Back to letters list
Religious Pluralism - Response to your guest columnist - Dr Chandra Muzaffar
Sunday 18 June 2006
Dr Musa Mohd. Nordin
musa@mpf.org.my
Board Member,
Muslims Professionals Forum
c/o Damansara Specialist Hospital
119 Jalan SS 20/10
Damansara Utama
47400 PJ
Tel/Fax : +603-77293173
Dear Sir,
I read Chandra's personalised inferences of the pluralist theology with
much disbelief ! (What pluralism means to Islam; Sunday Star 18 June 2006).
The pluralism as propounded by the likes of Chandra et al is of course very
appealing because it embraces religiosity with a mega dose of tolerance,
mutual respect and "muhibbah". Unfortunately, what he scripted in his
Sunday column has never been the bone of contention among theologians who
are in the thick of the debate on religious pluralism. Quite obviously, he
is missing the thread of the discourse on religious pluralism.
His sole reference to the social sciences paradigm of pluralism lacks
research, hence much restricted and un-holistic. Simply put, he has done a
gross injustice to the scholarly works of theologians of religious
pluralism. I was not able to identify the writings of any pluralist
theologian in his Sunday piece to substantiate his variant, personalized
flavour or even mutation of the pluralist model.
I can only benchmark my grasp of the pluralist theology against the writings
of renowned scholars of religious pluralism , the likes of Ernst Troeltsch
(1865-1923), William E. Hocking (Re-thinking Mission 1932), Arnold Toynbee
(1889-1975), Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1916-2000, Towards a World Theology
1981) and John Harwood Hick (1922-present) et al.
Despite our differing understanding and interpretations of religious
pluralism, many would concur that John Hick remains the icon of the
pluralist theology. Amongst the modern scholars of theology, Hick is
probably the foremost in paying meticulous attention to the issues of
religious diversity and theorizing religious pluralism in such a profound
manner. He reconstructed the theoretical basis of the pluralist theology,
theorized and popularized it to such an extent that it has now become
synonymous with his name.
In his contribution to the The Encyclopedia of Religion, Hick defined
religious pluralism as "...the term refers to a particular theory of the
relation between these traditions, with their different and competing
claims. This is the theory that the great world religions constitute variant
conceptions and perceptions of, and responses to, the one ultimate,
mysterious divine reality.the view that the great world faiths embody
different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different
responses to, the Real or the Ultimate, and that within each of them
independently the transformation of human existence from self-centeredness
to reality-centeredness is taking place." [Hick, John, 'Religious Pluralism,'
in Eliade, Mircea (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1987), Vol. 12, p. 331].
Hick adds "Other religions are equally valid ways to the same truth". It
simply describes the different theophanies of the same truth.
To further elucidate this phenomenon of religious pluralism, another
advocate, Paul Knitter contends "All religions are relative - that is
limited, partial and incomplete, one way of looking at something. Deep down,
all religions are the same".
It would not be too far fetched to summarise that the pluralist truth claim
asserts that all religions, theistic or non-theistic, can be considered as
ways through which man can attain salvation, liberation and enlightenment.
They all represent authentic responses to the same transcendent "Real" and
are thus valid manifestations of the "Real".
Herein lies the hidden yet clear danger of the pluralist truth claim. It is
absolutist in the sense that it is all too eager to relativise all of the
existing absolute religious truth claims. Epistemologically, relativising
the truth claims implies (though rarely recognized by the pluralists and
Chandra alike) denying or at the very least degrading the absolute truth
claims.
In simpler terms, the theology of religious pluralism has undermined the
absolute truth claims of all the religions on the world stage. It has
relativised all the truth claims and have equated all religions as being
relatively the same. Pluralism is degrading if not denying the absolute
truth claims of these religions.
Secondly, it's pluralistic-claim has inevitably added another "new ism on
the block", albeit man-made, to the phenomenon of religious diversity.
Putting it differently, religious pluralism transcends the conflicting and
relative truth claims among religions, claims a facade of democracy and
world peace and is the "absolute messiah" to the phenomenon of religious
diversity. That is, the other religions are not cool!
The late Ismail Faruqi wrote "The (truth) claim is essential to religion.
For the religious assertion is not merely one among a multitude of
propositions, but necessarily unique and exclusive".
Thus any attempt to relativise the uniqueness and exclusivity of all
religions, as Hicks et al has undertaken with their theology of religious
pluralism, will inevitably add a new problem to the existing truth claims at
best. Or at worst threaten the very existence of religions.
The pluralistic "all paths lead to the same summit" paradigm is not that
benign, tolerant, democratic and embracing as first perceived! On closer
examination, this pluralistic truth claim is in fact extremely problematic.
This "disguised enmity" of absolute religious truth claims is hardly
surprising considering religious pluralism was gestated within the context
of western secular liberalism; which had an innate abhorrence of anything
metaphysical.
Wayne Proudfoot, in Religious Experience (1985) wrote "The turn to religious
experience was motivated in large measure by an interest in freeing
religious doctrine and practice from dependence on metaphysical beliefs and
ecclesiastical institutions and grounding it in human experience"
The notion of religious pluralism is alien to Islamic ideological or
theological framework. It began to encroach into Islamic thought after the
second World War when Muslims were exposed to education in western
traditions and hence the overt or covert onslaught of western cultural
hegemony.
And the spread of this idea within the Islamic discourse has been partly
encouraged by the works of Western Muslim mystics. Isa Nuruddin Ahmad better
known as Frithjof Schuon emphasized in his book The Transcendent Unity of
Religions, that deep down all religions are the same (esoterically they are
the same); though their rules , morals and ritual may differ (exoterically
different). He called this the Perennial Religion (Religio Perennis)
Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas argues that the transcendent unity of religion
is not found even at the esoteric level because each religion has exclusive
or differing concepts of god. He adds, such transcendent unity cannot be
deemed "religion" only religious experiences.
Islam perceives religious diversity and plurality as a "Sunnatullah", the
behest of the Al-Mighty. Hence, a religious truth claim, is an absolutist
doctrine, must be respected as such, not simplified or relativised, let
alone negated.
Islam accords special status to Judaism and Christianity, categorically
calling their adherents, "Ahl al-Kitab" (People of the Book). It identifies
itself with the People of the Book as the "Abrahamic family" within the
Semitic Tradition (Hanifiyyah), the tradition of Abraham who is recognized
as the father of the three Semitic religions.
References to other religions is however less straight forward. They are
mentioned in a generic manner as implied by the Quranic injunctions on :
- Universality of the prophetic mission; "And verily We have raised in
every nation a messenger, (proclaiming) : Serve Allah and shun false gods
..." (16:36)
- And the unity of mankind, "Ummatun Wahidah" ; "Mankind were one
community, and Allah sent Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as
warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might
help judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed..." (2:213)
Islam's concept of "al-Hanifiyah" is the divine prescription towards all
other non-Islamic religions. It allows "all the other religions" to be fully
"others" without any reduction, deconstruction or relativisation. It
acknowledges the plurality of religions and allows the adherents of all
religions the plurality of laws to govern their lives within the aegis of
their religious beliefs and principles. This is the gift of "al-Hanifiyah"
to humanity.
This unlike the wave of religious pluralism which deconstructs absolute
truth claims, relativises religions and equates them within the parameters
of human religious experiences of the Transcendental Reality. In short, it
is unwilling to let others to be really others. Therein lies the clear and
present danger of religious pluralism.
Back to letters list