THE CONTRADICTION KNOWN AS RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

By Abu Adeeba

INTRODUCTION

There are some Sikhs who contend that Sikhism teaches the idea that all religions lead to God.
An oft-repeated analogy used by some equates many rivers flowing towards and merging into the sea as an analogy for all the religions having an element of truth in them and, thus, leading to salvation/liberation.

However, we will briefly show that this is impossible and contradictory.

EXAMINATION

When one accepts a proposition (statement) to be true, one is automatically forced to believe that all statements to the contrary must be false; otherwise one cannot in reality believe what one claims to believe. For instance, if one believes that God can never become a human being, for whatever reason; but, at the same time claims that God can become a human if He wants, then this belief is contradictory.

This basic understanding is derived from the universal law of non-contradiction, [1] without which nothing can be determined to be true or false. Indeed, this law is self-evident and a priori (known to be true independently of any particular kind of experience or empirical information).

Religion is generally composed of two basic components:

1. Orthodoxy (proper doctrines/beliefs, e.g. monotheism, polytheism, etc.)
2. Orthopraxy (proper practices, e.g. prayer, charity, etc.)

It is clear that all the religions of the world differ in both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

However, it is orthodoxy that holds the key to the insurmountable differences known to exist between all religions. The crucial part is that they all differ. Some are unitarian, some polytheistic, others trinitarian and yet others still pantheistic. These doctrinal differences are in relation to the very nature of God Himself (called Theology Proper, [2] the study of God and His attributes). Religions also differ in the 'Doctrine of Salvation' (Soteriology). There are many other aspects of differences in orthodoxy. However, this very brief overview should suffice to show that all religions differ in orthodoxy; thus, they are all mutually exclusive. [3]

In light of the law of non-contradiction, we can determine that since the orthodoxy of religions are mutually exclusive, they cannot be true at the same time. If they are, then the law of non-contradiction is violated, resulting in the acceptance of absurdities; that is, opposite things being true at the same time. Hence, when one states that religious pluralism is true, then the following absurdities must also be considered true:

1. Allaah is both alive and dead at the same time.
2. Or a person could be sent to Paradise or Hell-Fire (as taught by Islaam) AND be reincarnated (as taught by the Eastern religions) all at the same time.

However, we know that these contradictions can never be and must, therefore, be rejected, since only one view can be true necessarily.

CONCLUSION

All religions are mutually exclusive:

1) Islaam teaches there is only one God, with no partner.
2) Christianity teaches Trinitarianism.
3) Confucius taught polytheism.
4) Krishna taught a mixture of polytheism and pantheism.
5) Ahura Mazda taught God is a duality of good and evil.
6) Buddha said the issue of God was irrelevant.
7) Sikhism teaches pantheism.

Since they are all mutually exclusive, with only one being true, religious pluralism is unequivocally proven to be false.

Hence, Islaam's proposition that only one religion could be acceptable to Allaah is proven to be a self-evident truth. Thus, in light of the above, Allaah says clearly and emphatically:

"Truly, the only religion acceptable to Allaah is Islaam." (Qur'an 3:19)

"And whoever seeks a religion other than Islaam it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be from the losers." (Qur'an 3:85)

No rational human being could accept that Allaah, the one who endowed humankind with this intellect, would reveal irrational ideas and concepts that violate our god-given rationale. [4]

For a related read on what the purpose of life is including how the first humans worshipped, read: THE ORIGINAL WORSHIPPERS
[1] Allaah points to this law in the Qur'an in the following verse:
"And such is your Lord in truth. Then what is there after Truth except falsehood. How have they then turned away (from the Truth)?" (Qur'an 10:32)

Law of non-Contradiction: (P and not-P) is false.
Judges as false any proposition P and its denial, proposition not-P, true at the same time and "in the same respect". In the words of Aristotle, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time", e.g. the man is dead and not dead (at the same time and in the same respect), which is false.
[2] Also known as: Paterology. This word should not be used by a Muslim since it is derived from the Greek words which mean "father" and "word" - combined to mean "the study of the Father." However, Allaah did not use the name "father (in Arabic 'abb')". It is impermissible, therefore, to use this anglicised Greek word since it is exclusively used by Christian theologians alone, Allaahu 'alam.
[3] Mutually Exclusive: A pair of statements is mutually exclusive if and only if there is no way for both of them to be true at the same time.
[4] Of course, not all Sikhs accept this nonsense of religious plurality.
Dr Ramendra Nath (Reader and Head, Department of Philosophy, Patna College, Patna University, India) on page 8 of The Research Journal 'UNDERSTANDING SIKHISM' states in his article 'THE MYTH OF UNITY OF ALL RELIGIONS':

The myth of unity of all religions can easily be exploded by showing that these religions make conflicting truth-claims, which are incompatible with one another [2, p 118]. For instance, they have different views regarding the nature of this world or about the nature of "life" after death, or about the ultimate destiny of human beings. They also advocate different moral codes, different methods of worship and different rituals. Since they are not similar, it is not possible for all of them to be true at the same time. It is also not possible to regard them as different paths leading to the same goal, because they do not believe in a common goal.
(http://www.iuscanada.com/journal/archives/2006/j0801p08.pdf)

As for the concept of God, Dr Nath concludes:

...contrary to the popular opinion, all religions do not have identical views on the existence or the nature of God. According to some religions, "God exists", whereas according to some others, "God does not exist". It is impossible to reconcile these rival truth-claims. Both these statements cannot be true. It is logically impossible to reconcile them.
(Ibid. pg.9)

Concerning life after death, he further concludes:

Either soul exists or it does not. Either human beings exist after death with their bodies or they exist without their bodies. Either dead persons are reborn or they are not. Either resurrection or the Day of Judgment is real or they are not. Either liberation from the "cycle of birth and death" takes place or it does not. Either karmawad is true or it is not. It is not possible for the two contradictory assertions to be true at the same time. This is the most elementary rule of logic. To sum up, all religions do not believe in the existence of God; and even though all of them believe in life after death, they have conflicting views on what happens after death.
(Ibid. pg.10)

His final conclusion is, therefore, logically sound:

Thus, on fundamental questions about God, nature of life after death, morality, etc., all religions do not have identical beliefs. Some beliefs and some ethical ideas are, no doubt, shared by some religions to some extent, but even these religions have many other fundamental differences. In other words, no two religions share all their fundamental beliefs. If they did, they would not have remained two separate religions. Therefore, there is no rock-bottom unity among different religions. Instead, what we find is conflicting truth-claims and discord. The thesis that all religions are basically same can only be maintained by a person with inadequate knowledge of fundamental beliefs of different religions, or by a person who has a non-serious attitude towards religions, or by a person who is so carried away by his enthusiasm to reconcile various religions that he loses his objectivity and becomes selective in his use of religious data.
(Ibid. pg.12)

And we could add that "the thesis that all religions are basically same can only be maintained by a person" who rejects the inviolable law of non-contradiction.


BACK TO TOP