Religious Pluralism: Kadivar, Soroush Debate
• Apr 9th, 2008 • Category: Works By SoroushPart I of discussion between Hojjat ol‑Eslam Mohsen Kadivar and Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush
{The question of pluralism is one of the discussions that
has found its way in recent years into religious studies fields in our
country and has recently prompted various arguments. SALAM newspaper, in
connection with expanding the foundations of Islamic thought and ideas, has
engaged in clarifying this theory and in this connection invited Dr.
Sorush, as the person who has raised this question, and Hojjat ol‑Eslam
Kadivar, as one of the thinkers of the seminary, to engage in discussions
and dialogue in this connection. What follows is the result of this
conversation. SALAM hopes that removed from futile commotions that some
create in the area of ideas, it will be able to create a suitable and clear
arena to express new ideas in the area of religious studies. We hope that
experts will help us continue this discussion by sending us their
criticisms and views. Also, we would like to point out that the publication
of this material in no way reflects the views of the newspaper in this
regard.}
Part 1
Hojjat ol‑Eslam Kadivar
In the name of God the compassionate and the merciful, and with His
help. One of the important issues of our age is the manner of confronting
the variety and plurality of the religions that exist in the world. We have
numerous wars, both religious and nonreligious.
The existing religions are comprised of two groups, revealed and
non‑revealed religions. In each of the revealed religions, we have numerous
sects, as well. The question that is raised for every thinker is how to
interpret the variety and number of religious and nonreligious opinions, on
the one hand, and the number, plurality, and variety of various religions,
on the other, as well as the variety of sects in every religion. Certainly,
the variety and plurality of religions and sects as well as doctrines is an
“external reality.” But, whether or not this reality also has any “truth”
in it is an issue that has occupied the minds of thinkers for quite some
time.
In this area, numerous interpretations have been offered. The question
of “religious pluralism” is a particular interpretation of the existing
plurality in religious opinions. This interpretation is not the only
interpretation of the plurality and variety of religions. Other
interpretations can also be mentioned.
First interpretation: Some religious believers consider only their own
way the exclusive way for human guidance. They do not consider other ways
proper or as the ideal.
Second interpretation: Some others, even though they consider their
own way to be the way to reach the ideal, do not reject all other religions
and paths.
They establish a relationship between other religions and their own
and somehow are “inclusive” in their own religious beliefs in regards to
other religions and sects, in the sense that every religion, sect, or
doctrine has some truth, is not absolutely false, and is rewarding in
proportion to how much truth it has, but complete truth is only found in
one religion.
Third interpretation: One group regards this “actual plurality” as
“true plurality” and have tried somehow to speak of different and authentic
experiences of religion, and even in numerous sacred affairs to speak of
direct paths and not a direct path, numerous truths and not a single truth.
This interpretation constitutes religious pluralism. Considering that the
question of religious pluralism itself has different and numerous
interpretations, undoubtedly, starting the discussion in this area is an
auspicious beginning for the blossoming of religious studies in our
society. The main preoccupation of religious believers has always been
whether various understandings on the question of the plurality of
religions will harm the question of religious faith and belief, or can one
have religious belief and at the same time find some truth in a religion
other than one”s own. In other words, is religious pluralism
compatible with religious faith and belief and, in a word, with belief in
religion? The discussion that we want to have today, with the help of God,
is an examination and critique of various interpretations that have been
offered in regards to the plurality of religions. One of these
interpretations is the theory of pluralism which Dr. Sorush has discussed
recently, and which has raised serious questions. First, we will hear a
summation of this discussion from his own lips, and then we will discuss
other interpretations of the plurality of religions and sects, especially
from the viewpoint of religious pluralism and particularly from the
perspective of its compatibility or incompatibility with religious belief.
Dr. “Abdolkarim Sorush
In the name of God the compassionate and the merciful. I am grateful
to Mr. Kadivar for starting the discussion. I will also give a brief
explanation about the issue, and then we will have a discussion. The
question of pluralism is a search to explain the actual existing plurality
in the world and, for that matter, the inevitable, distinct, and sometimes
contradictory plurality. We live in a world in which we face numerous
pluralities, whether plurality in religion, plurality in languages,
plurality in cultures, plurality in skins, plurality in color, or plurality
in race, and the like. Hence, the external world is a world of plurality.
For every thinker, it is problematic how to explain the existence and birth
of these varieties and pluralities. In other words, it is a question of
why: Why are humans not of the same color and race in the world? Why do we
not have a single religion? Why do all the people not have the same tastes
and think alike? And so on.
As soon as we see ourselves confronted with the question of plurality,
explaining it becomes important to us. For us religious people, explaining
the plurality of religions is doubly important, because every religious
person believes in his own religion and regards other religions, compared
to his own, which he considers right, not to be right. This is different
from the plurality of languages and colors, in which there is no discussion
about right and wrong.
Now, in order to explain the plurality of religions, we must clarify
our opinion regarding several issues. But from the very start, I would say
that the question of religious pluralism, or the question of explaining the
plurality of religions, is primarily and by nature not an issue of deciding
about right and wrong. It is not a religious jurisprudential or theological
question. In other words, it is neither to determine the religious duty of
religious people, nor to discuss determining and proving the truth of one
religion among others. It is not even to recommend tolerance. But,
primarily and by nature, it is for the philosophical, epistemological
explanation that has appeared in the arena of religion at the present and
appears to be inevitable. In other words, despite the arguments that
various theologians from various religions have had with one another, this
plurality has not been eliminated and appears to be inevitable, and every
group of religious people continues to believe in its own sect and
doctrine. Also, religious pluralism does not begin from the premise that
all religions are right or equal, and it does not predetermine the truth or
falsehood of any one of them. Now, to explain the plurality of religions,
immediately we find ourselves faced with several problems. One is the
question of divine guidance. Philosophically, we must clarify our opinion
about divine guidance and determine in what sense we regard God to be a
guide. As pointed out in the article, “The Direct Paths,” when we see
ourselves faced with poverty and injustice in the real world, we must
clarify our opinion in regards to divine mercy and providence. Without
coming to a clear opinion, we cannot succeed in solving the question of
evil in the world. The same is true of the question of divine guidance and
combining it with the misguidance of a large number of human beings.
A second point that we must face in explaining plurality is the
question of human intellect. We must also have a clear opinion in regards
to what the extension of our understanding is and how trustworthy it is,
because one can easily say, only we are right and all the people in the
world are misguided. This can easily be said, and perhaps the followers of
every sect have the same opinion. But it does not end here, because
immediately, we face the question of: How is it that the majority of the
people of the world are wrong, do not know that they are misguided, and
consider themselves the vehicle of truth? What is the difference between
our intellect and that of others, that we are not mistaken and have found
the truth? Have all the people been deceived? Are all the people blind
imitators? Do all disregard the rules of truth and falsehood, reason and
proof? Are all selfish? Are all deceived by Satan, except for us? In any
case, any one of these explanations would immediately confront us with the
issue that, until we have a [illegible] of the intellect of human beings,
we cannot especially solve the problem of religious pluralism, because the
fact is that each of the existing sects and religions in the world that
consider themselves to be right necessarily say that the majority of the
people of the world are misguided. In other words, if you look at
Christianity and think that, nominally, there are about 1 billion followers
of Christianity in the world, still there are four to five times as many
who do not follow Christianity. Take the Shi”ites, the Zeydis, the
Ismailis, the Jews. No matter what group you take that believe in their
truth, the conclusion is that the majority of the people of the world are
misguided, are not prepared to give up their wrong ways, and continue to
believe in their own path. Hence, we must make it clear what has happened
to people”s intellect and the purpose of divine guidance. The
implication that has been offered so far is that they have said that,
firstly, this plurality will return to unity. Hence, the plurality has been
denied. This is ignoring the issue.
The discussion on pluralism begins with accepting and proving
plurality. If someone believes that these pluralities, as the mystics say,
are an illusion, are arbitrary, and are not true, that they are false
pluralities and underneath them is a unity, in that case, the question of
pluralism is put aside and is beyond discussion. But, if we assume a
plurality that is explainable by nature, in that case, pluralism is an
issue. Secondly, it has been said that there are common aspects of
religions. But it must be noted that the question of pluralism is about the
differences and not what they have in common. The parts that they have in
common will be outside the explanation and do not need it. Thirdly, it has
been said that, in the world of religions, we can offer several theories of
why different groups have been misguided. One is resorting to the
conspiracy theory. Another is fighting the truth. Another is
misunderstanding, another imitation, another the complexity of the truth,
and others that have been mentioned in the article on “The Direct Paths.”
