Buy essay on Pluralism and Islam

Simultaneous existence of different religions in single ethno-cultural space results in the origin of great number of both theology problems and social character. We can to add enough strong doctrine and sacral differences, on occasion practically canceling possibility of interconfessional dialog, and also stopped up in some religious doctrines or traditions intolerance to the dissidence to the number of theology problems. Social problems, descendant the coexistence of different religions, as a rule, are the reflection of theology problems and that is why practically never find permission within the framework of monoconfessional paradigm. Both the problems to the certain degree can be settled within the framework of interconfessional dialog, however, for its successful conduct a single, nonconfessional platform, acceptable to all its participants, is needed. Thus, the exposure of single platform, in our view, must not be accompanied the naive and beforehand doomed to the failure attempts of syncretism confluence of different religions (which are reprobated in all set traditions). Unfortunately, an interconfessional dialog and syncretism is so closely associated with each other in consciousness of people, that some religions in a full degree renounce from any dialog’s attempts, seeing in him a threat to the existence and canonical purity.
Great Moslem philosophers and enlighteners of XIX-XX centuries woke up to life scale on the depth, to the geographical and social scope. Revival in the environment of Moslem people, which went out outside clean theology and spread on the different spheres of public practice, a reflection in development of culture and art found. Their works woke not only religious ideas and senses, developed religious and cultural consciousness, instrumental in the revival of spiritual and cultural life of Moslem people, to “returning” them from the state of historical “unconsciousness”.
Limitations of freedom of opinions are utterly undesirable – they can be justified neither the religious, neither domestic nor communal considering. Macquarrie said that “he state is not right to defame the honest name of dissident or threaten it by repressions.”1 It would seem, the looks of one man have a value only for it, and suppression of his freedom is inflicted by harm only to him or small group of persons. But actually limitation of freedom of opinions according to Mutahhari is meant by “violation of rights for all people and does damage all, including to the coming generations.”2
1. Macquarrie, John. Mediators between human and divine: From Moses to Muhammad. New York: Continuum, 1996.
2. Mutahhari, Shahid. Islam and Religious Pluralism. Islamic Publishing House (Canada), 2004.
Saying about pluralism in Islam we should mention that undoubtedly, on the whole desirably and it is useful to announce opinions «pro and cons» as possible wider – it is unimportant, what questions speech goes about, religious or mundane. It would allow separately studying them – with that to define, what from them right, or to estimate the system of grounds in every case. We never can be fully sure that a point of view, which we try consistently to resist, indeed is false. But even if we are firmly sure of opponent’s wrongness, to suppress his looks is harmful.
And that, if is an idea distribution of which we oppose actually faithful, although it not to liking to us and our like-minded persons? It is necessary to mean that all people are unblameless. Monecal stated that “nobody has no authority to make decision for all and deprive other the possibility to follow own opinion.”3 To renounce to hear out an opposite side only on that foundation, that we are sure of its wrongness, – the same, that to declare about own infallibility; and to forbid a discussion and discussion – the same, that to put itself higher than prophets.
Without freedom of opinions truth of what that was not an idea can not be assured with a due care.

