Hello Members!

I just want to know the precise meaning of "Pluralistic Vision of Islam". My understanding is that this term is applicable to the 'anti-wahdat-al-wajood' ideology. 'Wahdat-ul-Wajood' in Islam is an ideology, which tends to equate God and the Universe, in essence. The meaning of 'Wahdat-ul-Wajood' is that 'wajood' (i.e. existence) is only one (i.e. there is wahdat in wjaood). All the multiple things visible and observable to us are just deceptions. In somewhat detail, the non-living matter, living things, spirits, soul and intellect etc. all have been emanated from God in the same way as Light emanates from sun. In other words, The universe as a whole is a reflection of God Himself. The reflection of God cannot be considered to be any separate entity whose existence can be thought of as something separate from God Himself. So according to this creed, God and Universe are essentially one and the same thing.

The meaning of 'Wahdat-ul-Wajood' can be explained by differentiating the concepts of 'mono-theism' and 'monism'. 'Mono-theism' is the same thing to the concept of 'Islamic Tauheed'. As distinguished from 'monism', this view asserts that there is permanent distinction and separation between God and the Universe. God existed when universe had no existence. Existence of God is eternal whereas that of universe is temporal. Universe is not the reflection of God Himself. God is the Creator who created this universe out of nothing. So there cannot be any unity between God and universe.

‘Monism’ on the other hand, seems very similar to ‘wahdat-ul-wajood’, as this ideology also emphasizes on ‘oneness’ of God and universe. Islamic concept of ‘oneness’ is very much different to the ‘monistic’ idea of ‘oneness’. Islamic ‘oneness’ says that God is one. That one God has created universe. There are no other gods. The ‘monistic’ oneness does not say that God is only one. It actually says that there is complete oneness in the God and universe. Monism thus does not make any separation like that of creator and creature between God and the universe. This ‘oneness’ gives the same meaning as ‘wahdat’ in the ideology of ‘wahdat-ul-wajood’.

So this ‘wahdat-ul-wajood’ says that reality is a single unity. If there is no difference between God and universe, then essentially there is also no difference between creator and creature. Creatures are the reflections of God Himself. If all the creatures are the reflections of a single entity then there should be no difference in the status of different creatures. All humans, irrespective of their religion, ethnicity and nationality are the reflections of one single entity, so they all are equal in their status. Thus the result of universal brotherhood ultimately results from the ideology of ‘wahdat-ul-wajood’.

There are many other distinguished aspects of this ideology also. The objective before humans, according to this ideology is to push back the individual personality in an endeavor to reach at a stage, in the process of spiritual development, where in spiritual terms, the deception of plural existence becomes clear and the individual ultimately ends up (‘Fana-Fi-Allah’) in the single real entity, which is God.

As far as the term ‘pluralism’ is concerned, its official meaning cannot come up to any of the variety of Islamic ideologies. ‘Pluralism’ means belief in many gods. Humans, in historical times, had been practicing belief and worship of many gods. Those gods usually happened to be the mysterious and un-understandable natural objects and phenomena around them. For example those people worshiped heavens, sun, stars, fire and so on. So the official meaning of ‘pluralism’ is to have this type of belief in many gods. Surely this ‘pluralism’ can have nothing to do with any of the versions of Islam.