Apparently, we have no other solution. We must either say, for example,
that the Sunnis who did not become Shi”ites did not because of a
conspiracy in the history of Islam, and they all became Sunnis. Or we must
say that no conspiracy took place, but some misunderstood Islam, contrary
to us; we understood it correctly. Or we might say that they did not
misunderstand it, neither did a conspiracy occur, but they were hostile
and, because of selfishness and their interests, they trampled the truth.
Or we might say that the truth was so complex that few could understand it,
hence, they are not guilty. No matter which of these theories we mention
with regard to the variety of sects and religions, immediately we find
ourselves faced with this important supposition, that either the majority
of the people of the world are hostile to the truth, or have misunderstood,
or are intellectually weak, or have been deceived by conspiracy. In all
these cases, we are fighting the people”s intellect as well as divine
guidance. Of course, we should remember that every theory that we offer in
regards to intellect also includes ourselves. In my opinion, the correct
way to pose the question is that, if we do not want to say so, we should
find a way that would interpret both variety and human intellect, give a
clear place to divine guidance, and also contain truth and justice.
[Kadivar] I will begin with a discussion from within religion, and in
continuation, I will look at the issue from outside religion. Hence, I will
explain the understanding in Shi”ite Islam of the question of
plurality and variety of religions, sects, and doctrines in theological
terms.
First point: There is no doubt about the fact that there is actual
plurality in the world, especially plurality of religions. No one can deny
the plurality of religions as an external reality. In fact, the question is
how to explain this plurality. Why are there many religions, and now, if
there are, how should we approach this plurality? At the start of the
discussion, I find it necessary to separate the issue of “tolerance” from
the way we enter into and exit the issue of “religious pluralism.” One can
believe in the exclusivity of legitimacy in one religion or accept other
theories, such as the “inclusiveness of the true religion” compared to
other religions, or the idea of numerous true religious (that is, direct
paths), while in practice, and in social attitude, believe in “tolerance.”
Hence, these two issues must be separated. The question of pluralism,
exclusivity, non‑exclusivity, or any other theory that is discussed in
connection with explaining the plurality of religions can be combined with
the question of tolerance in the sense that, in our behavior, we believe in
peaceful coexistence with all religions and take certain rights into
consideration for the followers of different religions. We assume this
issue to be settled. In other words, various religions (or at least some of
the religions, as it is in our religion) have certain rights that have been
officially recognized. But our discussion is not about the social conduct
of the believers in one religion or the followers of other religions. In
fact, the discussion is about whether we exclusively have the truth and
others do not have it at all, or whether it is otherwise.
Second point: The issue can also be explained in another way. That is,
we believe that God has sent two types of messengers to guide human beings,
one messenger is the intellect of human beings, which He has granted as a
gift in all humans, and another consists of the external messengers, who
are the prophets sent by God. This internal messenger, that is, the
God‑given intellect or the God‑seeking nature of man, exists in all people
to varying degrees. No man lacks [the instinct to] seek the truth and
longing for God. All humans have such a pure instinct in them and, hence,
seek the truth. They may have differences ways of finding the manifestation
of truth, as they do, but it cannot be doubted that all seek the truth,
even supreme truth. On the other hand, God has not considered this
messenger, that is, the messenger of wisdom, the internal messenger, to be
enough and has been generous to humanity in sending external messengers
accordingly to guide the people. Various nations have witnessed the
appointment of prophets who have all provided the people with divine
teachings. Hence, it is meant that God has sent different prophets who have
started different religions. Among the revealed religions, this variety is
accepted in this sense. In other words, numerous religions consider
themselves to be related to God, and that numerous prophets, such as
Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad, have come to call the people to
salvation and perfection. There is no doubt that each of these divine
religions was in fact “true” in its own time and was most true for humans
to be able to understand and approach it. For example, Christianity during
the time when Jesus came to guide the people had the greatest part of the
truth (which humans could understand at that time). The same was true
during the time of Moses and other prophets. Hence, every prophet who came,
in fact, came from a single God with specific teachings. These teachings
are no different in nature from the teachings of the past prophets. They do
not have marked differences. They do not have inevitable pluralism,
contrary to the fact that in religious pluralism, it is said that those
marked differences are inevitable and natural. On the contrary, the
teachings of the revealed prophets (prophets who have come from God)
indicate a single truth. If there are differences seen in the teachings of
these religions, at least in the form in which they came (prior to being
distorted), they represent the various degrees of truth. In other words,
the single truth, which is sacred, which is God, reduces this truth to a
degree from the divine memory and places it at the disposal of the human
beings of each era. Undoubtedly, it is different from the degree of truth
that He provided man at the time of Jesus or at the time of the Prophet of
Islam. But these differences are dubious differences and not marked
differences by nature. What is meant by dubious differences is that the
final position of the revealed religion includes all the perfection of the
previous religions. Everything good that was in Judaism, Christianity, or
Abrahamic religions, Islam claims to contain. In addition to the past
perfection, it also has perfection that is not witnessed in the past
religions. The reason for this difference is explainable and clarifiable.
Based on the same religious instructions, appropriate to human development,
God decided to provide people with more of the truth. This truth is
expressed in the form of religious teachings, in the form of verses in the
divine book, or in the form of reliable reported sayings from the mouths of
the infallible and placed at the disposal of mankind and religious people.
Hence, there is no marked difference and inevitable plurality among the
divine religions, even though there is variety.
Third point: Also, among divine religions, with every religion that
comes, the latest religion revokes some of the religious rulings of the
previous one or completes them. But in regards to beliefs and morality, all
religions verify and complement one another, and none of them is considered
a revocation of another in terms of belief. If there is any revocation, it
is only in the area of religious jurisprudential rulings and religious
laws, proportionate to the level of perfection in various societies and
times, and not in the area of religious beliefs. This unity of many of the
beliefs of the divine religions is again another example of lack of
differences in nature and the incorrectness of inevitable plurality.
Islamic beliefs verify and complete the true Christian beliefs, the
same beliefs that Christianity had when the Bible was inspired, the same
beliefs that existed in Judaism, before distortion occurred in it. In fact,
these beliefs complete one another, and in this regard, there is no
difference between them. All these religions speak of a single God and
speak about the day of judgment and resurrection. They speak of the
necessity of guidance by prophets for man”s salvation, and all are
unanimous that certain laws should be expressed by the prophets to guide
man.
Fourth point: The result that we can get from divine religion is that,
if we look at the plurality of divine religions, this plurality can be
explained in this way, that the final religion, Islam (at least, as claimed
by Muslims), includes all the perfection of the previous religions. The
truth of Islam does not mean the absolute falsehood of Judaism and
Christianity. It does not mean that the Jews and Christians who lived
before Islam and followed their own religious rules were wrong and false.
No. They were also guided. Even today, if someone is a Jew or a Christian,
we do not say that he is absolutely wrong, in the sense that, after all, he
is a monotheist and believes in the day of judgment. He performs good deeds
in accordance with his religious laws. And supposing that he is not among
the scholars of Christianity and has, for instance, not heard the message
of Islam and believes in the teachings of his own religion and performs the
laws of his religion, he may have salvation in the next world. Hence, if we
speak about the truth of Islam, it is dubious truth, in the sense that
Islam has the previous truths in its teachings. It never means that if
someone is not of our religion and does not call himself a Muslim, he is
certainly misguided. We do not make such a claim. Here, we are separating
the scholars and ordinary people. This is the issue that in our religious
culture is interpreted in some respect as the issue of “the inculpable
ignorant and the culpable ignorant.”
In fact, what in Islam is value and the truth that stems from it is
true faith in God and the day of judgment and pious deeds. In our ideology,
titles and names are never of true value. Of course, it is clear that
complete salvation and reward belongs to one who believes in the
prophethood of the Seal of the Prophets and practices his instructions.
Hence, the discussion in the first part (among revealed religions) can be
summed up as follows: that we can both believe in one supreme truth and
also not consider other religions and followers of other religions as
completely false.
Fifth point: Another point is raised here about the followers of
non‑revealed and non‑divine religions. For example, the Buddhists and the
followers of Confucius and the like are not followers of divine religions,
from our perspective. But, considering the internal messenger to what I
referred to in the beginning of the discussion, if we assume that these
religions are human efforts to achieve the sacred and the supreme, we can
find in them some truth. Hence, if we consider Islam as absolute truth,
even the non‑divine religions are absolute falsehood. To the extent that
their direction is towards the sacred and the supreme, they may have
achieved some truth. In the same way that moral principles are not all
acquired by grace and worship, many of these principles are rational, there
is no problem with a follower of one of the non‑divine religions having
reached some of these moral principles with his own intellect, for
instance, considering lying as prohibited in his own religion, condemning
theft, respecting truthfulness, honor and self‑sacrifice, and the like. He
can also believe in a sacred concept. Hence, every religion, in proportion
to the truth that it contains, is worthy of respect.
