ভূমিকা

Shiavault - a Vault of Shia Islamic Books Intellectual Responses To Religious Pluralism An Overall View: the Meanings of Religious Pluralism Before beginning to discuss the intellectual responses to religious pluralism, some definitions and common challenges in today’s world of religious pluralism should be briefly identified. Discussing pluralism is a complex matter.

The term pluralism is used to cover many aspects of the society in question - ethnicities, political ideologies, economic theories, genders, religions, and even, as found in some religious educational literature, a variety of methodological techniques, teachers, students, and philosophies of education. The term religious pluralism, which is now in widespread use, reflects various realities and has different meanings.

Classical approaches in religious and sociological studies to understanding religious pluralism offer two possible models: the assimilation model of a cultural melting pot and the functionalist model of social disorder. Neither appears adequate in the task of understanding contemporary religious pluralism. For example, new religious immigrants are not steadily assimilating into the Western way of life, but are actively engaged in a process of transforming it.

Most importantly, most of us wish to avoid social chaos as a result of religious pluralism. We would rather prefer the emergence of society that celebrate religious pluralism and social and religious systems that increasingly accommodate plurality. For some scholars, pluralism points to a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in the development of their groups within the confines of a common civilization.

In certain contexts, religious pluralism can also refer to the plurality and pluriformity of societies, which have been a reality since long ago. Historians point out that pluralism as an ideology was stressed most vigorously in England during the early 20th century by a group of writers, including Harold Laski and R.H.

Tawney, who were reacting against what they alleged to be the alienation of individuals under conditions of unrestrained capitalism.[^5] They argued it was necessary to integrate the individuals in a social and religious context which could give them a sense of community.