Religion and Theology

The Muslims have a strong belief that the Koran is constituted of the universal imperatives that all humans are supposed to fulfill. They are given freely to all of us at birth bearing a primordial nature and include all the obligatory cognitions and volitions to fulfill the laws of humanity and to recognize and give service to God (Brinkley, 1993). It is up to everyone to study what the Koran requires of human beings and embrace it through the service to God and the humanity.

There is a popular belief that there is only one true religion and that other traditions and canons are valueless and false. The antipluralist argument can thus be reframed as there is no religion which supports the view constitutive, redemptive, revealed truths can value any religion that contradicts the believes. Therefore any religion views itself as the only true religion and ascribes no value to the others (Brinkley, 1993).

The presented documents support different viewpoints, the one being of the pluralistic nature, and the other advocating for imperialism.

Pluralism
Pluralism does not imply diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. It was diversity that led to the creation of religious ghettoes with little interaction among them. Islam means not just tolerance, but the active process of seeking understanding across the lines of difference. The text argument in favor of pluralism seems complicated to a certain extent. Some ideas in the text pluralistic, while others oppose the idea of pluralism. However, the text recognizes all sacred books and their messages. Islam defines itself as the last and perfect religion of the Semitic tradition and states that no other religion will be accepted from anybody else other than itself.

The problem of pluralism emerges not at the social cultural level, but at the religious sphere. For example the assertion that, only my religion possesses the intrinsic religious value for attaining religious perfection has basis for the belief that the capacity to lead the believer to the spiritual perfection, privately or publicly to be saved belongs to a single tradition. This contravenes the teachings of any pluralistic religion because in this case it does not give importance to any religion. The question concerns the willingness of the representatives of a certain religion to grant members of other religions the equal level of importance it ascribes to itself.

The article supporting pluralism reiterates that when considering a religion to be pluralistic, then we have to consider if the faith community can accept the idea that other religions have intrinsic spiritual values. This contradicts the text advocating for imperialism as it considers others who proclaim the representatives of other religions as traitors. They should either embrace Islam or there is no reason why they should be left to continue living. This is the major difference between what the two articles are advocating for. It is clearly pointed out that such blending of the religious role with the modern or alien concepts and in this context other religious groups can be highly provocative to the religious thinkers and scholars of the conventional formation. It further notes that some of the hostility cases evidently correlate with the misgivings of the religious allies of the wealthy classes over the radical implications of its teachings. The reason for this is that the Muslims want to safeguard the truth of the Islam teaching.

For the religious pluralism to recapitulate there should be acceptance of the intrinsic redemptive value of the competing religious traditions. This is what is advocated for by the article supporting pluralism, and in this case it is natural that beliefs and values essential to one faith will contravene those of another one. This is the reason for conflict and violence cases, if religious teachings are not articulated with the necessary acumen and practical wisdom in the political domain. The contradiction further widens with the article supporting imperialism, namely, in that the means and relations of production intensify daily, with the gap between the rich and the poor widening constantly. Due to this those who work hard are likely to inherit the kingdom of heaven, and those who do not are likely to perish. It further asserts that capitalism will be destroyed and those who are advocating for the same will be destroyed.

Imperialism
The first text is advocating for imperialism, according to which many of the Muslim clerks and activists strive to impose the Islam law in the whole world. Imperialism in the text is a notion considered to have reached the metaphysical level and is supposed to stop all debates and answer all questions. The writer of the text is trying to explain why Muslims do not dominate the whole world, and emphasizes upon the issue that Islam is always passive and innocent, and the wars that Muslims engage themselves in are aimed to guard the sovereignty of the citizens.

The text is advocating for radicalism, because the imperialistic nature of the Muslims that is highlighted in the text. For example the author writes that what is new in the radical literature is the subordination of scientific understanding of the scripture to the demands of an activist political ideology. For every instance of desacralisation normally this is accompanied by a strong affirmation of the supremacy of God and His will to dispel any accusation of blasphemy or heresy against its authors.

Ideologies of Marxism
One of the texts connotes that the Marxist ideas are equivalent to the secular, political system of beliefs, since in the classical Persian the compound is more suggestive of a mind which is preoccupied with material world rather than the spiritual world. It contravenes its assertion that those who do not work hard and do not get as much property as possible are likely to perish. In the same light it also advocates for individualism in that God is not many but one, so it is important that a person leads hisher life and does not care about others in the society. The text goes further to assert that exercises in reconciling Islam with Marxism have never been explicit since their initiators have been wiser than that, making sure that the synthesis they seek always takes an implicit, piecemeal and abstruse form. This implies that they do not want to hear anything about the ideas of Marxism. The term Islamic Marxism is used to designate the synthesis which is a ploy used by the Islamic adversaries to discrete its eyes on Islamic traditionalists. The other text contains no information about ideas to do with Marxism which is obviously a difference between the two texts.

