Al-Daleel

The topic of religious pluralism is one of theological, philosophical and contemporary religious studies. It has a distinguished position in the fields of contemporary human thought. In contrast, there is the view that calls for singularity and for a kind of religious reductionism. Therefore, this article tries, through an analytical, descriptive, and critical approach, to study religious pluralism by explaining its nature, the stages of its development, its internal and external kinds, purposes, and the various factors that has led to its appearance. Moreover, the study tries to discuss its philosophical basics and foundations, besides its epistemological and social dimensions, and its effects, discussing, after that, its ultimate result that would pave the way for superstitions, sophistry, contradiction of revelation and human instinct, and many other things.

The study of the Qurans comprehensiveness is one of modern studies concerning the Quranic sciences and interpretation. The Qurans comprehensiveness means that the Holy Quran covers all aspects of life, whether political, social, economic or others. On the other side, there is secularism that rejects this fact. Secularists have distorted the Quranic concepts and meanings and taken them away from their purposes, just to promote secularism in Muslim societies. After proving that the Quran covers all aspects of man’s life, we have discussed in this article the views of secularism with criticism and analysis, refuting their claims that religion and the Holy Quran have had nothing to do with social and political rules. The secularistic view that denies any interference of religion in worldly matters is certainly false. It is not consistent with the universal teachings of the Quran concerning worldly affairs, and the effective role of those teachings in mans life and his seeking to gain happiness and perfection. The Holy Quran mentions the principles of social relations and general basics and rulings of political system, and this indicates its comprehensiveness of both social and political dimensions. On the other hand, the interpretation of the Quranic verses by secularists for proving the separation of religion from society, politics, and government, is either an interpretation by ones own opinion, or an interpretation without paying any attention to the rational and verbal indications or evidences.

The article discusses the freedom of belief between humanism and religious thought. And since each one of humanism and religious thought has theoretical principles that usually contribute to issuing their worldviews and promote their viewpoint towards freedom of belief; therefore, the article begins with showing those principles, and explaining each one’s viewpoint towards the matter of freedom of belief. Based on the centrality of man, humanism sees that freedom of belief lies in irreligiosity, or at least in the doubting about the validity of religion, besides accusing the religious thought of confiscating freedom of belief in various ways. In fact, religious thought has confirmed the matter of freedom of belief, according to some important elements; such as the denial of compulsion in religion, and that freedom of belief is the axis of reward and punishment in the Hereafter, and the rejection of violence. The most important finding the study has got to is that humanism, despite its attractive slogans, has not offered to man his real freedom of belief. And as for true religious thought, it has given to man his freedom of belief; for true religious thought sees that the confiscating of freedom of belief, in any ways, contradicts the wisdom, on which the foundation of divine legislation has been built due to the fact of trying human beings by letting them free in their choices.

This study discusses the views of Fakhruddin al-Razi in his book al-Tafsir al-Kabeer (the big exegesis), or as called Mafateehul-Ghayb (the Keys of the Unseen) concerning some issues related to the monotheism of God Almighty. The article discusses and criticizes these opinions with a brief reference to the most reliable opinion on which the Twelver Shia rely. The main problem that this article discusses is showing the important points of the theological issues that relate to the true monotheism of God’s essence and how He is characterized by His attributes, so that His real oneness would not be defected. This issue has played a major role in the Islamic heritage, especially in the theological field, and more specifically in the exegetical heritage of Fakhruddin al-Razi through his explanation of the meanings of Qur’anic verses. The approaches followed in this article are the inductive, analytical, and critical approaches; so, I have induced al-Razis opinions on these matters, analyzed and criticized them when necessary. The conclusion I have got to in the article is that the doctrinal backgrounds had had a negative influence on al-Razis thoughts in his interpretation of some of the Qur’anic verses that were strictly related to monotheistic theological questions.

