12th December 2016 — John

Religious Pluralism

[edit] Interfaith dialogue

Religious pluralism is sometimes used as a synonym for interfaith dialogue. Interfaith dialogue refers to dialogue between members of different religions for the goal of reducing conflicts between their religions and to achieve agreed upon mutually desirable goals. Inter-religious dialogue is difficult if the partners adopt a position of particularism, i.e. if they only care about the concerns of their own group, but is favored by the opposite attitude of universalism, where care is taken for the concerns of others. Interfaith dialogue is easier if a religion’s adherents have some form of inclusivism, the belief that people in other religions may also have a way to salvation, even though the fullness of salvation can be achieved only in one's own religion. Conversely, believers with an exclusivist mindset will rather tend to proselytize followers of other religions, than seek an open-ended dialogue with them.

[edit] Conditions for the existence of religious pluralism

Main article: Religious tolerance

Freedom of religion encompasses all religions acting within the law in a particular region, whether or not an individual religion accepts that other religions are legitimate or that freedom of religious choice and religious plurality in general are good things. Exclusivist religions teach that theirs is the only way to salvation and to religious truth, and some of them would even argue that it is necessary to suppress the falsehoods taught by other religions. Some Protestant sects argue fiercely against Roman Catholicism, and fundamentalist Christians of all kinds teach that religious practices like those of paganism and witchcraft are pernicious. This was a common historical attitude prior to the Enlightenment, and has appeared as governmental policy into the present day under systems like Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, which destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamyan.

Many religious believers believe that religious pluralism should entail not competition but cooperation, and argue that societal and theological change is necessary to overcome religious differences between different religions, and denominational conflicts within the same religion. For most religious traditions, this attitude is essentially based on a non-literal view of one’s religious traditions, hence allowing for respect to be engendered between different traditions on fundamental principles rather than more marginal issues. It is perhaps summarized as an attitude which rejects focus on immaterial differences, and instead gives respect to those beliefs held in common.

Giving one religion or denomination special rights that are denied to others can weaken religious pluralism. This situation obtains in certain European countries, where Roman Catholicism or regional forms of Protestantism have special status. For example see the entries on the Lateran Treaty and Church of England

Relativism, the belief that all religions are equal in their value and that none of the religions gives access to absolute truth, is an extreme form of inclusivism. Likewise, syncretism, the attempt to take over creeds of practices from other religions or even to blend practices or creeds from different religions into one new faith is an extreme form of inter-religious dialogue. Syncretism must not be confused with ecumenism, the attempt to bring closer and eventually reunite different denominations of one religion that have a common origin but were separated by a schism.

The existence of religious pluralism depends on the existence of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion exists when different religions of a particular region possess the same rights of worship and public expression. Freedom of religion is restrained in many Islamic countries, such as in Saudi Arabia, where the public practice of religions other than Islam is forbidden, in Iran, where the Baha’is have no legal rights and are persecuted, and in the Palestinian Authority, where Arab Christians report they are frequent victims of religious persecution by Muslims.

Religious freedom did not exist at all in many Communist countries such as Albania and the Stalinist Soviet Union, where the state prevented the public expression of religious belief and even persecuted some or all religions. This situation persists still today in North Korea, and to some extent in China and Vietnam

[edit] History of religious pluralism

[edit] Religious pluralism in Asia

Some forms of religious pluralism have existed in the Indian subcontinent since the establishment of the Hindu Vedas around 2500 BC, followed by the rise of Shramana concepts, the establishment of Jainism and Buddhism around 500 BC, and subsequently during the course of several Muslim settlements (Delhi Sultanate 1276-1526 AD and the Mughal Empire 1526-1857 AD). In the 8th century, Zoroastrianism was established in India as Zoroastrians fled from Persia to India in large numbers, where they were given refuge. The colonial phase ushered in by the British lasted until 1947 and furthered conversions to Christianity among low caste Hindus. In 1948 as many as 20,000 Jews Bene Jews and Cochin Jews lived in India, though most of them have since emigrated to Israel.

Although in Japan Buddhism and Shinto have more or less co-existed for centuries, the arrival of Christianity through Francis Xavier led to widespread persecution of Christians and the eventual exclusion of Christianity for hundreds of years until the Meiji era, as the rulers of Japan saw it as a threat. Christians and Buddhists were also persecuted under State Shinto.

[edit] Religious pluralism in Islamic world

Religious pluralism existed in medieval Islamic law and Islamic ethics, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, were usually accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as exemplified in the Caliphate, al-Andalus, Ottoman Empire and Indian subcontinent.[1][2] However, Islamic empires have always imposed a Jizya on the non-believers.