I do not specifically know the meaning of ‘pluralistic vision of Islam’, so here I can only mention what its meaning I personally understand. Like as the meaning of term ‘oneness’ in Islam emphasizes ‘oneness’ of God as opposed to the ‘oneness of God and universe’ so as the term ‘plural’ in Islamic terminology would give the meaning of plurality in creatures and not in gods. In essence Islam does give the idea of ‘duality’ of God and universe. Islam does accept the permanent distinction between God and universe, between creator and creatures and so on. According to Islamic teachings, man and God are two permanently separate entities so man can never end up or unite with God through any of his whatever spiritual endeavors. This is the duality (i.e. not plurality here) between man and God. Man, Being just a creature and slave of God, can never unite with the personality of God because of permanent distinction between these two entities i.e. the creator and creature. So this is the concept of ‘duality’ which is involved here.
The maximum that I can understand of ‘pluralistic vision of Islam’ is that it may mean the rejection of the idea of ‘wahdat-ul-wajood’ that plurality of observable things is a mere deception whereas the reality is pure single and so there is no plurality in the ultimate reality. Therefore this ‘pluralistic vision of Islam’ might have this meaning that plurality of observable things is not any deception but is a reality in fact. So may be that according to this view, the ultimate reality be considered as consisted of plural things. If the plurality is real then there should be essential differences in different kinds of creations. Some creations, in real terms may be better and others may be worst. As this vision is quite opposite to the ideology of ‘wahdat-ul-wajood’ so historically this view might have arisen after the spread of the ideology of ‘wahdat-ul-wajood’, and as just a reaction or opposition to that ideology. The example in my mind is that of ‘wahdat-ul’shahud’ of Sheikh Serhindi which, historically, emerged as a reaction to the ideology of ‘wahdat-ul-wajood’ in that time in history when the notion of ‘wahdat-ul-wajood’ already had become popular among the circles of Islamic scholars.

I can make more guesses also out of my this assumed meaning of ‘pluralistic vision of Islam’ but I want to know the actual meaning of it. So if someone on this forum knows the precise meaning of ‘pluralistic vision of Islam’ then please share.

Thanks!

Salam everybody,

"Pluralistic vision of Islam" elaborate the ideology of Islam in which Islam allows other religions or other social and ethnic entities to live in an Islamic society.

Regards,

Sajid.

Salaam,

I agree with Brother Sajid completely. One of my friends who appeared in 2004 attempted it. He discussed the following aspects of Islam:

Justice and equity, embracing potential, tolerance, egalitarianism, universal brotherhood etc.

He passed the exam.

Regards,

PS: While I was reading your post - mein to dar hi gaya thaa. Pata nahin kaunse kaunse philosophical terms thay. hahaha!!

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

Hmmm... I was trying to find its meaning in the theories of Islamic Theology but it happens to have very general meaning. My further question to honorable members is that, keeping in view the hot discussions about such terms as "plurality", "unity" etc. in such Islamic "visionary" theories as 'wahad-ul-wajood' and 'wahdat-ul-shahud', why cannot the term 'pluralistic vision of Islam' have any particular theological meanings?

Secondly if 'pluralistic vision of Islam' gives the meaning of accomodation and tolerance of people who follow other religions, in the Islamic societies then is there any use of this term 'pluralistic vision of Islam' with this sense in any time in Islamic history?

I mean it is true that Muslim society offers full rights to minorities but my question is that this act of "offer of full rights to minorities" ever been termed as "pluralistic Vision of Islam"? In any period of Islamic history?

Thirdly I wanted to know has there ever been use of this specific term in whatever meaning in any authentic Islamic sources?

Adil bhai, your argument is strong but please think that strength of this argument is visible only from exam point of view. Suppose that we are not candidates of CSS exam but we are researchers in the field of different visions of Islam. In this supposed situation what shall be your reply? Can you give the same argument in this supposed situation also?

The term 'plural' is opposite to 'unity'. Such concepts as tolerance etc. give the sense of 'unity' rather than 'plurality'. The term 'plurality' gives the sense of 'separateness'. With this general sense of both these terms, how can the general meaning of 'pluralistic vision' be taken as such which gives the sense of 'tolerance' and so 'unity'?

The act of 'offer of full rights to minorities' has already been better termed as "Moderate Islam". This view has been emerged as a reaction to the "extremist vision of Islam" which is not ready to give full rights to even the other sects of Islam. So if I take the suggested meanings of 'pluralistic vision of Islam', then what meaning should I take of this "Moderate Islam"?

Looking forward for some historical evidence of the usage of this term or any analytical reply.