A Buddhist and an apostate without religion are different. He is
preferable to [the apostate] who denies the sacred and oppresses the
metaphysical. Every religious person is respectable to the degree of truth
he has in his religion. Certainly, if someone believes in Islam, if he
considers his religion right, it does not mean that anyone who does not
have his beliefs is absolutely false. Rather, he believes that the various
truths are found in his own religion in their perfected and completed form.
Sixth point: The next stage of the discussions is about various sects.
We see that there are various sects in every religion. In Islam, we have
Shi”ites and Sunnis. Among the Sunnis, there are various sects.
Various sects have also appeared among the Shi”ites. Still, the same
question is raised. In our belief, we do not say that if someone is not a
Shi”ite, he is completely wrong. Rather, we believe that truth is also
found in his religion and beliefs. In religious rules, he has many common
points with Shi”ism. In terms of religious discussion, as a believer
in one of the Islamic sects, we say that this interpretation, that is, the
interpretation of the Prophet”s family of Islam, in our opinion, is
true.
If we say that Shi”ism is right, we do not mean that the
teachings of the Sunnis are all false, and anyone who does not believe as
we do will have no benefit from guidance. This interpretation has some
supporters, but what I am defending here is that heaven and hell are not
granted for a price, but as a justification. Faith and pious deeds bring
salvation and not names and titles. Every Muslim who has this belief and
engages in good deeds will benefit according to the level of those beliefs
and good deeds. Of course, we believe that the most perfect beliefs are in
the interpretations of the teachings of the Prophet”s family, both in
the area of beliefs and in the area of practice. But, again I emphasize
that, if we say truth is in Shi”ism, it is not meant that Sunnis are
all wrong. Rather, some of the truth, that is, Islam, is also found among
the Sunnis. Hence, we defend the fact that other Islamic sects also have
some of the truth, and as to whom God takes to heaven, God only knows. We
certainly know that the requirement for going to paradise is faith and good
deeds. This faith and good deeds has a perfect form and also more imperfect
forms.
Since I consider the main problem of religious pluralism its
compatibility or incompatibility with faith and religious belief, I have
found it necessary, before giving an explanation from outside religion, to
present the religious (inside religion) understanding of the question of
plurality of religions, sects, and doctrines and emphasize that, by
accepting, firstly, the existence of a single supreme truth, secondly,
accepting the possibility of understanding the truth to the level of human
intellect, and, thirdly, accepting a specific level and standard of truth
for separating the truth from falsehood, one can believe that a religion
and a sect have more of the truth and other religions and sects have
salvation based on the level of this truth and not necessarily closeness to
the religion of truth. Also, the principles of our religion have a
determining effect on our extra‑religions discussion.
Subslug: Part II of discussion between Hojjat ol‑Eslam Mohsen Kadivar and Dr.
“Abdolkarim Sorush
Dr. Sorush
Mr. Kadivar took the discussion inside religion and spoke of truth and
falsehood. He expressed the beliefs of a pure Shi”ite that
Shi”ism is pure and absolute truth, and others have some truth at the
level of their proximity to Shi”ism. A Shi”ite goes to heaven and
others, if they do not know about Shi”ite beliefs, are the inculpable
ignorant, and that God will treat them with kindness and mercy. Such an
entry into the question of pluralism is to remove its foundation and
meaning. It is a statement that I would also hear if I were speaking with a
Wahabi, a Christian, or a Zoroastrian. It is astonishing that he says that
religions are not markedly different in nature, however, not religions in
their present form, but undistorted religions. In other words, again, it is
settling for the same positions within one”s own religion. Another way
to look at the issue is from the extra‑religions perspective. It is a more
philosophical look at the issue in the form that I said earlier, in other
words, in explaining plurality by the nature of plurality, regardless of
the religion, sect, or doctrine to which we belong. As the phenomenologists
say, we should set our own beliefs aside; that is, we should disregard them
for now and discuss the issue in more general terms. Then we use the answer
that we find in a general discussion to find an answer within religion,
because based on the principles that I have stated in “Contraction and
Expansion,” the external bases of our religion totally affect our judgment
within our religion, and while our view about generalities has not reached
any conclusion in regard to particular issues, we will not come to a clear
judgment. For this reason, I suggested that, in regards to plurality, we
argue that, firstly, we accept the plurality that exists and secondly,
clarify the “reasons” and “causes” of this plurality. The reason that I put
my finger on the reasons and causes is that they are different and have
different rules.
The cause becomes meaningful because of the existence of the “object,”
and reason is based on claim. Causes are non‑epistemological and
non‑reasoning factors, which consist of training, environment of birth,
life geography, natural evolution, social and hereditary conditions,
interests, selfishness, ignorance, and the like and are involved in the
creation of human affairs. In other words, if we ask, for what reason have
people turned different colors? For what reason have they different races
and languages? We must give causal answers, and reasoned answers are
irrelevant. But when it is religion”s turn, when it is the turn of
philosophical doctrines, one should ask both about causes and reasons. I
have also stated in “Direct Paths” that the religion of the majority of the
people (public) has a cause and not a reason. In other words, before
engaging in a scholarly and philosophical evaluation and before studying
the reasons for the truth of various religions, to examine the truth of
various religions, the public becomes interested in a religion or a sect
that the environment dictates without any evaluation. Changing one”s
religion is very rare and exceptional. Hence, plurality in the religion of
the public is due to the plurality of causes, and as long as there is
plurality of causes (that is, the environment, education, imitation…),
the plurality of religions (or plurality of belief in religions) will also
exist. Now we get to the religion of the elite (scholars), which has
reasons and not causes, and each group of them considers itself right and
the other wrong.
Now, here, the question is raised that, if the scholars, theologians,
and intellectuals of a nation are involved in the reasons (and neglect the
causes and are not under the influence of the environment, imitation, and
inculcation), how is it that all have invariably remained in their
different and contradictory positions, and none of the scholars of various
nations have agreed to give up their reasons and admit that they are wrong?
How is it that the Jews continue to insist on the reasoning that Judaism is
right, the Christian scholars insist on the reasoning of the truth of
Christianity, the Shi”ite scholars insist on the truth of
Shi”ism, the Sunni scholars on the truth of Sunnis, etc., and this
quarrel has not ended? Since both sides of the quarrel have heard each
other”s reasoning, and because they are wise and scholars, they should
go, listen, and submit to the truth. When we get there, the issue becomes
very difficult, and the point is raised that I referred to earlier. We must
explain our theory about wisdom. If we do not have a clear opinion on
wisdom (and thereby on truth), we cannot take any steps, because we are not
discussing the wise of the nation. The wise of the nation consist of
[different] groups, some of whom have accepted Judaism as truth and
maintain that other religions and sects are wrong, and others who belong to
Christianity, etc.
Here, we have two ways. One is to say that these reasons should be
changed to causes, that is, the reasons are all fabricated and are all
ideas and ideologies. This is what the post‑modernists say, which has old
roots. In other words, our intellect is controlled by our emotions. Our
intellect is controlled by our selfishness, interests, and belongings and
is captive to what is inculcated in us, does not have the power and courage
to examine the reasons impartially, it has a historical nature, it is
affected by ideology, etc. This is a lengthy argument. If we make such a
statement, firstly, we have offered our theory in regards to wisdom and,
secondly, we have clarified our duty and situation, that we are like
others, indeed no different from others. When reasoning is changed to
cause, it means that the intellect has no authority, and what operates and
affects human judgment are causes, such as profit or political and
ideological geography. As Hafez says:
Do not frighten us of the prohibition by wisdom, bring wine/ Because
that policeman has no authority in our land.
If we change the reasons into causes, we go back to the previous
position, and pluralism becomes inevitable. Everyone has as much right as
the next to stay within his particular beliefs, and no one can boast of
superiority over another, claim to be more right than another, or say: I am
superior to you because I have more correct beliefs and stronger reasoning.
In fact, the elite become like the public, only a bit more complex.
But if we do not have such an opinion with regard to intellect and do
not change the reasons to causes, in that case, we must say why the wise of
the nation, despite hearing the statements of the rivals, continue to
insist on their own ideas, and no reason has replaced another. It is here
that some have reached the opinion that the work of the wise in the world
in regards to religion has reached “equality of reasons.” This is also a
sort of opinion. This is the same opinion that Kant reached in metaphysics.