[edit] Religious pluralism in Europe

[edit] Antiquity

The polytheistic Roman empire saw the traditional Roman religion as one fundamentals of the Roman republic. They saw Roman virtues as an important link in their multi-ethnic empire. Being polytheistic, Romans did not mind if conquered nations went on worshiping their traditional gods, as long as they also presented token offerings to the Roman gods. In many cases this compromise was easily reached by identifying the traditional gods with similar Roman gods. Failure to offer up this token worship was seen as disloyal to Rome, and an act of political rebellion against the Emperor.

There was, though, a problem with people whose religion excluded the veneration of other gods – especially the Jews and the Christians. The Romans tended to view this as rebellion, and so it resulted in many conflicts arising from often unintended offenses, like putting a statue of an emperor in a prominent place in Jerusalem which resulted in a public revolt. Similarly difficult to understand for the Roman mindset was the attitude of Christians who rather chose torture or death instead of offering a incense to the Roman emperor. From the Roman view, the refusal to venerate the Roman emperor was political treason.

The edict of Milan which decreed tolerance of Christianity was followed by a time of parallel existence of Christianity and paganism which was, though, far from an actual religious pluralism – the religion of the emperor was always at an advantage, and the Arian, trinitarian and pagan emperors in the fourth century saw it as perfectly legitimate to take measures against religious leaders who did not share their belief. By the fifth century, the western Roman Empire had crumbled, but the same patterns of behavior continued in the Gaul, Celtic, and Germanic kingdoms that replaced it.

[edit] Middle Ages

After the breakdown of the Roman Empire in the West, in western Europe the population was a huge, diverse mix of Latin peoples, Germanic peoples who had been absorbed into the Empire and its Legions over the course of hundreds of years, and newly arriving Germanic tribes that were migrating into western Europe. In each of these vaguely defined categories were some Christians, some pagans, and some who subscribed to some elements of both. In the German tradition, the chief of the tribe was also religious leader, so conversion of the leaders (even if for political reasons) was followed in many cases by Christianization of the tribe – with the chief of the tribe being now the de facto head of the Christian church. There were very frequent instances of parallel pagan and Christian religion, but tolerance of old or new religion was up to the personal preference of the local lord.

The tradition of the head of the tribe as head of the church was continued by the Kings which these chieftains eventually evolved into, with the king and/or emperor holding by virtue of office the right of investiture of bishops and also of deciding in religious matters – Charlemagne, e.g., took the Pope to task for not using the filioque in the Nicene Creed. The religion of the ruler was the official religion of the people and, again, any tolerance of foreigners or remnants of pagans was up to the present ruler. The unity of religion was generally seen as a prerequisite for any worldly state – a divergent religion was in the consequence not regarded just as a religious problem but also an action against state and ruler punishable by criminal law.

In the high Middle Ages, the worldly powers clashed with the power of the pope on the matter of deciding about religious questions – while the details varied by country, the overall result was that the Roman Catholic Church was able to, for a short time, exercise control over the religious practices of countries, even against that Ruler’s will.

[edit] Protestant Reformation

Main article: Protestant Reformation

The Protestant Reformation broke away from the Catholic Church over religious policy and belief in Europe and touched off the 30-years War which involved virtually every nation on the European continent. Much of the fighting occurred between German and Swiss nobility who had sided with Martin Luther and John Calvin‘s Protestant movement, and French and Spanish forces under the command of the then-French Papacy. After the religious wars, the general rule was “cuius regio, eius religio” – the countries and principalities had to adopt the religion of their respective ruler, while divergent people were left with the choice between submission or emigration.

Restrictions on smaller Protestant sects who disagreed with the national churches in these countries prompted such groups as the Pilgrim Fathers to seek freedom in North America, although when these became the majority they sometimes sought to deny this freedom to Jews and Roman Catholics.[citation needed]

In Transylvania it was declared in 1568 at Turda the religious tolerance for every religion and it was realised the religious pluralism. The role of authority was to supervise the peaceful religious cohabitation between Catholics, Calvinist, Lutheran, antirtinitarians, orthodox, sabbatharians, Jews and Muslims. The Transylvanian situation remained for long time a isolated fearful model of “diabolic liberty” (Beze, Basel,1569)but was well known and appreciated between religious persecuted antitrinitarians in Holland and in England.

[edit] Enlightenment

Main article: Age of Enlightenment

In the second half of the seventeenth century, partially out of being tired with the religious wars, partially influenced by early enlightenment, several countries adopted some sort of tolerance for other denominations, e.g. the Peace of Westphalia 1653 or the Edict of Tolerance in England in 1689.

