تفكيك گوهر و صدف دين، مقدمه‌اي براي كثرت‌گرايي ديني؛ بررسي ديدگاه سيدحيدر آملي

The Differentiation between Pearl and Shell of Religion as a Prelude toward Religious Pluralism: Assessing Sayyid Heidar Āmulī

تفكيك گوهر و صدف دين از يكديگر مسئله‌اي است كه طيف وسيعي از كثرت‌گرايان براي پي‌ريزي ديدگاه كثرت‌گرايانۀ خود از آن سود جسته‌ و آن را به عرفاي مسلمان مستند ساخته‌اند. سيد حيدر آملي يكي از پيشگامان عرفان اسلامي است كه اهتمام خاصي به تفكيك گوهر دين از صدف آن دارد، زيرا آرمان آشتي دادن شيعيان دوازده‌امامي با متصوفه راستين را در سر مي‌پروراند و كليد اين قفل را در رتبه‌بندي معارف الهي و تكاليف ديني شرعي مي‌يابد. ازاين‌رو اغلب آثار وي حول محور تبيين گوهر دين نگاشته شده و تعابير ديرآشناي «ظاهر و باطن دين» و «شريعت، طريقت و حقيقت»‌ كاربرد گسترده‌اي در آن‌ها دارد. درعين‌حال سيد به‌صورت مستقيم و غيرمستقيم كثرت‌گرايي درون‌ديني و برون‌ديني را نفي مي‌كند. بررسي ابعاد گوهر و صدف دين از نگاه ايشان و چگونگي تفكيك آن‌ها از يكديگر كه موردتوجه اين نوشتار است، به‌روشني نشان مي‌دهد كه اعتقاد به اين تفكيك، لزوماً به معناي اعتقاد به كثرت‌گرايي نخواهد بود.

Differentiating between the pearl and shell of religion can properly be recognized as a fundamental issue from which a vast number of pluralists have benefited so as to make robust bedrock of their own pluralistic theories while validating it in regard to Muslim Sufis. As one of forerunners of Islamic Sufism, Sayyid Heidar Āmulī has given a peculiar significance to the differentiation because he, as his main ideal, seeks for reconciliation of Imāmia Shi'ites and true Sufis, and finds the key to this theoretical objective to lie in the classification of divine sciences and religious duties. Hence, most of his works have been written to provide explanation for the pearl of religion in which one can find some notable phrases such as "surface and interior of religion" and "exoteric path (sharī'a), esoteric path (tarīqa), truth (haqīqa)". Nonetheless, Sayyid both directly and indirectly denies intra- and extra-religious pluralism. To evaluate the dimensions of the pearl and shell of religion in his view as well as the question of how to differentiate between them is the main concentration of this article; this article obviously portrays the fact that contending for the differentiation does necessarily not point towards arguing for pluralism.