالق جهان را دارد. اصولا ادعای معرفتی قرآنی با معرفت شناسی شما متفاوت است. بنا به تعریف و طبق محتوای قرآن کریم قران محصول دانای مطلق است که دنیای مشاهدتی (این جهان) و غیر مشاهدتی (عالم ناپیدا برای انسان) را می داند. سئوال از کثرت گرا بودن یا انحصار گرا بودنش تحریف قرآن است. خدا جزء افراد انسانی نیست که انحصار طلب یا کثرت گرا باشد . این تحریف قرآن است.