Protestant and freethinking philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Paine, who argued for tolerance and moderation in religion, were strongly influential on the Founding Fathers, and the modern religious freedom and equality underlying religious pluralism in the United States are guaranteed by First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

In the United States religious pluralism can be said to be overseen by the secular state, which guarantees equality under law between different religions, whether these religion have a handful of adherents or many millions. The state also guarantees the freedom of those who choose not to belong to any religion.

While the United States had to begin with no dominant religion or denomination, this was very different in European countries who have, without exception, a history with one dominant Christian denomination whose influence on their culture is felt until present times. Enlightenment in Europe did not so much promote the rights of minority religions but the rights of individuals to express beliefs diverging from the mainstream religion of the country, while belonging to that religion or being outside of it. While European countries generally went the way of gradually increasing the rights for minority denominations and religions, until today the stress is more on the freedom of belief of the individual and the rights of religious organizations are often limited by the state to prevent them intruding upon the individual religious freedom.

[edit] Inter-religious pluralism

[edit] Bah├í’├¡ views

Main article: Bah├í’├¡ Faith and the unity of religion

Bah├í’u’ll├íh, founder of Bah├í’├¡ Faith, urged the elimination of religious intolerance. He taught that God is one, and has manifested himself to humanity through several historic messengers. Bah├í’u’ll├íh taught that Bah├í’├¡s must associate with peoples of all religions, showing the love of God in relations with them, whether this is reciprocated or not.

Bah├í’├¡’s refer to the concept of Progressive revelation, which means that God’s will is revealed to mankind progressively as mankind matures and is better able to comprehend the purpose of God in creating humanity. In this view, God’s word is revealed through a series of messengers: Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Bah├í’u’ll├íh (the founder of the Bah├í’├¡ Faith) among them. In the Kit├íb-i-├ìq├ín (Book of Certitude), Bah├í’u’ll├íh explains that messengers of God have a twofold station, one of divinity and one of an individual. According to Bah├í’├¡ writings, there will not be another messenger for many hundreds of years. There is also a respect for the religious traditions of the native peoples of the planet who may have little other than oral traditions as a record of their religious figures.

[edit] Buddhist views

The earliest reference to Buddhist views on religious pluralism in a political sense is found in the Edicts of Emperor Ashoka:

“All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart.” Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)

“Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.” Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)

Ethnocentrism of any sort (including the idea of belonging to a ‘school of Buddhism’ as well as evangelism[citation needed] and religious supremacism) is thought to be rooted in self-grasping and reified thought – the cause of samsara itself. Buddhists believe that “ignorance” (avidya) is the source of all misunderstandings, war and turmoil. The current Dalai Lama has repeatedly pointed out that any attempt to convert individuals from their beliefs is not only non-Buddhist, but abusive. The identification of evangelism as an expression of compassion he considers to be false, and the idea that Buddhism is the one true path is likewise false.

The Buddha also related to issues of “religion” using the parable of a man wounded by an arrow asking who shot the arrow, what the arrow was made of, and so forth, until he finally died. This parable is meant to show how it is not Buddhism’s domain to focus on the supernatural.

[edit] Classical Greek and Roman pagan views

The ancient Greeks were polytheists; pluralism in that historical era meant accepting the existence of and validity of other faiths, and the gods of other faiths. The Romans easily accomplished this task by subsuming the entire set of gods from other faiths into their own religion; this was done on rare occasion by adding a new god to their own pantheon; on most occasions they identified another religion’s gods with their own, see syncretism a form of Inclusivism.

[edit] Christian views

Main article: Christianity and other religions

[edit] Classical Christian views

Christians have traditionally argued that religious pluralism is an invalid or self-contradictory concept. Maximal forms of religious pluralism claim that all religions are equally true, or that one religion can be true for some and another for others. This Christians hold to be logically impossible. (Most Jews and Muslims similarly reject this maximal form of pluralism.) Christianity insists it is the fullest and most complete revelation of God to Man. (Gospel of John 14:6, “Jesus answered him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me.'” God’s Word Translation)

[edit] Calvinist Christian views

Although Calvinists believe God and the truth of God cannot be plural, they also believe that those civil ordinances of man which restrain man from evil and encourage toward good, are ordinances of God (regardless of the religion, or lack of it, of those who wield that power). Christians are obligated to be at peace with all men, as far as it is up to them, and to submit to governments for the Lord’s sake, and to pray for enemies.

Calvinism is not pacifistic and Calvinists have been involved in religious wars, notably the French Wars of Religion and the English Civil War. Some of the first parts of modern Europe to practice religious tolerance had Calvinistic populations, notably the Netherlands.