He said, in metaphysical issues, that the work of the intellectual has
reached “equality of reasons.” What does “equality of reasons” mean? It
means that the reasons of both sides are equally strong, so that neither
can overpower the other and force it out. What was Kant”s opinion
about the incidence or precedence of the world?
He said: If the metaphysicians and philosophers argue until Judgment
Day about the incidence or precedence of the world, neither side can
completely overpower the other, or, in other words, prove 100 percent that
the world is a precedent or an incident, that it does or does not have a
beginning. It has come down to the equality of reasons. The same is true
about the finite or the infinite nature of other dimensions and problems of
metaphysics, as stated in Kant”s work, and it was one of the basic
points that Kant believed. I am not now discussing the opinion of Kant. I
have just mentioned this as an example, to identify what the issue is
about. Kant believed that the secret behind the fact that the
metaphysicians have not been able to overpower each other is that there is
a problem in the operation of the intellect when it steps into the arena of
metaphysics. There, it enters an arena that it should not, and hence it
cannot prove everything 100 percent. Therefore, every opinion reaches
equality and equilibrium with the opinion of the rival. In other words, it
reaches equality of reasons. There are the antimonies of Kant (the debating
opinions of both sides, as our own philosophers say, this is the wooden leg
of the rationalists). Five centuries before Kant, Mowlavi also had the same
opinion about determinism and fatalism. He said:
Between the determinists and fatalists/ Continue to argue until the
Day of Judgment
Since the bad practice of the teacher of that school/ Is to trains them
with reasons.
He considered this constant argument as the will of God. Now, if in
the arena of religion we say that the wise in the nation and the
theologians of every religious sect have reasons for their beliefs and have
not pursued selfishness and profit in these reasons (because, if we say so,
reason is changed to cause), and have been only seekers of truth and have
examined the reasons with impartiality and have still remained with their
own beliefs, we would have to reach the conclusion that, hence, different
conflicting reasons have not been able to overpower one another and,
therefore, none of the rivals has changed his position.
Look at Ghazali. Ghazali was a person who doubted everything,
according to what he writes in AL‑MONAQEZ MEN AL‑ZALAL. He says: A day
arrived at the age of 38 when I doubted everything; it was a sincere and
impartial doubt. I seized myself and questioned my life until I reached the
most obvious beliefs I had. It is obvious that he was facing a very clear
and naked Descartian doubt. As he puts it: For six months, I was ill and
bedridden at home and would not say a word. They brought a physician, but
the physician was helpless in trying to treat me. I knew myself what my
ailment was. My ailment was internal struggle, the temptation that had
befallen me about the most obvious of the obvious. This life of mine, the
status and glory that I have, being a teacher at the Nezamiyyeh University,
being esteemed by the sultan and calif, is this the best way to live? It
began from here and went to my beliefs, to my being an Ash”ari, a
Sunni, to my opinions on religious jurisprudence, principles, and theology.
And it went further back, until it reached the obvious, that there exists a
world, that it is day now, that the sun that shines, and why do I believe
in them? He says that the doubts had overcome him such that he put all
aside and left his surroundings and place, sat in seclusion for 10 years,
and decided what he had to do. After 10 years, he returned and was still a
full‑fledged Ash”ari Sunni. In other words, if we do not say that he
was overcome by selfishness and interests (and we do not), and if we say
that he had engaged in an impartial, sincere, God‑seeking investigation,
you can see that ultimately he reached the point where he was, more or
less, in the beginning. Of course, the elements of piety and morality had
increased in him, and his way of life had changed, and he pursued piety and
seclusion from the world. But in regards to official and orthodox beliefs,
he was more or less what he was before he left Baghdad, and his work quite
shows this.
Among us Shi”ites, no one like Ghazali, with such grandeur, is
found in history. But, for instance, Mr. Motahhari also, after studying all
that philosophy, theology, reported sayings, religious jurisprudence, and
principles, remained the same Shi”ite that he was from the beginning
of his life. He did not change.
Now, if we believe that there are, in fact, great scholars and wise
people who wash their hands of all interests and seriously, out of fear of
God and seeking the truth, engage in studying the various reasons regarding
the truth or falsehood of various religions and ultimately reach the point
that the religion that we have ourselves and have had from the beginning is
true, in other words, the Shi”ites say Shi”ism is right, the
Sunnis say Sunnism is right, the Buddhists say Buddhism is right, etc., in
this case, our theory about the intellect brings us to the point that, if
religion is a zone into which when intellect steps, it is deflated, it
faces equality of reasons, in other words, Kant”s opinion about
metaphysics. This is one possible interpretation of the actual pluralism
that has occurred with regard to religion. Other interpretations believe in
the finality of wisdom, changing it to causes, and the absolute domination
of emotions and interests over human intellect, or the absence of intellect
from the scene. In any case, in interpreting the existing plurality, we
have only two ways, either an interpretation based on cause or one based on
reason. The causal interpretation does not leave anything at all. All are
dependent on a series of intentions and emotions, they choose religion
blindly, and their intellect is controlled by their interests. The path of
reason gives intellect a line of independence, but ultimately reaches
equality of reasons. This is the interpretation of pluralism that can be
stated. Now, someone who would say, only we are right, and the rest are
right only to the degree of their proximity to us and false at the level of
their distance from us, and that ultimately, we have the greatest share of
the truth and others are false, must also make it clear how people”s
intellect works, that the majority of the people in this world believe in
falsehood and do not understand that what they believe is false. Also, he
must make it clear how all that lasting falsehood has appeared, taken a
position in the intellect, and has not left. When this is our theory about
the intellect of the majority of the people, that they believe in falsehood
and do not want to give it up, this theory of intellect will also come back
to haunt us. Gradually, we will be asked, how did you understand all these
truths so easily and did not do anything, while all the rest of the people
are engulfed in misguidance?
No matter what theory you offer about the intellect, it will also
include you. In other words, it is a strategic theory; it is a reflexive
theory, as the Westerners say, that is, it comes back to itself. In other
words, our opinion about the intellect will also include our own intellect.
In my opinion, this is the battle scene in which we must fight. Beyond
this, every sect will remain with its particular opinions and understanding
of its own truth. Saying that Shi”ism is right and others, depending
on their distance from and closeness to it have truth, is a theological
argument, is the position of every Shi”ite, and is not related to
pluralism at all. Of course, every believer has this opinion about himself.
Whether or not we are Shi”ites, we must discuss the issue of pluralism
independently from our theological and sectarian opinions. To say that they
have some of the truth because they have those in common with us is again
not the answer to the question. The issue of pluralism concerns the
differences and not the common grounds. In other words, it is when there is
multiplicity and not sameness.
I should also add that the issue of pluralism does not mean that all
are right. This is an understanding that some have acquired, and
unfortunately it is a false one. In the article on “Direct Paths,” I have
clearly stated and I will also repeat here: The discussion on pluralism is
to explain the plurality that exists in the world, whether this plurality
is in the truths or it is a plurality that contains a mixture of truth and
falsehood. A plurality has appeared in the world. This plurality should be
explained, and these explanations should be either with cause or reason.
But to say that there is falsehood in this plurality is beyond argument.
Certainly, there are false doctrines in the world. Undoubtedly, as Mowlavi
says:
He who says all are right is a fool/ He who says all are false is
vicious.
Hence, we are not at a point of proving by discussing pluralism and
making others see everyone as equal and considering every sect right. We
are absolutely not arguing that you should not consider any difference
between different sects and different religions. This is the wrong
understanding of the issue. Also, we are not trying to show that we are
right or more right than others, any one of them. When we juxtapose the
fact that there is plurality in the world, there is truth and falsehood,
that 1) various religions exist, that 2) each considers itself right, that
4) every sect believes that the majority of the people in the world are
either misguided or mistaken, that 5) God is merciful and guiding, and that
6) people are wise, have a choice, and seek the truth, a series of
questions arise. To solve these problems, we must have a theory about the
intellect and one about divine guidance to explain the existing plurality
of reason or plurality of cause. As I said, whether we believe in
conspiracy in the history of religions, whether we believe in people”s
mistaken understanding, or we believe in people”s hostility, none of
these solve the problem, because we immediately ask why the majority are
hostile to the truth, why the majority of the people misunderstand, why the
majority of the people have been deceived by the conspiracy and have not
recognized the truth? Again we see that the task of explanation has not
ended. Hence, assuming that we solve these problems inside one religion,
the larger question remains. Discussing the standards of truth and
falsehood also does not solve anything, because the wise in the nation
believe that they have become committed to their own way by using criteria
and reasons. In other words, the same reasons and criteria have created
pluralism and, hence, by mentioning criteria, plurality will not disappear.