3. Monecal, Maria Rosa. The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 2002.
We can not confirm or ground acceptability or rightness of ideas which seem to us most acceptable and correct, until all is not give possibility to make an effort to refute them. Certainly, and passing through the widest discussion looks can not be with a complete confidence considered irreproachable. Nevertheless, assuming such discussion, we get maximally complete in existent terms confirmation of rightness of the discussed idea. Abdulla paid attention on fact “if a discussion will proceed through this question, we have grounds to hope that understanding of object in course of time will become better and specified; at short notice we are right to suppose that attained the maximally possible in our time level of cognition of truth.”4 In short, at death, subject to the errors, there is not other method to judge about what that was not though with some confidence, than that described by us. Exactly to it my modest comments are taken to famous position of Islamic studies: «Truth more than anything and there is nothing higher than truth».
Is there, however, the most serious error, lead to that society and even loyal governments limit freedom of opinions expression. It is related to the concept of utility which is in a high degree falsely named the «general blessing». As a proverb talks, «if for Ethiopian white skin, he for anything is acknowledged a Moslem».
4. Abdulla, Raficq. Islamic View on Pluralism (Dagger). European Judaism, Vol. 39, 2006.
On that ground see a fit to forbid the discussion of rightness of one or another ideas, studies, beliefs, asserting, as though adherence to them people salutary and serves its prosperity, – even if they are false. Presently this point of view is very widespread in India, especially among Moslems, – thus, business reached to that this vicious approach is considered elevated.
Thus, discussions on some question, related to the faith or world view, appear under prohibition not because one or other ideas are incorrect and not well-proven, but because so it is allegedly needed for a general benefit. Sachedina explained: “It is the exactly that stage, on which a faith or studies, with the greatest labour ratified former leaders, fall into a decay.”5 Then those, who are now honored as spiritual leaders, begin to complain, that believers do not accept a faith a heart. Outwardly they acknowledge all dogmas, but on their conduct, morality, habits and culture these dogmas do not render large influence. Alas, all these devout people do not even understand that guilty in so saddening them situation! I talk frankly and without every fear: all, that I said, has the most direct relation to that position in which now there are Moslems!

5. Sachedina, Abdulaziz. The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford University Press, 2001.

Religious pluralism from positions of Islamic dogma is very interesting topic. Consideration of any question in Islam must be unchanging made on the basis of principles, stopped up in the sources of Islamic dogma – Koran and Sunni of Prophet. Both Koran and the Sunni are distinctions in opinions, looks and points of view, as a natural and substantial sign of human society. Privation of other people of rights to have an own different from other look or opinion on some occasion tantamount to the denial of Allah’s will. Hutchison demonstrated “Both these studying assert principle of right of conscience and satisfied of Islam.”6 Based on this principle, Prophet of Muhammad blamed for violation of this principle of beyond measure zealous Moslems, trying to compel other to acknowledge truth of Islam. Thus, according to Witham, Koran underlines that “distinctions in opinions, persuasions and points of view in human society not casual and are not a vice, but present the fundamental sign of human society ratified by Allah.”7 Principle of right of conscience and satisfied of Islam offers to us the model of coexistence and co-operating with the transmitters of different persuasions and beliefs. It is principle and underlaid religious pluralism.
6. Hutchison, William R. Religious Pluralism in America: The Contentious History of a Founding Ideal. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
7. Witham, Larry. Wrestling with Religious Pluralism. The Washington Times, November 15, 1997.
Thus, we can make a conclusion that the elements of Islam culture and tradition were formed and got development on the basis of religion and in complete harmony with it. It means that over attempts to tear off an Islam culture from its religious roots will bring to its degradation. Careless attitude toward fundamental principles of Islam, including determining relationship with other groups of people, resulted in forming of false religious doctrine. From here is the false system of values, which some Moslems operate on the basis, appeared. Its correction is a necessity. And it can not be done, not going back to base principles of Islam. Relations between people and nations can be based either on the study of each other or on mutual alienation. The first results in understanding, mutual respect and collaboration. The second results in enmity and attempts of mutual elimination. Islam calls exactly to the first and declines the second way. Here that means underlining in Islam of principle «know each other». This principle is able to become a bridge between the most different people and key to development of humanity and universal stability, to the world and progress.

 
Works cited:
Abdulla, Raficq. Islamic View on Pluralism (Dagger). European Judaism, Vol. 39, 2006.
Hutchison, William R. Religious Pluralism in America: The Contentious History of a Founding Ideal. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
Macquarrie, John. Mediators between human and divine: From Moses to Muhammad. New York: Continuum, 1996.
Monecal, Maria Rosa. The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 2002.
Mutahhari, Shahid. Islam and Religious Pluralism. Islamic Publishing House (Canada), 2004.
Sachedina, Abdulaziz. The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Witham, Larry. Wrestling with Religious Pluralism. The Washington Times, November 15, 1997.