[edit] Eastern Orthodox views

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that it is the only path that one should choose for salvation. On the other hand, the Church also teaches that no human being, by statement nor by omission of a statement, may place a limit upon God’s will, who may save whomsoever it pleases Him to save.

Some compare the Church to Noah’s Ark. It is not impossible for someone to “survive the flood” of sin by clinging to whatever driftwood is around or by trying to cobble together a raft from bits and pieces of whatever floats, but the Ark is a far safer choice to make. Likewise, the heterodox and even non-Christians might be saved simply through God’s own choice, made for His own reasons, but it is far safer for any individual person to turn to the Orthodox Church. Thus, it behooves Orthodox Christians to exhort others to take this safer path. Likewise, the Orthodox remember that Christ mentions one, and only one thing that unfailingly leads to perdition–blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. No other path is explicitly and universally excluded by Christ’s words.

Orthodox Christianity has a long history of religious tolerance that has evolved towards some degree of religious pluralism. Advocation of justice and peace towards members of other faiths is seen in a 16th century encyclical written by Ecumenical Patriarch Metrophanes III (1520-1580).

This document was written to the Greek Orthodox in Crete (1568) following reports that Jews were being mistreated. The Patriarch states, “Injustice … regardless to whomever acted upon or performed against, is still injustice. The unjust person is never relieved of the responsibility of these acts under the pretext that the injustice is done against a heterodox and not to a believer. As our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels said do not oppress or accuse anyone falsely; do not make any distinction or give room to the believers to injure those of another belief.”

Rev. Protopresbyter George C. Papademetriou, An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions writes:

The Fifth Academic Meeting between Judaism And Orthodox Christianity was held in Thessaloniki, Greece, on May 27-29, 2003. In his opening remarks, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew denounced religious fanaticism and rejected attempts by any faith to denigrate others. The following principles were adopted at the meeting:

Judaism and Christianity while hearkening to common sources inviolably maintain their internal individuality and particularity.

The purpose of our dialogue is to remove prejudice and to promote a spirit of mutual understanding and constructive cooperation in order to confront common problems.

Specific proposals will be developed to educate the faithful of both religions to promote healthy relationships based on mutual respect and understanding to confront bigotry and fanaticism.

Being conscious of the crises of ethical and spiritual values in the contemporary world, we will endeavor to identify historical models of peaceful coexistence, which can be applied to minority Jewish and Orthodox communities in the Diaspora.

We will draw from our spiritual sources to develop programs to promote and enhance our common values such as peace, social justice and human rights, specifically addressing the concerns of religious minorities.

Writing for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Rev. Protopresbyter George C. Papademetriou has written a summary of classical Christian and Greek Orthodox Christian views on the subject of the salvation of non-Christians. In his paper An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions writes:

In our times. Professor John N. Karmiris, University of Athens, based on his studies of the Church Fathers, concludes that the salvation of non-Christians, non-Orthodox and heretics depends on the all-good, allwise and all-powerful God, who acts in the Church but also through other “ways.” God’s saving grace is also channelled outside the Church. It cannot be assumed that salvation is denied non-Christians living in true piety and according to natural law by the God who “is love” (1 John 4:8), In his justice and mercy God will judge them worthy even though they are outside the true Church. This position is shared by many Orthodox who agree that God’s salvation extends to all who live according to His “image” and “participate in the Logos.” The Holy Spirit acted through the prophets of the Old Testament and in the nations. Salvation is also open outside the Church.

As is common in many other faiths, the question of salvation for those outside of Orthodox Christianity is understandably secondary to what the Church expects of its own adherents. As St. Theophan the Recluse put the matter: “You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins… I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.”

[edit] Modern (post-Enlightenment) Christian views

In recent years, some Christian groups have become more open to religious pluralism; this has led to many cases of reconciliation between Christians and people of other faiths. The liberalization of many Seminaries and theological institutions, particularly in regards to the rejection of the notion that the Bible is a divinely authored document, has facilitated a much more human-centered and secular movement within mainstream Christian denominations, particularly in the United States. Some mainstream churches no longer hold to exclusivist views on salvation.

The most prominent event in the way of dialogue between religions has arguably been the 1986 Peace Prayer in Assisi to which Pope John Paul II, against considerable resistance also from within the Roman Catholic church, invited representatives of all world religions. This initiative was taken up by the Community of Sant’Egidio, who, with the support of John Paul II, organized yearly peace meetings of religious representatives. These meetings, consisting of round tables on different issues and of a common time of prayer has done much to further understanding and friendship between religious leaders and to further concrete peace initiatives. In order to avoid the reproaches of syncretism that were leveled at the 1986 Assisi meeting where the representatives of all religions held one common prayer, the follow-up meetings saw the representatives of the different religions pray in different places according to their respective traditions.