My suggestion is that we pursue an extra‑religious discussion and
leave internal religious judgment to a time when the extra‑religions
opinion has become clear. I must also say that it is not enough to say that
those who act sincerely in their religion and [illegible] are excused.
Correct opinion teaches us that, as long as a person is not consciously
hostile to the truth (the truth that he himself understands) in this world,
he is subject to God”s mercy. There is no question about this. We can
also say this as an extra‑religious issue. God does not look for excuses to
send people to Hell. He looks for excuses to send people to Heaven. The
Sufi opinion is true, which states: Heaven is given by excuse and not at a
price. Also, I should add that, in pluralism, there is no debate concerning
no reason defeating another reason in the area of religion. The debate is
that after, supposedly, we remove the ideas that are decisively false from
the scene, there still remain ideas and reasons that compete and show equal
strength, precisely as we have in religious jurisprudence. In other words,
the discussion of pluralism starts from the point that the champions have
fought the battles, the weak have left the field, and those with equal
strength remain. I have stated this point as positive pluralism in “Direct
Paths.”
Hojjat ol‑Eslam Kadivar
Everyone”s religiousness, even the public”s, has a “reason,”
from his own perspective. No one accepts a religion without a reason. But
this reason may be weak or strong. The learned do not consider much of the
reasons of the public to be reasons and believe that much of such reasons
is “cause.” Hence, from this perspective, even causes can be changed to
reason, even though from a different angle reasons can be changed to
causes.
In the explanation that you pointed out, there was both the issue of
“equality of reasons” and also the issue that accepting pluralism does not
require all religions to be right. Well, certainly, you must consider some
limits within which to believe in the equality of reasons of some religions
and consider religions that are outside these limits as false. Otherwise,
you also admit that falsehood cannot give reasons that are of the same
level and equality with the reasons of truth.
Firstly, we ask of you for a “measure” with which to choose some of
the existing religions and doctrines, and on the basis of this measure
identify the false religions and doctrines, as you say, to believe in the
equality of reasons of other religions. Does religious pluralism allow such
a thing? And on the basis of the epistemology that you explained, will we
have a “criterion” with which to choose among the existing religions? Or
should we believe that every religion or every claim (even though likely
false) which has given reason as its claim is on the same level as the
reasons of other religions (even though those religions are right)?
Secondly, the explanation that you offered of pluralism has an implied
contradiction. If we discuss truth and falsehood, undoubtedly, we believe
that truth can be separated from falsehood, and that this separation is
possible with “reason.” Hence, the assumption of accepting the truth and
falsehood and dismissal of some religions and sects as “false” is to accept
“reason” and reasoning in such a discussion, and we separate truth from
falsehood on the basis of “reasoning.” My question is, among other
religions, how do we claim that there is a possibility that they are wrong
and at the same time their reasons are equal to the reasons of another
religion that may be right? In other words, is there equality of reasons in
truth and falsehood or failure to distinguish truth from falsehood? Also,
if after rejecting the weak reasons you accept the equality of the winners,
how does a person whose religion has equal reasons remain in his own faith
and belief?
Dr. Sorush
I repeat, in the discussion of pluralism, actually, we are not trying
to provide the criteria of truth and falsehood. We are not engaged in a
theological discussion. Were it a theological discussion, one side would
insist on the truth of one sect and another side on the truth of another.
There have been many such discussions and they require no repetition. The
criteria that you want in a very general sense of the word is the same as
the criterion of reasons. After all, anyone who claims that something is
right and believes that it is must have reasons. This is the criterion, on
the whole, and there is no other criterion, because we are not subject to
divine inspiration, and we do not want to rely on internal evidence and
experiences in this connection. Hence, if someone has a reason, and his
reason is acceptable, we accept what he says. We have no other duty, and I
do not think that we have anything further to say in this connection. In
any case, you say yourself what the criterion is, so that I can show that
the criterion itself generates plurality. But I think that the discussion
of plurality is something else, and we must start elsewhere. It is what I
said. The question is, why is it that, despite the fact that there has
existed a criterion called reasons, reasons have been different, none of
them have driven another out of the field, the wise men of no sect have
listened to the reasons of the rival sect, and the differences have lasted
forever? Again, one must either say that they were inflexible theories that
come back to haunt us, or we must say that it is what it is, and we should
not expect more in the arena of religions. Reasons are not capable of doing
more, and God of the world has wished this. In any case, the issue of truth
and falsehood in the arena of religion is more complicated than we
apparently assume.
We are facing this situation. The question of pluralism is not the
story of the criterion for truth and falsehood. Neither is it the negation
of truth and falsehood. Nor is it the story of the equality of truth and
falsehood. It is not the story of position in regard to a particular sect,
and which is right and which is wrong, and from our own internal position,
for that matter. It is the story of taking positions with regard to the
essence of plurality. We want to explain why these pluralities have
appeared, and once we have done so and reached an opinion about religious
wisdom and divine guidance, then our position in regard to these sects will
be more clear. For you to look for the criterion to distinguish truth from
falsehood is precisely to leave the issue, and I have frequently said that
it will not get anywhere. Have we lacked discussion about criterion and
reasons? Suppose we provide a criterion with new proof. We would be
confusing the situation more than it is. The question is, why has this
confusion remained and no intellect is able to eliminate it? There is a
time when we say we are right and others are wrong and reject them. This is
a religious discussion. In other words, it is from our own particular
position. But if you take the question one step further back, accept that
we are right and the rest wrong, the question that arises is, why have all
this right and wrong appeared in the world, especially wrong that considers
itself right and, precisely like us, does not want to retract? It is not us
alone who say we are right and the rest are wrong. No matter whom you ask,
he would say the same. It is not us alone who are prepared to be killed for
our ideas. Others do the same. It is not us alone who are facing internal
confusion with regard to religion. Other religions are facing the same.
Giving a religious jurisprudential or theological answer that we are
right and others are wrong is an answer for the internal followers of the
religion. But our question is not this question at all. Our question is
outside the argument.
A simple example is that, as residents of a particular land, we might
be at war with the residents of another country. We consider ourselves to
be right, and they also consider themselves to be right. But someone else
from the outside might say, I want to see why war has appeared in this
world at all. I am not concerned about what the problem is between one
country and another at the present, which one is telling the truth, which
one is wrong. I want to know, what is the structure of humanity that
creates wars and cannot live in peace? Especially when we see that war is
continual, and in every century and period of history different extensive
wars have occurred. In other words, it appears that it cannot be
eliminated. Of course, the form of the wars can be changed, and the level
of quarrels and the kinds of weapons that they use against each other can
change, but war itself remains. Hence, perhaps God wills it. Perhaps it is
futile to try to eliminate it. Perhaps human intellect and structure should
be changed to put war aside. Perhaps war cannot be eliminated by fighting.
Perhaps war is, in fact, desirable, and many other ‘perhapses.’
Yes, this is pluralism. If we come close to answering this question, then
our position in regards to those whom we consider right and those we
consider wrong will be more clear. In other words, if you answer this
question first, we can take the next step. Here, no matter which sect we
choose to consider right as our premise (Shi”ites, Sunnis, etc.),
still we are not exempt from answering the next question. The secret of the
differences and plurality of sects continues to demand an answer, even
though when we discuss that Shi”ism (or Sunnism) is right, we know
that if we say Shi”ism is right, we do not mean that whatever some
Shi”ite scholar has said is all right. And we know that Shi”ism
is nothing but what the Shi”ite scholars have written in their books
on their understanding of Shi”ism. In other words, Shi”ism is not
pure truth, in the same way that Sunnism and other sects and religions are
not. In their opinion, truth and falsehood are found. But supposing that we
consider all that Shi”ite scholars have said to be right and regard
the others to be right or wrong according to their proximity to
Shi”ism, still we are not exempt from the extra‑religious discussion.
My question to Mr. Kadivar is, what is really your opinion about the
secret of this plurality and variety that implies truth and falsehood? What
is your explanation of this issue?
