Introduction: When Relativism Turns into a Creed

The problem of “relativism” is regarded as among the most violent intellectual challenges that divine philosophy and the new theology have faced in the modern age. This assertion seeped out from the molds of the natural sciences to turn into something like an “epistemic ideology” that claims that truth is gelatinous and changing, dependent on the circumstances of time and place or on the angle of view of the perceiving subject.

This proposition was reflected directly upon religion; so claims appeared calling for the relativity of the cosmic vision and the legal rulings, seeking to confine religion to the corner of individual worship on the pretext that the public sphere is changing and that empirical science is a sufficient substitute for organizing people’s lives.

This article presents an approach that dismantles these problems with the instruments of epistemology and the new theology, relying on the renewing contributions of the thinkers of the contemporary Islamic school, foremost among them the martyr Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (1353–1400 AH / 1935–1980 CE) and the martyr Shaykh Murtada Mutahhari (1338–1399 AH / 1920–1979 CE).

1. Dismantling the Relativity of Knowledge (the Root of the Problem)

Before delving into “the relativity of religion,” the philosophical method requires settling a rank prior to it: is human knowledge relative in an absolute manner?

1. The Great Fallacy: Confusing Einstein’s Relativity with Epistemic Relativism

It is common in contemporary debates to cite the theory of relativity of Einstein (1879–1955 CE) to establish that “truth is relative.” This is a confusion resulting from mere verbal commonality; for physical relativity investigates the mechanisms of measuring phenomena (such as time and place) according to the motion and speed of the observer, but the physical event in itself remains real and objective.

Indeed, Einstein’s theory itself was built upon a “fixed absolute,” which is the speed of light in a vacuum. Physics searches for the rigorous cosmic constants, and does not negate the existence of a truth independent of human awareness — and this is the very opposite of what the relativist wants.

2. The Logical Collapse of Philosophical Relativism (Self-Refutation)

Islamic philosophy relies on a solid demonstration to overturn epistemic relativism, known as “self-refutation.” When the relativist makes his universal statement, “every truth in existence is relative,” he is confronted with the recoiling question: and this statement in itself — is it an absolute truth or a relative one?

• If it is absolute: then the existence of at least one absolute truth has been established, and the claim that “every” truth is relative is invalidated.
• If it is relative: then it may be erroneous and non-binding in another context, so it loses its scholarly value and turns into sophistical futility.

In both cases the rule falls. And absolute relativism is not defeated by any opponent from outside it; rather it refutes itself by itself.

3. The Thesis of the Martyr al-Sadr: The Distinction Between the Absolute and the Relative

In his foundational book Our Philosophy (Falsafatuna), the martyr al-Sadr dismantles sophistry and epistemic relativism (including its Kantian and Marxist forms) by dividing knowledge into two levels:

• The first rational principles (the epistemic absolute): such as the principle of non-contradiction and the principle of causality. These are innate principles prior to experience, without which science and logic are impossible. For were the principle of non-contradiction relative, no physicist could establish a single equation, on account of the permissibility of its being correct and erroneous at one and the same time.
• The theoretical knowledge (the perfective): which is derived by experience and thought. Here Islamic thought acknowledges the existence of “change and perfection” in human understanding, but it is a change toward drawing near to a fixed objective reality, not a fluctuation in the foundation of the truth. For error in reading reality does not mean the absence of a reality.

2. Dismantling the Sensory Fallacies

The proponents of relativism resort to sensory representations to smuggle in their idea. Here two examples emerge that need philosophical examination.

1. The Fallacy of the Numbers (6) and (9)

It is often proposed that a number drawn on the ground is seen by the one standing on one side as (6) and by the one standing on the opposite side as (9), as a proof that truth is dependent on the angle of view.

The response: this is a confusion between “the subjective perceptual phenomenon” and “the objective truth.” For this number did not come into being by chance; a doer drew it with a purpose and an intention determined beforehand: either he intended to write (6) or he intended to write (9). The original intention of the doer is the fixed truth; one of the two observers got it right and the other got it wrong on account of a deficiency in his angle of vision. And error in perception does not turn the single thing into two contradictories at the same time.

2. The Fallacy of the Complementary Parts

It is sometimes said: if scientist (A) says that the element reacts with substance (1), and scientist (B) says that it reacts with substance (2), then this is a proof that truth is relative, changing with the change of the researcher.

The response: this is neither a contradiction nor relativism; it is a “truth composed of complementary parts.” The total truth is that this element reacts with (1) and (2) together under certain conditions. Contradiction only occurs if one of the two parts is negated in the same circumstance — as if it were said that it reacts with (1) and does not react with it at one and the same time. As for epistemic accumulation, it gathers the parts to discover the picture of the complete truth, not to negate it.

3. The Religious Cosmic Vision and the Relativity of the Rulings

After establishing the absoluteness of knowledge and the existence of an objective reality, we move, in logical sequence, to the field of religion and the rulings.

1. The Absolute Source and the Devotionally-Fixed Rulings

The religious cosmic vision is built upon establishing the existence of the Wise Creator, absolute in His attributes and knowledge, by rational proof. Accordingly, the legislative rulings issue from a knowledge encompassing the human being in his past, present, and future. And since “the source” is absolute, the foundation of the legislation carries the character of absoluteness and validity.