In recent years there has been much to note in the way of reconciliation between some Christian groups and the Jewish people. Many modern day Christians, including many Catholics and some liberal Protestants, have developed a view of the New Testament as an extended covenant; They believe that Jews are still in a valid relationship with God, and that Jews can avoid damnation and earn a heavenly reward. For these Christians, the New Testament extended God’s original covenant to cover non-Jews. The article Christian-Jewish reconciliation deals with this issue in detail.

Many smaller Christian groups in the US and Canada have come into being over the last 40 years, such as “Christians for Israel”. Their website says that they exist in order to “expand Christian-Jewish dialogue in the broadest sense in order to improve the relationship between Christians and Jews, but also between Church and Synagogue, emphasizing Christian repentance, the purging of anti-Jewish attitudes and the false ‘Replacement’ theology rampant throughout Christian teachings.”

A number of large Christian groups, including the Catholic Church and several large Protestant churches, have publicly declared that they will no longer proselytize Jews.

Other Modern Christian views, including some conservative Protestants, reject the idea of the New Testament as an extended covenant, and retain the classical Christian view as described above.

[edit] Modern views specific to Catholicism

Main article: Catholic Church and ecumenism

For the Catholic Church, there has been a move at reconciliation not only with Judaism, but also Islam. The Second Vatican Council states that salvation includes others who acknowledge the same creator, and explicitly lists Muslims among those (though it refers to them as Mohammedans). The official Catholic position is therefore that Jews, Muslims and Christians (including churches outside of Rome’s authority) all acknowledge the same God, though Jews and Muslims have not yet received the gospel while other churches are generally considered deviant to a greater or lesser degree.

The question of whether Confucianism, and Chinese folk religion, consists of worshipping a God or veneration of a saint was important to the Roman Catholic church during the Chinese Rites controversy of the early 18th century. This dispute was between the Dominicans who argued that Confucianism and Chinese folk religion was worship, and therefore incompatible with Catholicism, and the Jesuit who argued the reverse. The pope ultimately ruled in favor of the Dominicans, a decision which greatly reduced the role of Catholic missionaries in China. However, this decision was partially reversed by Pope Pius XII in 1939; after this, Chinese customs were no longer considered superstition or idolatry, but a way of honoring esteemed relatives (not entirely dissimilar to the Catholic practice of praying for the dead).

[edit] Latter-day Saint Views

The churches of the Latter Day Saint movement, because of the nature of their beliefs about the apostasy of the early Christian church that Christ established on the earth, feel they hold the restored doctrines and priesthood authority necessary to provide the means of the fullness of eternal salvation, also called exaltation. The term salvation is used to describe the resurrection and eternal life which is a gift of grace given to all people through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Although all people achieve salvation in this sense, only those who accept Jesus’ teachings, strive to become Christlike in their personal and public life, and receive the necessary ordinances performed by the priesthood authority will be exalted, and become one with God and Jesus Christ and eventually, through a principle of progression throughout eternities, become like God and Jesus. This belief is one reason for the missionary activity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the performance of ordinances by proxy for the dead. The fact that saving ordinances can be performed for those who have died without accepting Jesus Christ and his gospel, entails an inherent belief that people of other religious traditions may indeed achieve the fullness of eternal salvation and exaltation after this life, although this is only through later acceptance of the Christian teachings and priesthood ordinances found in the LDS church. The church works closely with other religious and faith based groups, often in post-disaster areas. Another denomination closely related to the LDS church, Community of Christ is slightly more ecunemical, and follows doctrines closer to mainstream Christianity, and does not practice Baptism for the Dead.[citation needed]

[edit] Hindu views

The Hindu religion is naturally pluralistic. A well-known Rig Vedic hymn stemming from Hinduism claims that “Truth is One, though the sages know it variously.” (├ëkam sat viprabahud─üvadanti) The Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in accepting degrees of truth in other religions. Just as Hindus worshiping Ganesh is seen as valid by those worshiping Vishnu, so someone worshiping Jesus or Allah is accepted. Many foreign deities become assimilated into Hinduism, and some Hindus may sometimes offer prayers to Jesus along with their traditional forms of God. For this reason, Hinduism usually has good relations with other religious groups accepting pluralism. In particular, Hinduism and Buddhism coexist peacefully in many parts of the world.

