جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « کثرت گرایی » در نشریات گروه « علوم قرآن و حدیث »

Encountering the variety of logic systems, three theories have been introduced; exclusivism, pluralism and instrumentalism. Exclusivists consider only one system of logic to be correct. Pluralists consider all systems of logic to be correct. Instrumentalists do not consider any system of logic to be correct (correctness of logic is irrelevant for them). The theory introduced in this essay is inclusivism. Inclusivism is neither exclusivism, because it does not consider more than one system of logic to be correct, nor it is pluralism because it does not consider all systems of logic to be correct, and nor is it instrumentalism, because the correctness and incorrectness of the logic system is irrelevant for it. Avicenna also faced diversity in the knowledge of logic; Aristotelian logic and Stoic-Megarian logic. He has not been exclusivist in this encounter, because if that was the case, he would choose one and give up the other. He was not a pluralist, because if that was the case, he would have taken both of them without any unwarranted change and all in one piece. Avicenna was not an instrumentalist either, because the correctness of the logic system was relevant for him.

Orientalists’ followers who tie their horizons of thought to the Orientalists and use their foundations, methods and tendencies to deduce, give value to philosophical hermeneutics for reading and understanding texts and view the text as the dialogue of the object (text) and subject (interpreter), combine them with historical hypotheses historical presupposes. So, we have tried with descriptive – analytical method to explain the viewpoints of Orientalists’ followers like Soroush, Shabistani, Abu Zayd, and Fazlur Rahman in accordance the philosophical hermeneutics, to criticize the plurality in meaning and its fluidity in other words, its cognitive relativism and its usage by the Orientalists is regarded incompatible with the Islamic interpretive tradition in understanding the texts of revelation

Unitarism and pluralism are the two main trends in political thought based on which all the works of political philosophers from the classical to the contemporary era can be explained and interpreted. Social contract is also one of the most important theories in political thought that explains the transition of human societies from the natural to the civil state. The proponents of social contract (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) do not have the same explanation of civil state. Therefore, using the analytical-interpretive method, the present paper seeks to compare the views of the proponents of social contract in explaining the civil state on the basis of political unitarism and pluralism. The findings of this study indicate that three different models of unitarism and pluralism are inferred from the political thought of social contract. Contractual unitarism, democratic unitarism, and contractual pluralism are three models that emerge from explaining the position of the three variables of citizens, political groups, and government in the civil state in the political thought of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke.

Plurality of religion and the variation of vastly different religious attitudes always prompt us to ask questions about the criteria for their rightfulness. Followers of each religion have given different answers to this question as per their religion's historical features or their being among the Revealed or non-Revealed religions. Using rational, inductive, and historical methods and content analysis, this research has concentrated on different criteria for the assessment of the rightfulness of religions. These criteria include: 1. Belief in God, 2. Divinity, 3. Unity versus polytheism, 4. Belief in the Hereafter, 5. Epistemic coherence and more adaptation to human rationality, 6. Universality in doctrines and efficiency in providing meaning for human life, 7. Doctrine-centeredness instead of prophet-centeredness, 8. Non-distortion of Holy Scriptures, and 9. Correction of prior religions. The longitudinal and latitudinal relations of these criteria would enable us to draw the conclusion that the Revealed religions enjoy more rightfulness; and in turn, the one among them that is undistorted or less distorted, enjoys more coherent and rational beliefs, and plays a more effective role in the meaning of life and ethics of the faithful is more rightful. Meanwhile, religious rightfulness is gradational and thus most of religious traditions, especially the Revealed Religions, have it. However, they do not enjoy it equally; rather, the more noticeable presence the above criteria have in a religious tradition, the higher gradational and hierarchical rank that religion can enjoy.

This article seeks to investigate the question of the foundations of “the ruling of a single religion” in the age of Appearance and to clarify how John Hick’s religious pluralism is false. At the age pf Appearance, there will be a comprehensive religion that will meet the needs of the people until the resurrection. The promise of the victory of the righteous, their inheritance over the whole earth, and the promise of God Almighty that the religion of Islam will appear and prevail over other religions implies that at the age of Appearance, only one right religion will prevail, not that all religions gain legitimacy. John Hick’s ‘religious pluralism” is widely criticized. Giving the legitimacy to all divine religions whose laws were abrogated after the advent of Islam as well as non-divine religions such as Hinduism, Bid, Mat and Sikhism, which do not believe in one God, and considering them to be right cannot intellectually get together. Thus, in the age of Appearance, instead of having multiple religions, only one religion will rule the world.

