That human beings
are all different cannot be argued. Physically and psychologically no two human
beings, however closely related biologically, are exactly the same. In addition
to racial and ethnic differences, there are the acquired differences in ideas,
knowledge approaches, priorities and judgment, among many other differences,
that accrue from the surrounding culture.
Religion belongs
somewhere between an inherited and an acquired difference, that is, it can be
inherited by succeeding generations from an earlier one, or it can develop from
one's contemplation into personal conviction. The fact that religious faith is
most commonly inherited collectively rather than developed individually makes
the acceptance of religious diversity essential for the well-being of humanity.
A nation-state, even
the most harmonious geographic entity, displays diversity in race, ethnicity and
religions, as well as acquired ideological and political notions that reflect
natural differences in thinking and judgment. Since the world is coming closer
together as a result of miraculous developments in the technology of
transportation and communication, global diversity has become a fact that has to
be accepted intellectually and morally, and secured and sanctioned legally, by
all groups throughout the world.
Pluralism is the
institutional form that acceptance of diversity takes in a particular society or
in the world as a whole. It means something more than moral tolerance or passive
coexistence. Tolerance is a matter of individual feeling and behavior and
coexistence is a mere acceptance of others that does not go beyond an absence of
conflict. Pluralism, on the one hand, requires organizational and legal measures
that secure and sanction equality and develop fraternity among all human beings
as individuals or groups, whether their differences are inborn or acquired.
Pluralism also requires a serious approach towards understanding the other and a
constructive cooperation for the betterment of the whole. All human beings
should enjoy equal rights and opportunities, and all should fulfill equal
obligations as citizens of a nation and of the world. Each group should have the
right to organize and develop itself and to maintain its identity and interests,
and each should enjoy equality of rights and obligations in the state and in the
world.
Pluralism means that
minority groups can participate fully and equally with the majority in the
society, and yet maintain their particular identity and differences. This
particular has to be maintained by the state and the law, first by national law
and eventually by international law. Pluralism originally referred only to
ethnic and religious differences, but in a democracy ideological and political
differences also came to be subsumed under the same term, on the philosophical
grounds that there in no single understanding of the truth and thus a variety of
beliefs and institutions and com- munities should exist together and enjoy equal
legitimacy. Relations should be constructive, whatever the beliefs of a
particular group may be regarding the sole and universal truth. The
"Encyclopedia Britannica" includes under pluralism both natural- born
and acquired differences. Its definition is: "Autonomy enjoyed by disparate
groups within a society: such groups as religious groups, trade unions,
professional organizations or ethnic minorities." It may be preferable to
replace "autonomy" with "the right to maintain a common identity
and interests."
Muslims, like
adherents of other religions of the world, have to live with non-Muslims within
a given country. Muslim citizens of the country can have their ethnic or
doctrinal differences with-in themselves or with other Muslims in the world.
Muslim unity does not require that Muslims form a single state; even the
caliphate always comprised different beliefs and ethnicities. Where one lives
may be dictated by geographic or economic factors. A nation-state can be
considered from the Islamic point of view as an enlarged family or an enlarged
neighborhood, each with its own special interests that in no way detract from
the universal relations of togetherness and solidarity required by Islam.
Divisions into peoples and other groups with common origin, are acknowledged in
the Quran (49:13),
and nothing is wrong with it so long as such divisions do not hinder universal
human relations and cooperation, and are not abused through chauvinistic
arrogance and aggression. The Quran indicated that God and his teachings should
be put above any allegiance to a particular group or land, and so long as this
principle is observed, allegiance to one's family and to particular human
gatherings and to one's homeland is recognized (9:24).
As Muslims live in larger groups and in lands where they can prosper, they have
to live with other religions and sects Moreover, contemporary globalism is
creating unavoidable interdependence among all humankind, whatever their
natural-born or acquired differences may be.
For a long time
consensus was regarded as important because the goal was to achieve uniformity
in beliefs and human values.
"Aquinas in the
Middle Ages," as Nicholas Rescher writes, Regarded consensus on
fundamentals as a condition assured by God: Kant in the 18th century considered
it as something rooted in the very nature of Reason; Hegel in the 19th century
saw it as guar- anteed by the spirit of cultivation working through the march of
history ever enlarging its hold on human society; Habermas in the 20th century
sees is as inherent in the very nature of communications as an indispensables
social praxis. By contrast, many present-day writers invest social consensus not
with confidence, but with hope.