[edit] Islamic views

Islam, does not view itself as the only true path for following the will of Allah (God) and going to Jannah (Paradise, Heaven). [3]

Muslims consider the monotheistic faiths that preceded it, Judaism and Christianity, to be valid in its original form.[4] Muslims also believe that the Quran confirms the scriptures that came before including the Torah and the Gospel.[5]

Reference to Islamic views on religious pluralism is found in the Quran. The following verses are generally interpreted as an evidence of religious pluralism:

Surah Al-Ma’idah verse 48 states:

Surah Al-Ankabut verse 46 states:

If Allah so willed, he would have made you a single People, but his plan is to test each of you separately, in what He has given to each of you: so strive in all virtues as in you are in a race. The goal of all of you is to Allah. It is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute. (Qur’an 5:48)

The Quran criticizes Christians and Jews who believed that their own religions the only source of Truth.

And dispute not with the People of the Book, except with means better than mere disputation, unless I be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury, but say to them: “We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our God and your God is one; and it is to Him that we bow.” (Qur’an 5:48)

Surah Al-Baqara verse 113 states:

They say, if you want to be guided to salvation, you should either become a Jew or Christian. Say: What about the religion of Abraham, he also worshiped no one but Allah. We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, to Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes of Israel, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to all prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah. So, if they believe, they are indeed on the right path, but if they turn back, Allah will suffice them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. This is the Baptism of Allah. And who can baptize better than Allah. And it is He Whom we worship. Say: Will you dispute with us about Allah, He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and you for yours; and that We are sincere in Him? Or do ye say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than Allah? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah. But Allah is not unmindful of what ye do! That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case.( (Qur’an 5:135-141)

Many Muslims agree that cooperation with the Christian and Jewish community is important but some Muslims believe that theological debate is often unnecessary:

The Jews say: “The Christians have nothing to stand upon”; and the Christians say: “The Jews have nothing to stand upon.” Yet they both have something to stand upon, they both recite the Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. (Qur’an 2:113)

Islam’s fundamental theological concept is belief in one God. Muslims are not expected to visualize God but to worship and adore him as a protector. Any kind of idolatry is condemned in Islam.(Qur’an 112:2) As a result, Muslims hold that for someone to worship any other gods or deities other than Allah (Shirk (polytheism)) is a sin that will lead to separation from Allah. Most Muslims consider Hindus to be polytheists while some argue that those Hindus who are of high moral character can enter Paradise.

Belief in Trinity is also condemned in the Quran.[6]

Muslims believe that Allah sent the Qur’an to bring peace and harmony to humanity through Islam (submission to Allah). [7] Muhammad‘s worldwide mission was to establish universal peace under the Khilafat.

The Khilafat ensured security of the lives and property of non-Muslims under the dhimmi system.

This status was originally only made available to non-Muslims who were “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews), but was later extended to include Zoroastrians, Sikhs,Hindus, Mandeans(Sabians), and, in some areas, Buddhists.

Dhimmi had more rights than other non-Muslim religious subjects, but often fewer legal and social rights than Muslims. Some Muslims, however, disagree, and hold that adherents of these faiths cannot be dhimmi.

Dhimmi enjoyed some freedoms under the state founded by Muhammad and could practice their religious rituals according to their faith and beliefs.

It should be noted that non-Muslims who were not classified as “people of the book”, for example practitioners of the pre-Muslim indigenous Arabian religions, had few or no rights in Muslim society.

Muslim rule spread through conquest and this indirectly coerced many to convert to Islam. In other words, war was waged to put lands under Muslim rule, but the subjects were theoretically free to continue practice whatever religion they chose. However, the non-Muslim dhimmis were subject to taxation jizyah at a different rate of the Muslim zakat. Dhimmis also faced economic impediments, restrictions on political participation and/or social advancement based on their non-Muslim status.

Religious persecution is also not sanctioned by some readings of Islam,[Qur’an 10:99-100 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)] but is partly due to cruel rulers, or general economic hardships in the societies they are in. pre-Islamic religious minorities continue to exist in some of their native countries, although only as marginal percentages of the overall population.

Over the centuries, several known religious debates, and polemical works did exist in various Muslim countries between various Muslim sects, as well as between Muslims and non-Muslims. Many of these works survive today, and make for some very interesting reading in the apologetics genre. Only when such debates spilled over to the unlearned masses, and thus causing scandals, and civil strife did rulers intervene to restore order and pacify the public outcry on the perceived attack on their beliefs.

As for sects within Islam, history shows a variable pattern. Various sects became intolerant when gaining favour with the rulers, and often work to oppress or eliminate rival sects, for example, the contemporary persecution of Muslim minorities in Saudi Arabia.[8] Sectarian strife between Shia and Sunni inhabitants of Baghdad is well known through history.