Hojjat ol‑Eslam Kadivar
Before answering your question, it is necessary for me to make a
point. The explanation that you provided, that supposing we have a shared
opinion “within religion,” but “outside religion,” the question remains in
place, in this “second‑level explanation” that you offer of the plurality
of religions, do you believe in its “second‑level results”? Or do you
conclude first‑level knowledge from a second‑level discussion? In your
statements, both in this session and also in the article under discussion,
“first‑level” conclusions are derived from a “second‑level” perspective. If
we say that “neither can much burden be placed on such a religion nor can
we have much expectation of it,” this is, in fact, a “first‑level”
discussion. In other words, from the perspective and position of an
epistemologist at the second level, you have come down and drawn
“first‑level” conclusions. As an epistemologist at the second level, you
should not offer recommendations and guidance in a position of an
epistemologist at the first level. You can merely explain and describe. You
do not stay in your “second‑level” understanding. You offer first‑level
conclusions, and these conclusions may seem contradictory to religious
belief and remaining within religious faith and may create certain
problems, or at least ambiguities, which cannot be addressed on the basis
of your premises. By merely saying that you have brought an epistemologist
at the second level into the discussion, you cannot make my questions
irrelevant.
Dr. Sorush
What is meant is not second‑level of epistemology. In my statements, I
mostly emphasized extra‑religious discussion, and my main emphasis is that
extra‑religious and religious are different from second‑level and
first‑level epistemology. If we clarify our opinion outside religion and
use it as a basis, it will then have an effect on our opinion within
religion. But the discussion of second‑level epistemology is another
discussion. If we look at pluralism as an extra‑religious issue, and
certainly if we explain it and reach a certain and trustworthy, clear
opinion, it will surely have an effect on our opinions within religion. In
fact, the opinion within religion becomes dependent on the extra‑religions
one, and, in the least, they will interact and have a dialogue. I am not
afraid of using extra‑religions opinions inside religion. It will resemble
our opinion about justice or choice. If we develop it outside religion and
clarify it, we can make use of it within religion.
Subslug: Part III of discussion between Hojjat ol‑Eslam Mohsen Kadivar and Dr.
“Abdolkarim Sorush
Hojjat ol‑Eslam Kadivar
Your discussions have two aspects. You described them as
“extra‑religious” and also emphasized “second‑level knowledge.” Separating
the extra‑religious issue and the issue of second‑level knowledge is not
very helpful. Nevertheless, if we accept that the issues you discussed are
not “second‑level issues” and are merely extra‑religious issues, in
addition to the previous problem that remains, new problems are raised, as
follows:
Even if the discussions are intra‑religious, in fact, not every
extra‑religious opinion can be compatible with every intra‑religious
opinion. Undoubtedly, every specific extra‑religious opinion will have
compatibility with a particular issue that is intra‑religious. What I am
saying is that, if you reach “equality of reasons” outside religion,
“within the religion” reaching the “legitimacy of a particular religion” in
any sense of achieving a particular faith is seriously questionable. In
other words, can it be said that this choice of reasons that I mentioned in
regards to the truth of my own religion can be replaced? In other words,
are there other reasons that prove the contrary, while, at the same time, I
believe in the truth of a particular religion? In other words, is “equality
of reasons” outside religion compatible with “legitimacy of the reasons of
a religion”? This question requires an answer. How can the causality of
reasons and the legitimacy of a particular religion be made compatible? He
who has found the reasons of various religions equal and non‑preferable
outside religion is deprived of preferred intra‑religious reasons. Hence,
he does not have a reason (which is irrefutable and irreplaceable) why his
own religion is right. As a result, he cannot have “faith” in the
legitimacy of his own religion. The truth should either be “evidenced” or
should be obtained by reasoning. Equality of reasons is the utterance of
one who has, firstly, not reached the level of “evidence” and, secondly,
either lacks the scholarly ability to state or understand the preferred
reason or is at the second level of knowledge, merely as an observer and
spectator of the followers of religions. And, of course, such a person
(whether due to lack of scholarly ability or as an epistemologist of the
second level) is not allowed to issue decrees, recommendations, and
prejudgments. He cannot go further than explaining and describing the
actual variety of religions and [cannot] believe in the plurality of truth.
The problem with religious pluralism is when the external plurality of
religions is assumed to be inevitable and real and when from succeeding
descriptions and study and second‑level discussions conclusions and
first‑level prejudgments are offered. The logical requirement of the
equality of reasons of a religion (the extra‑religious discussion) is the
impossibility of recognizing the legitimacy of a particular religion.
Religious pluralism is incompatible with faith and certainty. Saying that
the issue of pluralism is not related to the issue of truth and falsehood
does not solve any problem, because, on the basis of religious pluralism,
we cannot consider one religion to be true and another false. The
impossibility of separating truth from falsehood is the logical requirement
of religious pluralism. The implied basis of religious pluralism is
absolute relativity in the area of knowledge.
The second point is that you say that the majority of the thinkers in
the world should certainly have reached a correct opinion. Why? For what
reason should the majority have chosen the correct opinion? Do you have a
reason for this claim, or do you consider what the majority of the thinkers
have concluded to be obvious truth? And if we accept that the majority of
the thinkers have not necessarily chosen the right opinion, in a
“succeeding study,” can reasons or causes be mentioned for such a claim? By
“succeeding study,” one can neither claim that the majority of the thinkers
would make the correct choice, nor can one claim that the majority of the
thinkers would make the wrong choice. Using prejudgment, one cannot say
that the majority must reach truth or falsehood. By “succeeding” study, we
reach the conclusion that a number of the thinkers in the world have erred
in reaching the truth. Now, this error and not reaching the truth could
have different reasons and causes.
The third point: In regards to divine guidance, which you resorted to
several times, it is interesting that “guidance” has two meanings. One is
to offer a path and another is to reach the desirable. What is incompatible
with the misguidance of the majority is the second meaning of guidance,
which, incidentally, is not what is meant by divine guidance, because it is
incompatible with human choice and is incompatible with the issue of the
testing of humans in the world, as well. What is meant by divine guidance,
which is achieved by God‑given intellect and sending prophets, is “offering
the way.” With regard to this divine guidance, human beings are divided
into two groups: the grateful and the ungrateful. Apparently, your
understanding in regards to guidance is the second meaning, which is the
contrary reason.
Fourth point: In regards to the fourth point, you asked: What is the
secret behind the plurality and variety of religions? First, the difference
in the capacities of humans has caused God to send numerous prophets to
guide them. These revealed religions have dubious differences. The later
religions contain the perfection of the former ones. All these religions
report on the unity of the beginning and the end, and with the professing
of each religion in regards to the previous ones, the claim of inevitable
plurality becomes baseless. With the coming of a new revealed religion, the
believers are responsible to profess their faith in the new prophet and his
teachings. But, for some, for reasons which I will refer to later on, did
not do so. Second is the statement that you have also accepted, that the
complexity of the truth, the grandeur of the supreme, and the lofty status
of religion have resulted in different and numerous interpretations. We
have no argument about this, when an issue is complex and supreme, on the
one hand, and then the issue of the level of human understanding and
comparing it with a supreme issue causes different interpretations. This
point is a serious one in regards to the plurality of non‑revealed
religions. But, in divine religions, certain criteria, standards, and
principles have been offered for man to have a correct understanding of the
sacred and the supreme. In your writings and speeches, no attention has
been paid to the directives of religion in this vital issue. Has God
Himself paid attention to the grandeur and complexity of this truth or not?
Has He not instructed his prophets to guide mankind in these different
interpretations? You resort to “divine guidance” (besides the previous
problem that guidance means offering the path and not achieving the
desired). My question is, why are you negligent of “divine wisdom?” Does
not “divine wisdom” require that after all to offer general directives in
regards to correcting human understanding of the supreme and the sacred,
which is called religion? This is the claim of divine religions, that God
has provided us with such general guidance through His prophets. In
interpreting the issue of the sacred, you have accepted that the
understanding of the prophet is the criterion. Why have you accepted this
criterion only in regards to “interpretation of the issue of the
sacred”? In the issue of “interpreting religious texts” as well, we
have general guidelines from religion. In other words, in both issues of
“interpretation of religious texts” and the “interpretation of the
sacred,” we have such a criterion. The answer to this question prevents
some of the differences in understanding. Some of these standards have been
violated/ignored. At least, this is the interpretation of the common
practice of scholars. Hence, this is one secret behind the variety and
plurality.