There are three religious exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism approaches that try to take rational answers to the questions regarding religions epistemological and soteriological truthiness. The problems of mentioned approaches, takes enough background for the approach of religions gradual truthiness in which all religions and their believers gradually and hierarchically benefit epistemological and soteriological truthiness. It seems Mowlavi by considering his mystical tendency, supports the approach of religions gradual truthiness. The foundation and principles of Mowlavi’s thought concerning religions gradual truthiness can be considered as follows: transcendent unity of religions, the fact of external plurality of religions, differentiation between religion and divine law, differences between right and wrong paths, Islam as the superior manifestation of religion and divine law, and the Prophet of Islam as the final and perfect messenger. The sum of these cases show that Mowlavi thinks of divine and non-divine religions based on gradual truthiness in which all religions according to their benefiting of absolute truth, have truthiness and are led to salvation. Meantime logical requirement of accepting religions gradual truthiness is welcoming to Islam as the final and the perfect religion, and to the Prophet Muhammad as the last and the best messenger of God. In this approach, the superiority and perfection of the final religion and its Prophet does not mean rejecting merits of pervious religions.

Monism and pluralism are two main approaches to political thought, and we can interpret all the works of political philosophers from the classical to the contemporary period based on that. Throughout history, these two approaches have had many supporters among political philosophers. Among classical philosophers, Plato believes in monism and Aristotle in pluralism, and hence the challenge of monism and pluralism in their political philosophy has been formed, whose can be seen their effects in the political philosophy of the political philosophers of later periods. Briefly, monism with the emphasizing unity in civil life, believes in the concentration of political power; and Pluralism by defending multiplicity in the field of politics, believes in the diversity and distribution of power among different groups and currents. Therefore, this article explain Platonic virtue-centered monism and Aristotle's virtue-centered Pluralism. through this explanation, the difference between two
approaches becomes clear.

Unity and plurality is one of the important issues in the history of political philosophy, tendency of political philosopher towards each of which can influence all aspects of his political philosophy. Throughout history, political philosophers have raised different ideas in dealing with these two issues. The status of Peripatetic political philosophers like Farabi, Avicenna and Khwajeh Nasiruddin Tusi in the history of Islamic philosophy directed us to explore the issue and the political aftermaths in peripatetic political philosophy. Although Peripatetic political philosophers underscore the need for unity in political life, they have not shown any interest in embracing plurality which can be based upon their principles; in cases where they have dealt with it, they normally observed elimination of plurality from utopia rather than the acceptance. Besides, when components of Unitarianism and pluralism are examined in peripatetic political philosophy, signs of Unitarianism are totally seen in such a way that, they in dealing with different political issues, have proceeded to have the unity concerned in political community which is finally materialized.

The pluralism theory does not know the reality and redemption to a certain religion and believes that all religions joy the reality relatively. Some of the Islamic thinkers also agree this theory and emphasis the plurality of Straight Path. The author of the present article attempts to prove that the religious pluralism is ignored from Holy Quran point of view and the Straight Path is unique. Thus the author criticizes the Quranic documents of pluralisms and proves that previous religions are outdated by emergence of the new religion; the criteria of right and wrong is Islam which is both global and eternal.

"Pluralism" means acceptance of coexistence of many different races, religions, and political beliefs and its purpose in philosophy of religion is to accept the legitimacy of different religions. Advocates of religious pluralism in order referred to the verses of the Holy Quran to justify and legitimize their claims. This article has is arranged into three sections. The first section deals with the study of different conceptualization with brief look at the literature review. The second section, which is the main objective of this article, is concerned with the examination of and criticizing nine classifications of advocates of pluralism relying on the Quran’s verses. The general topics of those categories are as follows: Islamic verses, verses of Surah Al-Kaafiroon, the freedom to choose a religion, no compulsion in religion, God will belong to the plurality of faiths, verses of straight path, the multitude of witnesses to the Resurrection, and so forth. The third section of the study allocated to mentioning some quotations right from the holy Quran to criticize the claims of the advocates of pluralism.

What follows is a lecture given by one of the prominent contemporary sociologists of religion, who has a great many works on this subject. In this writing, Peter L. Berger is concerned to explain the status of the sociology of religion nowadays, and discuss its challenges and related topics. Berger, who is himself one of the critics of the theory of secularization, in this lecture makes some important considerations, which can provide a general framework for this discipline. Considering the theory of secularization and its relationship with modernism, he emphasizes that with the coming of the sociology of religion and its emphasis upon empirical evidence, the theory of secularization and also secularism were doubted; and these theories could not explain some events, which occurred in some countries

Based on a socio-theological view, Peter Berger explains religion and religiosity. In a long-term intellectual period, he endorses the theory that religion can be regarded as a sacred canopy which spreads above society, giving birth to social order. In this regard, religion is a cognitive and meaningful mechanism which provides the society, in a sacred manner, with the individual and collective way of life. In another period of his life, Berger considers the relationship between religion and secularization, concluding that the underlying and organizing function of religion is reducing but its individual cognitive function is gaining considerable ground. In the first period, he is occupied with the thought that modernity leads on to secularization; in the second period he concentrates on the synthetic religiosity and styles of religiosity and in general he considers private religion as the central component of modern period. Accordingly, his evolutionary theory of religion regarding the relationship between science and religion is replaced by his synthetic theory according to which modernity does not end in removing religion but contributes to changing religion.