[edit] Jain views

Main article: Anekantavada

Anek─üntav─üda, the principle of relative pluralism, is one of the basic principles of Jainism. In this view, the truth or the reality is perceived differently from different points of view, and no single point of view is the complete truth.[9] [10] Jain doctrine states that an object has infinite modes of existence and qualities and they cannot be completely perceived in all its aspects and manifestations, due to inherent limitations of the humans. Only the Kevalins – the omniscient beings – can comprehend the object in all its aspects and manifestations, and all others are capable of knowing only a part of it.[11] Consequently, no one view can claim to represent the absolute truth. Jains compare all attempts to proclaim absolute truth with adhgajany─üyah or the “maxim of the blind men and elephant“, wherein all the blind men claimed to explain the true appearance of the elephant, but could only partly succeed due to their narrow perspective.[12]

Anek─üntav─üda encourages its adherents to consider views or beliefs of their rivals and opposing parties. Proponents of anekantv─üda apply this principle to religion and philosophy, reminding themselves that any religion or philosophy, even Jainism, which clings too dogmatically to its own tenets, is committing an error based on its limited point of view.[13] The principle of anek─üntav─üda also influenced Mahatma Gandhi’s principles of religious tolerance, Ahimsa and Satyagraha.[14]

Anek─ünta is firmly entrenched in the Jain texts as is evident from the various teachings of the Jain scriptures. ─Çc─ürya Amrtacandra starts his famous 10th Century CE work Purusathasiddhiupaya by paying obeisance to the doctrine of anek─ünta:[15]

“I bow down to the anek─ünta, the source and foundation of the highest scriptures, the dispeller of wrong one-sided notions, that which takes into account all aspects of truth, reconciling diverse and even contradictory traits of all objects or entity”

─Çc─ürya Siddhasena Div─ükara, fifth Century CE, explains the nature of truth in the court of King Vikram─üditya:[16]

Vikram─üditya: What is ‘truth’? That which is said repeatedly, that which is said loudly, that which is said with authority or that which is agreed by the majority?

Div─ükara: None of the above. Every one has his own definition of ‘truth’ and that it is conditional.

Vikram─üditya: How about traditions? They have been established by our ancestors and have passed the test of time?

Div─ükara: Would the system established by ancestors hold true on examination? In case it does not, I am not here to justify it for the sake of saving the traditional grace of the dead, irrespective of the wrath-I may have to face.

–Dv─ütrimß╣úik─ü (6/2)

─Çc─ürya Div─ükara further states in Sanmatitarka,[17]

“All doctrines are right in their own respective spheres – but if they encroach upon the province of other doctrines and try to refute their view, they are wrong. A man who holds the view of the cumulative character of truth never says that a particular view is right or that a particular view is wrong.”

The concept of anek─ünta and sy─üdv─üda allows the Jains to accept the truth in other philosophies from their perspective and thus inculcating a tolerance for other viewpoints. Anekantv─üda is non-absolutist and stands firmly against all dogmatisms, even including any assertion that only Jainism is the right religious path. [18] It is thus an intellectual Ahims─ü or Ahims─ü of mind. [19]

M─ühav─½ra encouraged his followers to study and understand the rival traditions as evidenced in Acaranga Sutra [20] :

“Comprehend one philosophical view through the comprehensive study of another one” – 5.113

In Anekantv─üda, there is no “battle of ideas”, because this is considered to be a form of intellectual himsa or damage, leading quite logically to physical violence and war. In today’s world, the limitations of the adversarial, “either with us or against us ” form of argument are increasingly apparent leading to political, religious and social conflicts.

Sutrakritanga, the second oldest canon of Jainism, provides a solution by stating[21]:

“Those who praise their own doctrines and ideology and disparage the doctrine of others distort the truth and will be confined to the cycle of birth and death.” 1.1.50

[edit] Jewish views

Main article: Jewish views of religious pluralism

[edit] Sikh views

The Sikh Gurus (religious leaders) have propagated the message of “many paths” leading to the one God and ultimate salvation for all souls who treading on the path of righteousness. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths can, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the Lord can certainly achieve salvation. Students of the Sikh faith are told to accept all leading faiths as possible vehicles for attaining spiritual enlightenment, provided the faithful study, ponder and practice the teachings of their prophets and leaders. The holy book of the Sikhs (the Sri Guru Granth Sahib) says, “Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.” Guru Granth Sahib page 1350. [22] and “The seconds,minutes,and hours,days,weeks and months and various seasons originate from One Sun; O nanak,in just the same way, the many forms originate from the Creator.” Guru Granth Sahib page 12,13