The third secret behind the variety of religions, which belongs to the
category of “causes” and not “reasons,” and which you avoided, is that
worldly selfishness, desires, and impurity blind the eye of human
intellect. You mentioned Professor Motahhari. Did you expect Motahhari, for
instance, after studying and contemplation in religious jurisprudence,
theology, and philosophy, to change his religion and sect? Expecting to
find an example of changing Islam or Shi”ism is based on a particular
epistemological theory, in other words, absolute relativism. Given the fact
that Ghazali claimed that for 10 years he was being purified and admitting
that his final opinion was the same as his initial one, would you accept
this statement merely because Ghazali said it? Should we accept the claim
of purification by any scholar and not assume that selfishness has a role
in it? Especially since our intra‑religious opinions emphasize that man is
under the influence of desires, and few human beings have been saved by the
grace of God from this calamity. Desires, worldliness, selfishness, and
ambition can blind human intellect and cause him to trample the truth. The
issue of “negation” and denial in the Koran and the repetition of “the
majority are unwise” and “the majority are ignorant” or [Arabic passages
omitted] are not compatible with your theory of intellect but contrary to
it. Religious belief will cause you to once again contemplate this theory
of intellect and revise it. We can give numerous examples of this issue in
history. The secret behind some of the varieties can be such causes. For
example, think about what the Koran asserts in regards to the solid and
allegorical discussions. Why do you not use the answer that the Koran
provides here? Have all those who have misunderstood the allegories had
scholarly opinions? I am saying it from an intra‑religious perspective. The
same can be said from the extra‑religions perspective. When someone has
merely expressed a religious opinion, is this opinion not affected by any
extra‑religious causes, such as hereditary, educational, environmental,
psychological, and other causes? It can be. We discussed its probability,
and we cannot deny it. Historical facts also verify this point. Why did the
Jews during the time of Jesus not accept his prophethood, despite the
miracles? Is there any other cause but hostility to truth, denial, and
worldly selfishness? Why did the infidels, the Jews, and the Christians
during the time of Mohammad not accept his prophethood, despite the final
miracle, the Koran? In fact, the Koran is explicit about the cause of
denial of the truth. Considering such negation and denial as results of
equality of reasons is unkind.
The fourth secret behind the variety of religions is the difference
between human understanding and the ignorance of some levels of truth. The
thinkers who are safe from the scourge of denial and selfishness and the
ones adorned with scholarly fairness are not all at the same level of
perception and wisdom, similar to the difference in levels between Salman
and Abuzar. Of course, this point is not as widespread and abundant as the
previous one.
Fifth point: Another point is the issue of equality of reasons. You
said that religion is a place for the equality of reasons. First, on the
basis of your epistemological foundation, I want to make a comparison
between the religious and common human knowledge. You can have a similar
opinion outside religion, as well. In fact, you may say that the sciences
are the place for the equality of reasons. In each of the human sciences,
various schools have been offered, and the advocates of each school do not
consider other schools to be right but believe that their interpretation of
external reality is incorrect. These schools, as well, continue their
scientific existence without the advocate of each school wanting to
consider the reasons of another school as complete. At the same time, the
student of that science learns both views and can believe in one of those
two views. The issue of attitude in practice and tolerance is one issue and
the issue of pluralism, that is, accepting equality of reasons, is another.
The core of the discussion is that, in the world of truth, one cannot
believe in the “equality of reasons” and remain a religious believer at the
same time. In other words, my question concerns the possibility of the
compatibility of these two premises. How can one believe in the reason of
“intra‑religious” truth through that “extra‑religious” equality of reasons?
Secondly, another problem is that Kant reached the inability of human
intellect in metaphysics and proved the need for religion through ethics.
Apparently, through ethics, you are also facing the same problem of
equality of reasons, and this procedure is precisely true in ethics, as
well. For what reason should this issue remain only in the domain of
beliefs? To state it more clearly, by accepting the basis of the equality
of reasons, no domain remains for the truth of reasons, neither beliefs nor
ethics. And the domain of religious experience is personal and is not the
domain of reasons. Ultimately, the problem will be that one cannot give
reasons in regards to religion and religious faith. (What is meant by
reasons is preferred reasons, not afflicted by equal irrefutable proof of
the same strength.) In other words, religious belief becomes an issue with
no proof or reason. It would make no difference to accept Religion A or
Religion B. The reasons of both religions are equal, and religious belief
only has “causes”: psychological, environmental, and hereditary causes.
Obviously, when the reasons are afflicted by equality of reasons, on the
basis of your statement, one cannot speak of “reasons for religious
belief.” Do you see where such a basis leads? Do such requirements not
prove the falsehood of the premise?
Thirdly, another point is that this issue of “equality of reasons” has
no end. There are sects in our society which the religious believers in our
society unanimously believe are colonialist sects. Can one believe that the
reasons of such obviously false sects are equal to the reasons of divine
religions? So far, you have not offered any criterion regarding the
separation of truth and falsehood in religion. On this basis, anyone who,
from the perspective of his own religion and in his own opinion, sets forth
a reason can be included in this discussion. Are such sects and religions
permitted into the domain of equality of reasons in religious pluralism? By
what standards will you discuss the sects? In an extra‑religious
discussion, do you consider their reasons equal to the reasons of other
religions? I do not believe in the “equality of reasons,” even in
extra‑religious terms. I do not accept that extra‑religious knowledge is
“relative.” On the contrary, I can offer criteria to determine that some of
these reasons are wrong and others are valid and prove the legitimacy of a
religion inside the religion, because, undoubtedly, proving the legitimacy
of that religion will not be within that religion. Proving the truth or
legitimacy of each religion will be outside that religion. A person who
reaches equality of reasons outside religion absolutely cannot believe in
the truth of a particular religion. Hence, we must clarify the situation of
legitimacy outside religion. You cannot regard the issue of legitimacy as
an intra‑religious issue and believe in equality of reasons outside
religion. The serious question is, where do you prove the truth of
religion? Because inside religion, certainly “[illegible]” will occur; you
will have to resort to [reasons] outside religion. But outside religion, as
well, you believe in equality of reasons. Then, how do you prove the issue
of the legitimacy of the religion?
Dr. Sorush
In fact, we reached the point that if in regards to the actual
plurality of religions, we reach a particular view, undoubtedly, it will
affect our opinions with regard to our religion. In other words, if we
believe that in proving the legitimacy of various religions (after
rejecting those which are definitely false), we have reached equality of
reasons, then we must understand the meaning of being right in another way
and change our philosophical system with regard to intellect, truth, etc.,
as did Kant. In fact, until we have clarified what areas we are
confronting, questions about truth and falsehood are irrelevant. With
regard to an external phenomenon, truth has one meaning, and with regard to
its text, it has another. Moreover, we must offer a criterion of truth as
to whether we are Aristotelian or believe in another doctrine. There is no
doubt in this, and I think that there is agreement between us on this
issue. You raised many questions and problems. Many such questions can be
posed, but I wanted to see what you ultimately say about explaining
plurality. Apparently, what I understand from your statements is that you
say a mixture of reasons and causes have created plurality. In other words,
there is no problem with us having both reasons and causes. In other words,
this is the limitation of the intellect. When we ask about the secret
behind plurality, the secret behind plurality is either summed up in causes
or in reasons, or a mixture of causes and reasons. One cannot say that it
is neither causes nor reasons. In other words, the fourth category is
automatically assumed. When it is a mixture of causes and reasons, in my
opinion, the criticism that we stated is doubly true about you. We had some
criticism of causal interpretation. Because you also accepted causes, they
are relevant to you. We also had criticism of reason interpretation, and
you accepted reason. Hence, you are the target of these deadly arrows,
which are aimed at you from both sides, and your task becomes difficult. In
other words, you have, in fact, offered a theory about the intellect. You
say that the people operate somewhat with reasons and somewhat with causes
(that is, desires, selfishness, etc.). If this is what you say, this is
also true about my opinion and yours, as we believe in one of the
religions. I said that, no matter what opinion we give about plurality, it
will come back to us, because we ourselves are facing plurality. We cannot
separate ourselves from others. We ourselves in practice believe in one of
these religious positions.
Regarding the Shi”ite scholars who have also accepted one of the
religions, it is partly due to reasons and partly due to causes. It is not
correct to say that only Shi”ites have acted on the basis of intellect
and reason and that is why they accepted Shi”ism, but the rest, that
is, the non‑Shi”ites, acted irrationally (pure cause or reason mixed
with cause). This is a general explanation and includes all, Shi”ites
and non‑Shi”ites.
If that is so, we will reach the initial position that the followers
of various religions are all companions. All can tell each other, you also
belong here. You have some reason and you have also mixed with it some
impurities from elsewhere. Your reasons can be challenged, and there are
other reasons of the same strength. Hence, we are all equal. We can only
boast to others, claim to be superior, or flaunt our legitimacy, when we
are really separate from others, when we can say, you have misunderstood,
your reasons are quite false, you are hostile, you misunderstand, you are
deficient of intellect, etc. But, no matter which one of these we say, we
see that we ourselves are also included (intellect and fairness also
dictate this). We can no longer separate ourselves from others easily. In
that case, we reach the first place again and more or less give equal
shares to everyone.