Humanism, as a modern school of thought, has been able to be a foundation for moral values. However, it is basically different from religious thinking. Moral values can be divided into basic values and secondary values. Perfection, freedom, and justice are the three basic values that play a significant role in the understanding of all other moral values. The principle of perfection in the humanistic view is limited to the worldly perfection, and this is what determines the principle of freedom and its scope. There are essential differences between the theories of justice in the humanistic thinking; for it is concerned, in general, with one element, or a few specific elements in social relations. As for the religious view that we mean and focus on in this study, it is the Islamic view, as it offers a complete and comprehensive view about the principle of perfection. Therefore, the principle of freedom includes a wide variety of permissible freedoms, and prevents a much more damages and dangers. The principle of justice in Islam also observes the following elements and more others: 1- The system of human purposes. 2- the officials who carry out Justice. 3- Individual and social requirements. 4- Social relations. 5- Available talents. 6-Individual capabilities and capacities. 7- lawful methods of transfer of ownership, possession and dispossession. 8- The role of power and politics. In this article, we have followed the analytical descriptive approach, when discussing the three general values in a comparative study between religious thought and the humanistic school of thought.

Humanism is one of the contemporary ideas that affect Western thinking with its various orientations. Humanism has appeared as reactions against the dominance of Christian Church over social and scientific life. Humanism so soon took on an anti-religious situation. However, modern humanism has general principles that may not openly announce hostility to religion, but it does have hostility towards religion by rejecting the religious teachings, being satisfied only with human sciences and establishing ethical foundations that do not depend on religion. Humanism has founded a worldview, in which man would be the axis of everything, and that God would have nothing to do with man’s life, saying that religious beliefs have no influence on life; and so, religion is of no importance to man. Therefore, religious and irreligious people are the same according to the humanistic thought. Although the religious thought believes that God is the axis of everything and that man is not but a slave (to God) who should manage his life according to the divine orders; it gives too much regard to man’s capabilities and role in life, but to limit man’s ability and life to the material side. Religious thought says that the loss of morality leads to a savage life full of fighting and aggression over transient pleasures.The study follows the descriptive, analytical approach in showing humanism, and the analytical-critical approach to criticize the principles of humanism and their consequences.

The article discusses the realistic concept of imam and his conditions in society, the way of choosing or appointing him according to the viewpoint of two prominent Shiite and Sunni theologians, on the basis of the descriptive, analytical approach. In this article, a comparison has been made between the concepts used by al-Qadhi al-Baqillani and those used by Allamah al-Hilli, with an evaluation of their opinions. It has been proved that al-Qadhi al-Baqillani’s understanding and beliefs differ from those of Allamah al-Hilli and the Twelver Shia consequently; for al-Qadhi al-Baqillani-concerning the way of choosing the imam [by people]-believes in the necessity of the Imam’s presence in society; and thus, this necessity would be legal (not rational). Basically, al-Baqillani believes that the topic of Imamate is a jurisprudential (fiqhi) topic. As for Allamah al-Hilli, he believes that the study of Imamate is a theological study, and that the appointment of the Imams is done by God. Based on this, the position of the imam, according to al-Qadhi al-Baqillani and most of Sunni scholars, is an apparent governmental position. According to the Sunnis, in addition to the imam’s worldly position, he also undertakes the responsibility of preserving and applying the religion; therefore, they also disagree with the Twelver Shia on the conditions and characteristics of the imam.

The materialistic schools of thought, especially humanism, talk about man’s rights and freedoms, and honor him in order to take him to the highest human rights. The purpose behind that is to consider man as the center and core of the world instead of the centrality of God Almighty. As for pleasure, it means that pleasure is good in itself and required for itself, and that it is the essential element for every perfection and happiness; because it is the only criterion for moral actions. This means that pleasure is the efficient cause and final cause of every moral act. Monotheistic religions, especially Islam, talk about man’s dignity, honor, and highest status, but however, they do not believe that man is the center and core of the world before Almighty God, nor do they believe in the essentiality of pleasure as the only criterion for moral action. After the comparison between these two approaches on the basis of the divine worldview, it becomes clear that the centrality of man before God does not have any fixed foundations that may support it, and that pleasure -especially material pleasures- cannot be the only criterion for moral action. The actual axis in the system of the universe and creation is God Almighty; therefore, God is also the core of legislation and of human and moral values. This is why these values have come in the Holy Qur’an on the basis of the Divine Wisdom.