Jihad
The first text is advocating for jihad against those who do not embrace Islam as a religion. In 1967, for example, there was war for six days because of Islamic socialism and political exigencies of officialdom, but also of an innovation hitherto unthinkable in Islamic context- reconciliation with Marxism. The wars were based on the matters of faith, but they used a different issue to bring out their dissatisfaction on those people who embrace Islamic religion.

Concerning the second text, there is no explicit mentioning of jihad against non believers and this serves as a theological justification for territorial expansion of the Muslim political power. The Muslim jurists, as Tabari connotes that it was not made a precondition for the non-Muslims among the monotheists to convert to Islam to avoid the outright warfare. However, there was a tacit endorsement of the Korans Recognition of the salvific efficacy of the other religions although unbelievers other than monotheists had to accept Islam to avoid blood shed. In this case those who embraced any religion apart from Islam were just to accept the Koran as they have appreciated their religious readings. But those who embraced no religion were to be killed. There is a difference here at the same time we have a similarity, in that the second text recognizes the importance of other religions but despises those who do not embrace any religion. The similarity is that in both approaches there is war against those who do not embrace any religion.

Similarities
The human will to struggle
Both texts support those work very hard to earn the daily bread. According to the first text, the indispensability of the human will and struggle is stressed to underline the new philosophy and the Islamic socialism and all the fatalistic but secularist ideologies which preach faith in a historical necessity in determinism guaranteeing the ultimate victory of the oppressed. However the impression is of syncretism of religion and politics where there is a visible slant towards the latter. Therefore, even if Islam advocates for socialism, still there is room for one to work hard and Islam will nourish one in terms of faith and not providing the daily bread. The writer further asserts that the socialism in Islam is like mere politicking because it does not exist and one has to work hard to get what one can call hisher own. The other text also puts it clearly that those people who do not work hard should not consider themselves to inherit the kingdom of God, rather they will perish. So on the matter of working to accumulate the worldly wealth, the two texts advocate for the same.

Islamic law
Sharia aims to protect the interests of the Muslim society. The first text does not mention anything directly about the law in Islam, but the number of wars that are witnessed are within the law because it is like they are fighting others because they are not adhering to the law. For example the explanation that most adherents of the outlook have been profoundly inspired by the idealism of Ali Shariat (1933-77), the most popular mentor of Islamic radicalism in modern Iran. He was also very instrumental in the formation of the militant Islam and this cannot be performed in absence of law.

Concerning the second text, the Islamic traditionalists support the viewpoint that the Islamic law as it was formulated by the jurists was strict in conformity with the divine as stipulated by the Koran and tradition. The humans need to be an ideal government that can hardly be fulfilled in particular political practices of the past cannot be modified to bring them with the mores of the present. This implies that the law should not be questioned in any way and it is there to be adhered to.

Service to God
Both texts advocate for the service to God, as He is the creator of the universe and all that is in it. As in the illustration in the first text that as well as the divine testimony, a Quranic verse is quoted, and we are minded to show favour to those who were brought low in the land, and to make them spiritual chiefs and to make them heirs (285). This is enough evidence that all Muslims should be committed in doing the will of Allah.

The second text also is geared on reminding the Muslims of the need to serve Allah. The Korans pluralistic theology of the other does not view interfaith relations as a divinely ordained system of human coexistence. Its narrative of sacred history is genuinely inclusive, starting with the first human couple who inaugurated the human journey towards the creation of an ideal society on earth. humankind, be aware of your duties to your Lord, who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair scattered them abroad many men and women (K. 4 1). This shows that the sole purpose as to why Muslims were created is to serve God and help Him to fill the whole earth.

Islamic vocabulary
There is an obvious similarity between the two texts that they have borrowed vocabulary heavily from the Islamic language. The two texts have also cited much the holy book to give back up to some of the sentiments that they are expressing. In the texts they have also praised Islam as a religion and both of them show that there is the commitment to make sure that all people follow some religion and, if possible, Islam. There is a belief that the Koran is freely given to us and our function as the adherents and followers is to live by the teachings of the Koran as that is the will of God. The core of the Islamic fundamentalism is the religious idealism that promises its followers that once the Islamic norm prevails, it will dramatically sweep away the manifold social, political and moral problems facing the world today.