چکیده:
The two poles of theoretical and practical impossibility and possibility have been observable in all thoughts, which is also evident in Islamic law. The group of 'impossibilists' regarding religious tolerance and legal pluralism, despite entering the eras of modernity and postmodernity, still present worthy and presentable views. From this perspective, religious tolerance with others is either impossible or, if possible, achievable within specific limits of Sharia. Consequently, pluralism in law for them also takes meaning within this same orbit. In contrast, a group that mainly consists of religious modernists strives to show that Islamic Sharia is interpretable and divisible into various realms. Within this spectrum, some extend this possibility to the extent that Sharia is not the whole truth but a part of the truth. Another spectrum, despite drawing an equality between Sharia and truth, considers the ways to reach it to be multiple. This discursive multiplicity must inevitably be paired with other religions, thoughts, and discourses; because the necessity of world peace is to connect with others at certain points, especially if we are seeking sustainable peace. Sustainable peace in the field of international law is not merely the absence of war, but a step toward human development, although realities show something else. This paper aims to explain and limit the theory of impossibility and approaches in religious tolerance and legal pluralism and their mutual impact on each other, and the possibility of achieving sustainable peace through this method. In international law, which is the arena of state presence, signs of tolerance can be observed in this regard. Therefore, attention must be paid to this matter as well. The main questions that can be raised are: Does the possibility of religious tolerance exist from the perspective of the impossibilists? If possible, what are its limits? The method used in this work is analytical-applied. Accordingly, by examining the concepts, relationships, and domains of each of the elements used in this work, it is explained so that through practical approaches via religious tolerance and legal pluralism, the possibility of achieving sustainable peace in the global arena is attained.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Limiting the Islamic Impossibility Theory in Religious Tolerance and Legal Pluralism to Achieve Sustainable Peace Abozar Abdi 1 Abstract The two poles of theoretical and practical impossibility and possibility have been observable in all thoughts, which is also evident in Islamic law.
This work aims to explain and limit the theory of impossibility and approaches in religious tolerance and legal pluralism, their mutual influence on each other, and the possibility of achieving sustainable peace through this method.
Accordingly, by examining the concepts, relationships, and domains of each of the elements used in this work, it is explained so that through practical approaches via religious tolerance and legal pluralism, the possibility of achieving sustainable peace in the global arena is attained.
Keywords: Sharia, Islamic impossibility theory, religious tolerance, legal pluralism, sustainable peace - Master's degree and researcher in International Law Email: Abozzarabdi@yahoo.
At the beginning, strategic words are discussed, followed by the topics of tolerance, legal pluralism, and achieving sustainable peace through prominent works.
From this perspective, it is worth mentioning that Muslim states in the current era face at least two legal foundations: Islamic Sharia and modernity.
Islamic states, while participating in the creation of general customs, can use this source in line with their own principles, based on their intellectual foundations and while observing the framework of international law.
International law also, given its own foundations, provides the possibility of a pluralistic presence for Muslims, and this itself is an opportunity for peaceful coexistence, which can be a minimal approach of the aforementioned theories; however, as to how far tolerance extends and at what point it ends, no single answer can be found.
(
, 
, 
)