Ads by Google:
Advertisements not controlled by IslamiCity
|
Rescher argues that
abandonment of consensus is impossible, and defends pluralism in cognitive and
social theory against dogmatic uniformity, and indicating that in the face of
differing views, it is still appropriate to take a committed and definite
position. Pluralism should not allow people to fall into the trap of
"relativistic indifferentism." He emphasizes that, if natural and
ration- al diversity cannot be escaped, "a sensibly managed social system
should be so designed that a general harmony of constructive interaction can
prevail despite diversity.. [and] that different can be accommodated short of
conflict This requires acquiescence in difference ... and respect for the
autonomy of other." 1
Given that "the
truth is one," one might think that reaching the truth would automatically
produce consensus, but Rescher underlines the problem of connecting the truth to
consensus by reversing the question, asking if we achieve consensus, can we be
sure concerning the truth about which the consensus has been achieved? As he
rightfully says, "The appeal of a consensus approach to truth is easy to
understand. But its workability is something else." He reaches the
conclusion that "consensus is thus no highway to truth, and no substitute
for an objective criteriology," although it may be a useful epistemological
instrument. Rescher calls attention to the fact that "the realization of a
consensus among inquiries requires extraordinarily unusual conditions -
conditions of a special and particular sort which are not in general met in the
difficult circumstances of an imperfect world." Thus, "The empirical
basis of our factual knowledge is bound to engender a variety of cognitive
positions through the variation of experience here on earth." Accordingly,
Rescher emphasizes: "the pluralism that a sensible empiricism engenders in
the light of such variable experiential conditions is rationally justified. The
unavailability of consensus and the inescability of pluralism are realities of
the life of reason.
Such an inevitable
cognitive pluralism should not, however, be construed as encouraging
indifference, nor should it put the faith of any believer at risk, since
"one can certainly combine a relativistic pluralism of possible
alternatives with a monistic position regarding ideal rationality and a firm and
reasoned commitment to the standards intrinsic of one's own position. ' 2
Political pluralism
holds that power and authority should not be monopolized by a single group,
order, or organization, and that all citizens should be allowed to compete
legitimately or to cooperate. If pluralism is unavoidably determined in
cognitive matters, it is more essential when it comes to natural-born
differences. Pluralism in religion recognizes the multiplicity of religious
groups, and the rights of belief, expression, assembly, and legit mate activity
for every individual, for each religious group within the group and for the
group as a whole. Unless human under- standing and cooperation supersede both
inborn and acquired differences, "holocausts" and "ethnic
cleansings" will continue, and on a global scale will breed either
ceaseless conflict or self- imposed isolation. Multiethnic countries may always
face the horrors of civil war, terrorism, or secession, which cripple the
country and pressure the whole world. When pluralism becomes a conventional
national and universal principle, inborn and acquired differences will enrich
the intellectual, moral and material assets of humankind through constructive
interactions from all parties.
The divine messages
from "the Lord of All-Being" (The Quran 1:2)
can be invaluable in conducting their followers toward a universal pluralism.
However, because parallel texts in the divine sources may sometimes seem to
differ because they originally responded to different circumstances, the
believing masses may fail to understand them in their entirety. Instead of
making a distinction between the general principle and the particular situation,
they may be inclined for individual or collective reasons in given circumstances
to adapt chauvinistic and confrontational attitudes. Hermeneutics should provide
the proper interpretation of God's message in its entirety there by protecting
believers from distorting divine guidance through that kind of selectivity and
one-sided-ness, that creates a false impression of exclusiveness and generates
unethical behavior, discrimination and injustice.
Dr. Fathi Osman
is a retired professor of Islamic Studies and has taught in several universities
in Muslims World and the West. Among these universities are Al-Azhar University
in Egypt, Houran University in Algeria, Ibn Saud University in Saudi Arabia,
International Islamic University in Malaysia, Temple University, USC, and
Georgetown University in America. He is also author of several books.
The above essay
has been taken from his book "Contemporary Issues: An Islamic
Perspective"
Notes:
1. Rescher,
Nicholas, Pluralism: Against the Demand for onsensus, Clarenden Press: Oxford,
1993, p.1-3
2. Ibid., p.45-6,
52, 76-8, 109
