A cikin wasu fannoni, babu irin wannan ra'ayi na bambancin ra'ayi (pluralism). A kimiyya, misali, ana zaton akwai amsa guda ɗaya daidai. Gaskiya ne akwai ka'idoji masu gasa da juna, amma a ƙarshe ana ɗaukar ka'ida ɗaya a matsayin wadda ta dace, kuma aikin masana kimiyya ne su bincika, su yi muhawara, su nazarta, su yi tunani sosai, da kuma yin aiki don isa ga wannan amsa.

When it comes to certain fields, there is no such concept as pluralism. In science, for example, it is assumed that there is only one right answer. Sure, there can be multiple competing theories, but ultimately one theory is assumed to be the correct one and it is the job of scientists to investigate, to debate, to analyze, to carefully consider, and to work to come to that answer.

A kuma, a yau an koyar da mu cewa wani addini daidai ne ko kuskure ba. Maimakon haka, addini ana ganinsa a matsayin al'amari na asalin mutum, ji da kuma abin da mutum da kansa yake ji a zuciyarsa. Addini ba batun gaskiya ko ilimi ba ne; don haka, bisa wannan hujja, ta yaya za a ce wani addini shi ne "daidai" ko "gaskiya"? Idan mutum yana kallon addini ta wannan fuska ta "subjectivism", to yana iya yin tunanin cewa, ta wata hanya, "dukkan addinai gaskiya ne" ta wata fuska.

In contrast, today we are not taught to think of any given religion as being right or wrong. Rather religion is about personal identity, personal feelings, what you subjectively feel to be the case. Religion is not about facts and knowledge, therefore, the reasoning goes, how can any given religion be considered “correct” or “true”? If you are coming from this “subjectivist” view of religion, then you might be prone to think that, in a sense, “all religions are true” in one way or another.

Amma a tarihance, mutane ba su da wannan ra'ayi game da addini ba. An dauki addini kamar yadda mutane a yau ke daukar kimiyya, ma'ana: fahimtar gaskiya tana nufin fahimtar Allah, kuma fahimtar Allah tana nufin fahimtar abin da Allah ya fada. Don haka ba abin mamaki ba ne cewa a da, mafi ilimi da wayewa a cikin al'umma sukan kasance mafi zurfin ilimin addini. Haka kuma ba abin mamaki ba ne cewa muhawarorin addini tsakanin addinai a da sun faru ne a matakin tauhidi, misali Kiristoci da Musulmai suna muhawara game da yanayin Allah, sifofinSa, da sauransu, alhali a yau, mafi yawan muhawarorin addinai da ke faruwa suna mayar da hankali ne kan batutuwan dabi'a kamar hakkokin dan adam, hakkokin mata, hakuri, da sauransu.

But historically, people did not have this view of religion. Religion was thought of in a similar way to how people today think of science in the sense that understanding reality means understanding God and understanding God means understanding what God has said. It was no coincidence, then, that typically the most knowledgeable and educated people in society in the past were also the most religiously learned. It is also not a coincidence that inter-religious debates in the past happened on the theological level, e.g., Christians and Muslims debating about the nature of God, His attributes, etc., whereas today, most of the handful of inter-religious debates that happen focus on moral concerns like human rights, women’s rights, tolerance, etc.

Yana da muhimmanci a lura cewa kasancewar mutum yana da ra'ayin "objectivist" game da addini ba ya saba wa haƙuri a kansa. Misali, al'ummar zamani ta yanzu mai bin tsarin boko ba tare da addini ba tana da ra'ayin objectivist idan ana maganar kimiyya, amma duk da haka tana nuna haƙuri ga mutanen da ba su san kimiyya ba, ko ma waɗanda suke kuskure sosai game da abin da suka yi imani da shi a kimiyyance. Sai dai al'umma ta yanzu tana kafa iyaka idan kuskuren imanin kimiyya na mutum ya cutar da wasu, inda ake ayyana cutarwa bisa ga tsarin kimiyya da ake ɗauka daidai.

It is important to note that having an “objectivist” view of religion does not in itself contravene tolerance. For example, our present secular society has an objectivist view when it comes to science, but there is still tolerance for people who are scientifically illiterate or who may even be downright wrong about what they scientifically believe. However, present society draws the line when it comes to people’s incorrect scientific beliefs harming others, where harm itself is defined according to what is considered to be the correct scientific paradigm.

Misali mai sauƙi shi ne dukkan muhawarar allurar rigakafi. Mutane na iya yin imani da duk abin da suka ga dama game da tasirin allurar rigakafi a kan yara, amma a wani mataki, an ba gwamnati izini ta shiga tsakani ta ce dole ne a yi wa yara allurar rigakafi, da sauransu. Wannan saboda an yi imani cewa idan aka bar mutane su ci gaba da bin imaninsu na kuskure fiye da wani mataki, hakan zai haifar da illoli masu faɗi ga al'umma.

A simple example is the whole vaccination debate. People can believe whatever they want about the impact of vaccines on children, but at some point, the government was given the mandate to intervene and say that children must be vaccinated, etc. This is because there was a belief that if people were allowed to pursue their incorrect beliefs past a certain point, that would have wider negative ramifications.

Watakila ya kamata mu fahimci haƙurin Musulunci ta wannan fuska. A al'ummomin Musulunci na baya, wannan irin haƙuri ma yana nan. Haƙurin shari'ar Musulunci ga Kiristoci da Yahudawa, da ayyukan addinansu, sananne ne kuma an rubuta shi sosai. A takaice, akwai wuri ga mutane su kasance cikin kuskure daga mahangar tsarin rinjaye, amma haƙurin yana da iyaka. Wannan kuma muna gani a al'ummar zamani ta boko, ko da yake ba a tsara abubuwa haka ba.

Perhaps we should understand Islamic tolerance in the same light. In past Islamic societies, this kind of tolerance also existed. Muslim and Islamic law’s tolerance for Christians, Jews, and their respective religious practices are well known and documented. In other words, there was room for people to be wrong from the perspective of the dominant paradigm but there were limits to that tolerance. This is something we see in present secular society as well, though things are not conceived as such.