In my writing, I have stated that the world is filled with the average
and that the average are the same. The average Christians and Muslims have
become Christian and Muslims in quite the same way, because the former were
born into a Christian environment, and the latter into a Muslim one. In
fact, they are quite the same, and God will treat them equally. This is
what our intellect dictates. The same is true of the Buddhists and the
Hindus. This average situation that makes up the majority in the world is,
in fact, clear. Their plurality has a clear cause. Their religion is all
causal, and reason has no role in their faith. It is all due to imitation
and inculcation. But when reason comes into play and the issue concerns the
thinkers and theologians, it becomes more interesting. The question is, why
do these thinkers not accept each other”s views? Have, after all, the
Jews heard little of the reasons of the Christians? In fact, they have
lived together for centuries and are accused of having killed Jesus. And,
on the other hand, have the Christians heard little of the reasons of the
Jews? They have, but they do not accept the reasons of each other. Why do
the scholars not accept each other”s reasons? Have the Shi”ite
and Sunni scholars given each other few reasons? Why do the scholars not
accept each other”s reasons? After all, there are only two choices.
You must either say that the Sunni scholars are all selfish, follow their
desires, and have no fear of God, and they reject the clear reasoning of
the Shi”ites. Or, you must say that the Shi”ite scholars follow
their desires and reject the reasoning of the Sunnis. (And I do not dare
say either.) Or you must say something else. This is no small problem. Two
groups of great, God‑fearing, faithful Muslim scholars have had a scholarly
argument with each other for 1300 years, and neither side of the argument
has been convinced [by the other]. Or you might say that no matter how many
Sunnis God creates, there is something wrong with the intellect, or no
matter how many Shi”ites God creates, there is a deficiency in their
genes, or you should find another solution. It is here that it is said that
the domain of religion is a domain that, when intellect steps in, it
reaches equality of reasons, that is, it reaches a dead end, as in the
domain of metaphysics and unlike the domain of empirical sciences, even
though today, with the paradigms of Cohen and Foucault and the like, the
domain of empirical sciences is not dissimilar to the domain of political
ideologies and metaphysical schools. It was Popper who regarded science as
the domain of the intellect. But the post‑modernists even deny this.
Moreover, the domain of religious jurisprudence is a good example of the
domain of equality of reasons. But, as for pluralism being incompatible
with the legitimacy of a particular religion, what is meant by that? Does
it mean that pluralism is incompatible with its own meaning? Is this what
you expect? But, in regards to the thinkers of the world, what we say is,
why, despite being thinkers, have they reached contradictory statements in
the domain of religion? You must either say that some are not thinkers,
which is contrary to the assumption, or you must say that they have not
followed the dictates of their intellect. Then, one must ask, why? Or you
must say that the domain of religious intellect is the domain of pluralism,
which is what we are seeking.
Thirdly, equality of reasons is a succeeding‑descriptive and not a
preceding‑recommended issue. We must see whether or not we have reached it
somewhere. Kant said, in metaphysics we have. Some also say we have in
ethics. In any case, it is after the historical extension of a technique
that we can make such judgments.
But, as for how I prove the legitimacy of a religion, am I supposed to
be different from others? Everyone has reasons for himself, and so do I.
But the question is, when you look and see that there are many believers
and faithful, they are different, and each presents reasons for his claims,
the same six premises that I stated earlier apply here and require
solutions. In any case, pluralism is compatible with plural legitimacy and
not with exclusive legitimacy. And this is precisely its claim. After
accepting pluralism, our understanding of legitimacy changes. Hence, we
must first decide about pluralism and then the legitimacy of this or that
religion.
In any case, these negative statements also have an affirmative aspect
that I will explain. So far, we had confined ourselves to the two branches
of reason and cause. We said, either provide a causal explanation or a
reason explanation, and faced problems and dead ends, which, to be fair,
would not be easy to get out of. Now, I want to add one branch to the two
branches and see what results and consequences we reach if we enter in this
way into the discussion. Let us have a quick review of the history of
philosophy. In the history of philosophy, we have mainly had two
directions. One was the reason direction, which comprises the entire
history of philosophy up to the 19th century. Among us Muslims, who are the
heirs to Greek philosophy, almost up to the present, our philosophy is a
philosophy of reason, and it is excellent. In other words, philosophers
give reasons before one another and engage in the dismissal or validation
of each other”s opinions. From the 19th century on, when psychology
and sociology became strong, in a sense, one can say from the time of Kant,
philosophy was looked at causally. In other words, gradually, scholars said
that it should not be so, that philosophers stand to discredit each
other”s reasons, but behind the reason, there are motives and causes,
and even though they fight a war of reason, in fact, they are fighting a
causal war. And then Marx”s ideology and Freud”s subconscious all
were methods to change reason to causality and for explaining how a thinker
who thinks and provides reasons has something else going on in his mind,
how it works, and puts reasons in his mouth and pen. In fact, they changed
reason to the fabrication of reason. They said that we have no reasons,
what we have is fabrication of reasons. We have no reasoning, but make
things appear reasonable. We have no reason; we have rationalization. You
have another wish to which you give a rational cover. As soon as we unveil
your desire, the purpose becomes clear, and your hand is revealed. It is
the same in post‑modernism. But this one raises the issue of the variety of
cultures and strives to reduce the role of the intellect in history. They
[post‑modernists] believe that the intellect was an illuminator that relied
on reason, and that today we have understood that intellects are also
historical and captives of other factors. But another path has also opened
in the history of philosophy since the 19th century, which is thriving
today, and that is the branch of hermeneutics, that is, referring to
meaning. Hence, we have three methods of thought: the reason‑finding method
of thinking, the cause‑finding method of thinking, and the meaning‑finding
method of thinking. In a sense, you are not after the cause, nor, in fact,
is there a claim at all for you to demand reason. There is no phenomenon
for which you should seek a cause. Rather, there is a text, the meaning of
which you want to understand. This is a very important issue. I said, in
the domain of religion, when reason enters in, intellect is deflated,
resulting in equality of reasons. If we advance with cause, we face
problems, and religious belief turns into an irrational phenomenon, such as
color and race. If we advance with reason, we face a problem and confront
the dead end of the intellect. The solution is to go to the meaning. The
domain of religion is the domain of finding meaning. Unfortunately, we
neglect this third branch.
Mr. Kadivar pointed out that in the domain of human sciences, it has
reached equality of reasons. In other words, in sociology and psychology,
various scholars make different statements, and none accepts another. I
want to point out that this is true. But, precisely in the domain of human
sciences, hermeneutics, that is where meaning comes in, and incidentally,
this verifies our opinion that, in finding meaning, we have positive
pluralism. In other words, we actually have an explanatory plurality that
cannot be changed to unity, because in the domain of human sciences and in
the branch of hermeneutics of epistemology, you see the society as a text
and read it to get its meaning. There is neither a claim for you to have to
give reasons, nor a phenomenon for which you should deterministically
mention a cause. In fact, this is the nature of hermeneutics, and it
reaches a sort of definite pluralism. In other words, in interpretation,
our interpretations become varied and numerous and, in fact, it reaches the
point that several rival interpretations are left on the scene, none of
which can eliminate the other. In fact, the best place for us to see and
understand pluralism is where we strive to discover meaning.
In more philosophical terms, the text is a nonspecific issue and is,
by nature, ambiguous. Contrary to existence that is equal to specificity,
meaning is not so in the text, and, hence, multiple meanings are
inevitable. The text is like a cloudy mass from the various sides of which
light is shown, creating various shadows.
Hence, now I will complete the previous discussion in this way, that
the domain of religion is the domain of finding meaning. When a domain
becomes that of finding meaning, it is a domain of plurality, and this
plurality is a requirement and necessary for finding meaning. The plurality
that occurs in both the understanding of religious experience and in
religious understanding has no solution, and we must accept it. Now, if we
have a theory about legitimacy, we must set it forth in this geography. We
must refer legitimacy neither to reasons nor to causes. Rather, we must
relate it to meanings and interpretation. We must see whether, with regard
to the interpretation of religion and the interpretation of religious
experience, considering the shortcomings of the intellect and human
understanding and considering the long human experience, we can speak of
being right or wrong in the common sense of the words (that is, by the
Aristotelian criterion of compatibility with reality) or not. While
accepting definite plurality that exists here and cannot be eliminated, I
will also ask a question of the kind that you ask. Did you expect Ghazali,
after all that scientific and mystical search, to ultimately give up
Ash”arism and Islam and become a Shi”ite or a Christian?
Moreover, I am still waiting to see what your criterion is that will
eliminate plurality and all the differences.