By Dr Hamid Hadji Haidar is an
Honorary Research Associate at the Department of Political Science, University
College London. He is the author of Islam and Liberalism: Practical
Reconciliation Between the Liberal State and Shiite Muslims (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2008)
Many religious groups throughout the
ages have claimed exclusivity of salvation, negating this possibility to
outsiders. Hamid Hadji Haidar explains the authoritative theological position
of Shi’a Islam and the various options it offers.
There have always been controversies
among religious people of all persuasions as to who is qualified as a good
person and who goes to Paradise. A parallel disagreement has also persisted
among secular people on the conception of the good life worth being pursued by
human beings. Questions are raised among religious people such as: What are the
major requirements for salvation? Is goodness and righteousness defined in
terms of a strict monistic criterion exclusive to a particular religion, or
even to a particular sect within a particular religion? Or are there plural
criteria for righteousness manifested in different religions? It seems that
controversies over the pattern of the good human life can be settled neither
among secular people, nor among religious people, not to mention between
secular people and religious people. From the Islamic point of view, I shall
introduce a perspective held by Shiite Muslim scholars on this crucial issue.
In the history of Shi’i Islamic thought, the most explicitly narrow-minded
perspective has been proposed by the great Shi’i theologian, Allama Bahrul
‘Uloom (1742-1798 CE). According to his views, only Shi’i Muslims can be
conceived of as being righteous and eligible for salvation. In other words, the
doors of Paradise are exclusively open to Twelver Shi’i, or Imamite Shi’i
Muslims, rather than to all Muslims, let alone to non-Muslims. According to
this perspective, not only did Islam abrogate all previous Divine religions,
but it also manifested itself in Shiism. This exclusivist, narrow-minded
perspective can be found among ordinary believers even in other religions. A
second perspective, which is much more friendly towards non- Muslims, not to
mention other non-Shiite Muslims, is proposed by three prominent Shi’i scholars
- Muhammad ibn Hassan al-Tusi (995- 1067 CE), Mulla Sadra (1572-1635 CE), and
Allama Muhammad Hussein Tabataba’i (1902-1981 CE). It should be noted that
al-Tusi is the first great Shi’i theologian and interpreter of the Qur’an, and
has broadly been recognised as the master of Shi’i theologians in the whole
history of Shi’i Islam. As for Mulla Sadra, not only is he recognised as the
founder of a new school of thought in the history of Islamic philosophy, he
also, undeniably, is the master of all Shi’i philosophers in the last four
centuries. Lastly, Allama Tabataba’i is the most prominent philosopher in the
contemporary Shi’i world, as well as the most prominent interpreter of the
Qur’an in the entire history of Shi’i Islam. These three figures share the view
that not only is ‘righteousness’ not confined to Shi’i Muslims, but it includes
other Muslims as well, and should also be applied to practitioners of other
faiths. According to these theologians, the criterion for righteousness lies
not in subscribing exclusively to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam; rather, it
lies in two general principles. The first general principle is faith in God and
the Day of Judgement, whereas the second general principle is practising good
deeds. Hence, whoever has faith in God and the Day of Judgement, and practises
good deeds, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or other, is recognised as a
good person and is eligible for salvation. The doors of Paradise are thus open
to all practising faithful, accordingly. Among the three aforementioned
scholars, Mulla Sadra is more explicit on the view that subscription to a
particular religion has no crucial part in eligibility for salvation. In his
interpretation of the Holy Qur’an, Mulla Sadra explicitly expresses that the
major purpose of sending Prophets and Holy Scriptures to humanity was to
establish faith in the Source and belief in the end of the world, as well as
promoting the doing of good deeds. Hence, assuming that a person did not meet
any Prophet from among all the Prophets nor heard about Prophethood at all, or
lived in the era when there was no Prophet among the people, but nevertheless
believed in God and the Hereafter and practised good deeds, then such a person
would achieve happiness and salvation. It should be added that their evidence
for such an open-minded view on the criterion for righteousness and salvation
is derived from a Quranic verse which states: ‘Surely those who believe
[Muslims], and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever
believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward
from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve’ (2: 26).
The three above scholars explain that this verse disregards the names of this or
that religion, and rather puts its emphasis on general faith in God and the
Afterlife, along with the doing of good deeds. What accentuates their
openminded interpretation of the preceding Quranic verse lies in their
affirmation that this verse has not been abrogated by other apparently
conflicting verses of the Qur’an, not to mention by any tradition. Therefore,
any Quranic verse that seems to be restrictive in this regard ought to be
interpreted in such a way as to be compatible with this verse, which establishes
a definite and general criterion for salvation. It should be noted further
that, confirming the existence of ‘a broad paths to salvation’, as I would
prefer to call it, is not the only openminded view on the crucial issue of the
salvation of non-Muslims. An alternative open-minded view in this regard comes
from Imam Khomeini (1900-1989 CE) who grounds his view on ‘the decree of
reason’ and ‘the fundamental doctrines of Shi’i Islam’. In his book entitled
al-Makasib al-Muharrama, Imam Khomeini distinguishes between two groups: (1)
those who due to their enculturation in their particular communities or
societies turn out to be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, but nevertheless believe
sincerely in the truth of their religion, and (2) those who are aware of the
exclusive absolute truth of Islam. He argues that while the former cannot be
rationally condemned for the rejection of Islam, the latter are rationally
condemned for not submitting to what they know as the final Divine religion,
which has abrogated all previous religions. He further makes a speculation in
this regard and proposes that most Jews and Christians are found in the first
group. Hence, according to Imam Khomeini, since most non-Muslim religious
people are excused for not submitting to Islam, the doors of Paradise will be
open to them, provided that, like pious Muslims, they have sincere faith in the
truth of their religions and practise their religious duties. It is noteworthy
that Imam Khomeini makes a particularly severe attack on Allama Bahrul ‘Uloom’s
narrowminded view. Conclusion Among the great Shi’i Muslim theologians and
philosophers, there are two open-minded views on the issue of the salvation of
non- Muslims. Whilst one of these views is advocated by at least three great
Shi’i scholars, the second is Imam Khomeini’s view. I propose to call the first
three scholars’ perspective as ‘the-broad-path-to-salvation ’ and Imam
Khomeini’s perspective as ‘the-alternative-paths-to-salvation’. The former is
grounded in a Quranic verse, which is not susceptible to abrogation by other
apparently conflicting verses, whereas the latter is grounded in human reason
and the fundamental doctrines of Shi’i Islam. According to these two
perspectives, all practising faithful people could be considered as being
righteous and eligible for eternal happiness in Paradise.