The Guru Granth Sahib also says that Bhagat Namdev and Bhagat Kabir, who were both believed to be Hindus, both attained salvation though they were born before Sikhism took root and were clearly not Sikhs. This highlights and reinforces the Guru’s saying that “peoples of other faiths” can join with God as true and also at the same time signify that Sikhism is not the exclusive path for liberation. Again, the Guru Granth Sahib provides this verse: “Naam Dayv the printer, and Kabeer the weaver, obtained salvation through the Perfect Guru. Those who know God and recognize His Shabad (“word”) lose their ego and class consciousness.” Guru Granth Sahib page 67 [23] Most of the 15 Sikh Bhagats who are mentioned in their holy book were non-Sikhs and belonged to Hindu and Muslim faiths, which were the most prevalent religions of this region.

Sikhs have always being eager exponents of interfaith dialogue and will not only accept the right of other to practise their faith but have in the past fought and laid down their lives to protect this right for others. See the sacrifice of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadar who on the final desperate and heart-rending pleas of the Kashmiri Pandit, agreed to put up a fight for their right to practise their religion. In this regard, Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh Guru writes in the Dasam Granth [24]:

He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus) which marked a great event in the Iron age.…For the sake of saints, he laid down his head without even a sign.13.…For the sake of Dharma, he sacrificed himself. He laid down his head but not his creed.…The saints of the Lord abhor the performance of miracles and malpractices. 14.

– DasamGranth, Bachitar Nanak, www.sridasam.org Page 131

The Sikhs have promoted their faith as an Interfaith religion and have taken a lead in uniting all the different religions of the world. The message of unity of the faiths is summed up in this quotation from the Guru Granth Sahib: “One who recognizes that all spiritual paths lead to the One shall be emancipated. One who speaks lies shall fall into hell and burn. In all the world, the most blessed and sanctified are those who remain absorbed in Truth.” (Guru Granth Sahib page 142) Srigranth.org, Guru Granth Sahib page 142

[edit] Intra-religious pluralism

[edit] Christian views

[edit] Classical Christian views

Before the Great Schism, mainstream Christianity confessed “one holy catholic and apostolic church”, in the words of the Nicene Creed. Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Episcopalians and most Protestant Christian denominations still maintain this belief.

Church unity was something very visible and tangible, and schism was just as serious an offense as heresy. Following the Great Schism, Roman Catholicism sees and recognizes the Orthodox Sacraments as valid. Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the concept of “validity” when applied to Sacraments, but it considers the form of Roman Catholic Sacraments to be acceptable, if still devoid of actual spiritual content. Both generally regard each other as “heterodox” and “schismatic”, while continuing to recognize each other as Christian. Attitudes of both towards different Protestant groups vary, primarily based upon how strongly Trinitarian the Protestant group in question might be.

Many Christians hold that the Christian church is not just an institution, which can be broken into many denominations. They hold that each instituted church is able to worship God in a way that conforms to Scripture, which allows for many different styles and customs. They hold that all true Christians are united in belief in Jesus Christ, which can be judged against such documents as the Apostles’ Creed.

[edit] Modern Christian views

Many Protestant Christian groups hold that only believers which believe in certain fundamental doctrines know the true pathway to salvation. The core of this doctrine is that Jesus Christ was a perfect man, is the Son of God and that he died and rose again for all people’s wrongdoing who will accept the gift of salvation. They continue to believe in “one” church, believing in fundamental issues there is unity and non-fundamental issues there is liberty. Some Protestants are doubtful if the Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are still valid manifestations of the Church and usually reject movements begun within 19th century Christianity, such as Mormonism, Christian Science, or Jehovah’s Witnesses as not distinctly Christian.

Modern Christian ideas on intra-religious pluralism (between different denominations of Christianity) are discussed in the article on Ecumenism.

[edit] Islamic views

[edit] Classical views

Like Christianity, Islam originally did not have ideas of religious pluralism for different Islamic denominations. Early on, Islam developed into several mutually antagonistic streams, including Shiite Islam and Sunni Islam. In some periods believers in these two communities went to war with each other over religious differences.

[edit] Modern (post-Enlightenment) Islamic views

The concept of pluralism was introduced to Islamic philosophy by Abdolkarim Soroush. He got the idea from Rumi the famous Persian poet and philosopher. Soroush tried to expand his theory and put it on a solid foundation. His views have been criticized extensively in traditional religious circles.

Some Shiite, Suni and Sufi Islamic leaders are willing to recognize each other’s denomination as a valid form of Islam. However, many other Islamic leaders are unwilling to accept this; they view other forms of Islam as outside the Islamic religion.