By Cyril Anderson

Part One of Two

The concept of religious pluralism is one that is much discussed today in Islamic circles, and by scholars of theology from a wide variety of faiths.  In this world where people of different faiths have so much opportunity and need to encounter each other and live and work together, it has become an important topic.

 There is some considerable debate and controversy about this in Islamic circles, just as it has been a topic for a long time in general by religious people.  A well-known Shia academic teaching in an American university was some years back subjected to serious pressure from his community for writing in a way that was perceived as too favorable about the idea of pluralism in Islam.

 This issue of pluralism has been a problem debated in Christian, Muslim world, and in other traditions for centuries.  One prominent question leading to discussions regarding pluralism is the question as to what is the end result of good people under different theological systems, who are well-intentioned, and who do good deeds and avoid evil ones, who don’t follow that particular theological system.  Rigid people, from, for example, a Muslim or Christian background would say they get no reward and get eternal punishment.  Others are not so rigid however.

 Questions such as this in the Christian world popped to the surface following the Crusades, as European Christians traveled to Palestine and encountered supposedly “infidel Saracen” Muslims whose ethics and manners were in many cases superior to their own, and such questions grew stronger with the rise of the Florentine Renaissance and the religious Humanism that came after, as well as with the discovery of New World and of native people in North America who had a certain morality yet had had no opportunity to know about Christianity.  Would they be damned, scholars inquired, despite their beliefs in a higher power and sound systems of personal and social ethics and a commitment to practice such ethics, simply because they had not heard of Jesus?  Deep, gut instinct based on ideas of divine justice led people to say “no.”

 It has been widely understood in the Islamic world for centuries that it is not a black and white issue for non-Muslim’s place in the afterlife.  From early on, it was understood that children dying in infancy, or before cognitive maturity, the insane, the mentally deficient, and others who could not be expected to be able to understand properly enough to make a competent decision of what religion to follow were not responsible.  This much is established on  strong foundation going back to Muhammad and his family’s statements.

 This line of thinking was also commonly extended to those who had never had a chance to hear about Islam.  This issue was one that is known to have been widely discussed in the climate of theological and philosophical environment of Medieval Baghdad, which included famous discussions between the Mutazilites and the Asharites..  This was about the time, coincidentally, as well when Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (as) and Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (as) found the freedom to openly establish the school of the ahlil bayt (as), and numerous narrations recount Imams Baqir and as-Sadiq talking to people and answering questions related to the encounter between Islam and other cultures so energetic and widespread during the early Abassid period. 

 The general consensus amongst Islamic scholars is that one is not responsible for not being a Muslim if he has not heard of Islam, although it is generally held by Muslim scholars that certain beliefs, such as the existence of God and in God’s Mercy and Justice are so obvious and self-evident that no mentally competent individual has any excuse to be an atheist, as the inner voice of the soul and the evidence of nature a provide clear signs.¹  A number of Shia scholars have also extended this line of argument regarding those not responsible for their not choosing Islam to those who have Muslims around them, and have the possibility of meeting and finding out about Islam, but are surrounded by propaganda that is strong enough to scare off even reasonable people unless they go to extreme lengths to seek the truth.  That is, being a victim of brainwashing and mass-media slander against Islam is thought by some top scholars to present a legitimate excuse in many cases. ² Some Christian scholars have come to similar sorts of lines of thought regarding their own religion.

 These scenarios are taken as exceptional circumstances for which special treatment is appropriate, and just.  Generally, however, aside from these exceptions, Islam is usually held to be the sole legitimate path by Muslim scholars and a rejection is generally made of the idea of religious pluralism.  Religious pluralism is generally understood as the idea that all religions are equally valid as means to salvation and eternal paradise.  Muslim scholars generally reject such a notion.  

^1,2  For more on these details of opinions among the Shia Muslim scholarship, see Islam and Religious Pluralism, by Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari.  This is the English translation of the final chapter of his classic work, Divine Justice.

                                   Part One                  Part Two