2. The Duality of the Human Being and the Incapacity of Empirical Science

Here lies the fundamental cornerstone in the impossibility of replacing religion with science:

• Empirical science: is confined, by virtue of its instruments and its induction, to the world of matter and body.
• The human being: is a being composed of matter and spirit (according to the theory of substantial motion of Sadr al-Muta’allihin, Mulla Sadra, 979–1050 AH / 1571–1640 CE). The spirit is an immaterial dimension that transcends the laws of physics and chemistry.

And since the legal rulings follow “real benefits and harms” that include the human being’s matter and spirit together, empirical science remains deficient in observing “the true causes” of the rulings, because its instruments do not reach the world of the spirit and the unseen.

3. Witnesses from the Details of the Legislation

The details of the acts of worship reveal a spiritual aspect that is impossible to interpret in a purely material way, which affirms their devotionally-fixed dimension:

• The obligation of ablution (wudu): were its cause “the material cleanliness of the body,” it would not be invalidated by breaching the order and continuity. For from a purely material angle, washing the left hand before the right achieves the same cleanliness. But the legislation stipulated a precise order and sequence; which indicates a “positive effect and a devotional secret” linking the movements of the body to the purification of the spirit and its preparation for divine nearness.
• Legal slaughter (tadhkiya): some try to confine the cause of slaughter to “expelling the corrupt blood” (medical sterilization). But the legislation stipulates the mention of Allah’s name and facing the qibla. For were an animal slaughtered with the highest standards of cleanliness and all its blood expelled from it without the mention of Allah’s name, its consumption would be forbidden by the text of the Quran. This demonstrates that the ruling has an existential, spiritual dimension that affects the very self of the consumer, which science is incapable of measuring with its material probes.

4. The Flexibility of the Branches and the Fixity of the Essence

If religion is absolute and fixed, then how does it confront the change of time and place?

The martyr Mutahhari answered, in his renewing thesis Islam and the Requirements of the Age, by dismantling the structure of religion into two levels:

• The fixity of the essence (the innate needs): the fundamentals of religion (divine oneness and justice) and the great moral values are fixed, because they address human innate nature (innate human disposition), and innate nature does not change with time and place (for justice is good and injustice is ugly in all ages).
• The flexibility of the branches (the change of the subjects): jurisprudence (Islamic jurisprudence) possesses rational reasoning instruments to accommodate the variables:
  • Living reasoning (qualified legal reasoning): transforming the fixed universal rules into legal opinions (religious legal ruling) for the newly-arisen subjects (such as banking transactions and biomedicine).
  • The concept of “the zone of vacancy”: which is the thesis that the martyr al-Sadr formulated in Our Economics (Iqtisaduna); where the Lawgiver left a legislative space for the guardian of the affair to fill with changing rulings according to the welfare of the nation, provided that they do not clash with the fixed texts of the Sharia.

5. Refuting the Confinement of Religion to the Mosque

The secular theories were founded on the idea that religion is an individual spiritual experience with no relation to the public sphere. This proposition has been answered with structural and rational proofs:

• The comprehensiveness of the legislative fabric: upon surveying Islamic jurisprudence, we find that the pure acts of worship constitute only a small part of it, while the rulings accommodate the systems of the judiciary, the prescribed penalties, financial policy (alms, the fifth, the spoils, the prevention of monopoly), and international relations. So confining religion to the mosque is a suspension of the majority of its legislative structure.
• Resolving the social contradiction (the demonstration of al-Sadr): the martyr al-Sadr poses, in the introduction to Our Economics, the dilemma of the man-made systems (such as capitalism and socialism) that are incapable of resolving the contradiction between “the self-interest of the individual” and “the general interest of society.” Religion is the power able to merge the two interests without the tyranny of one of them; because it links working for the public sphere and social justice to the unseen dimension and the reward of the Hereafter, so that the management of the state, the establishment of justice, and the aid of the oppressed are transformed from a dry material function into the highest instances of worship in the school of the the Prophet's household (AS).

Conclusion: Neither Fluidity nor Rigidity

The rigorous rational approach concludes by drawing an integrated epistemic picture, which rejects relativist sophistical fluidity and at the same time rejects literalist rigidity. Its upshot is that:

• The Wise Creator, absolute in knowledge, is the source of legislation;
• The human being is a being composed of matter and spirit;
• The world of matter and body is covered by empirical science with the instruments of the laboratory and induction, and it is deficient in perceiving the causes of the unseen;
• And the world of the spirit and legislation is covered by religion and revelation, with fixity in the fundamentals and flexibility in the branches.

Based on this methodical ordering, the claim of the relativity of religion falls; for it is an integrated system that sets out from absolute epistemic truths, marries the needs of the body to the yearnings of the spirit, and possesses an inherent flexibility for managing the public sphere in every time and place through the open door of reasoning — which makes it dominant over science and directing its values, immune from replacement or confinement to the corners of isolated individual rituals.