Dear brother, Hi
after reading ur questions and replay u got for that, it had become very clear to me , that why people fail in essay paper?.
people attempt n try to understand there essay as they are having divine directions for that. it is my advice that u should first consult dictionary , check the meaning of "pluralism", than try to understand that what a checker is asking for. all things which u have already written in that scrap , are not according to desire's of checker.
follow my advice , than again write ur opinion about the concerned essay. if u again proved to be wrong, then u have my words ,'i will make ur opinion more correct, then before'.
try that , bye
regards , Adil

Salam everybody,

This is the thing that the Examiner donot need the arguments on your own topic but look for the explaination and elaboration of the qiven topic using simple and understandable language.

Regarding the next thing that you have asked for is unity. "Unity" has completely different meanings than the "Pluralistic vision". Also remember that this term is not new in the English Language but not used as Pluralistic vision of Islam in the history.

One thing more, If you say that the rights of non-muslims are given in the Islam then you must know that there is direct objection from so called moderns about the status of "Zimmis" in Islamic society. I also want to mention here that Examiner want the Essay on the term given, not that wheather it is used in the history or not.

I hope this is enough for you as there is no link between the ideologies of Wahdatul Wajood etc with this topic. This is a simple term used oftenly by Western and Middle Eastern scholars in their books on Islam and Democracy.

Regards,

Sajid.

------

To Mr. Adil Iqbal!

Let me and other members know that what u have understand from this term, I have mentioned in detail that what is the usage and explaination of this term. Yeh you are right that main reason for getting failed in essay is not fully understanding the topic but this term has no meanings other than what I have mentioned.

Regards,

Sajid.

Ok ok...

I have not written the essay on this topic I just had asked the specific meaning of the title. Ok I understand that objective of essay paper is to check the elaboration and expression. It would then have this meaning also that whatever meaning of title would come to my mind, if I rightly elaborate and express that meaning, it would be all right.

And if you say that this term has been used by western and middle eastern writers with those meanings as you suggest, then I accept this meaning because exactly this type of proof I was asking for.

And I am not defending my previous understanding of the term because I clearly wrote that all that was just my guess.

Salaam,

Brother Khuram, thanks for your reply.

Let me clarify it that by my last sentence I did not have any derogatory intentions. I was just trying to expose my dumbness to philosophical terms.

Your assertions do carry weight. However agreeing to Brother Sajid's explanation, I don't think that we should digress from the fact that we are just students aspiring to go through an exam. I don't believe that these examiners expect us to be big philosophers at all. [You took the view that's most-pleasing to you. If you take it from a general perspective, as brother Sajid suggested, you'll get the point.]

Besides, the paper already had 2 topics from Philosophy-category.

Regards,

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

My understanding of the term was wrong. I am happy because now I am correct on this issue. It is fact that essays relating to philosophical issues regularly appear in paper. I give some following examples:

1971- Man is Condemned to Be Free

This quatation is by an Existentialist philosopher Satre.

1972- The Divided Self and the process of its Unifiication

This is philosophical issue

1973- Iqbal's re-interpretation of Islam

Iqbal actually made pure philosophical interpretation of Islam. Some articals about Iqbal's philosophy can be seen in philosophy section of this forum.

1974- Asthetic Values

It can be written in general way but Aesthetics is a permanent branch of philosophy

1975- Pragmatism

This is pure philosophical theory. This theory is included in philosophy syllabus. Cannot be written in any general way.

1977- Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times

This essay can be written both in general or philosophical way. Theory of Knowledge is another permanent branch of philosophy

1979- Existentialism

Existentialism was a movement in philosophy and literature. So can be written either from philosophy point of view or from literature point of view.

1981- Is Knowledge - Like Virtue - its own Reward.

This assertion is purely derivable from Plato's teachings. However, can be written in general way also.

1988- Machines and Emotions

Some philosophers like Descartes and Will Durant etc. have written over this issue.

etc. etc.

Very honestly, as compared to number of essays relating to current affairs, those relating to philosophical issues are more in number.

An advantage of philosophical issues is that there is no need to keep many facts and figures in fresh memory. The disadvantage is that this relaxtion would demand its price in Current Affair exam.

Anyhow one should attempt essay in a style in which one is comfortable. Primary thing to be considered is the right elaboration and expression.

Thanks!

You are lucky, brother. No doubt!

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program