From the Unity of Truth to the Multiplicity of Manifestations: An ‘Irfani Reading of the Critique of Relativism in the Human Sciences
Mohammad Kourani — 2026.08.22
Relativism in Western human sciences is an intellectual principle which holds that truths, values, and standards are neither fixed nor absolute, but change and differ according to cultural, historical, and social contexts. This relativity among human beings exists because each person has his or her own understanding, and, in principle, there are as many paths to God as there are souls among creation. However, believing that the very foundations of values and truths are relative is extremely dangerous, because it undermines the idea of a single source of truth, Lordship, and the One God.
At first glance, the concept of human relativism means that human understanding, behavior, and history depend upon environment, customs, and the age in which people live.
It rejects the idea that there are single and absolute standards for interpreting all cultures and historical periods.
It considers judgments in history, literature, and sociology to be connected to the perspective of the researcher and the society.
Forms of Relativism in the Human Sciences
Cultural relativism: emphasizes that values and ethics differ from one society to another.
Historical relativism: holds that ideas and knowledge change as historical periods and eras develop.
Epistemic relativism: regards the human sciences as probabilistic disciplines rather than exact sciences comparable to the physics of absolutes.
Characteristics of Human Knowledge
Human knowledge:
relies on probability and interpretation rather than rigid deterministic laws;
continually develops in order to enrich human thought and correct previous concepts;
is influenced by language, the way the observer thinks, and the context in which the observer exists.
Truth in Islamic ‘Irfan
Islamic ‘Irfan offers a radically different conception from philosophies that regard truth and values as relative products of the human being, society, or culture.
The central point in the ‘Irfani worldview is that the multiplicity of forms of existence and knowledge does not mean multiplicity of truth in itself. Rather, the differences among beings, languages, cultures, and levels of existence arise from differences in determinations, receptivities, and degrees of manifestation.
From here, a profound critique of relativism can be developed, while making an important distinction between legitimate methodological relativity—such as differences in perspectives or social contexts—and absolute philosophical relativism, which denies the existence of a truth or value transcending the human being and culture.
First: Truth Is One, While Manifestations Are Multiple
The ‘Irfani conception begins with Tawhid:
“Say: He is Allah, the One.”
﴿قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ﴾
The Divine Reality is not one truth among many truths. Rather, He is the source of truth and the source of existence.
But this does not mean that the universe is a single repetitive copy of truth. Existence appears in multiple degrees, and determinations, attributes, and effects become multiple, each according to its own receptivity.
Imagine placing diverse and different mirrors before a source of light.
Here we must distinguish between:
the unity of truth and the multiplicity of manifestations.
Multiplicity in appearances does not necessarily imply multiplicity in the origin.
Therefore, we can say:
Truth is one in its essence, multiple in its manifestations, and different in its degrees of appearance according to differences in receptivities and determinations.
This is a fundamental principle that can be used in critiquing epistemological and ethical relativism.
Second: The “Words of God” Are Infinite, but Their Source Is One
The Qur’an says:
“Say: If the sea were ink for the Words of my Lord, the sea would surely be exhausted before the Words of my Lord were exhausted.”
(Qur’an 18:109)
And it says:
“And if all the trees on earth were pens, and the sea, replenished by seven seas after it, were ink, the Words of Allah would not be exhausted.”
(Qur’an 31:27)
In an ‘Irfani reading, these verses open a vast horizon for understanding the universe as a manifestation of the Divine Words.
The enormous multiplicity existing throughout the universe does not mean that there are realities independent of God. Rather, it means a multiplicity of effects, determinations, and manifestations.
Here an important ‘Irfani equation emerges:
The unity of the source does not prevent the multiplicity of manifestations.
Indeed, one can say:
The broader the degrees of existence become, the broader the forms of manifestation become, without the Divine Reality itself becoming multiple.
Third: Manifestation Is Not Fragmentation
Here we must be careful about a fundamental misunderstanding.
When we say that God manifests Himself in creation, this does not mean that the Divine Essence is divided, or that one part of God becomes a tree, another part becomes a human being, and another part becomes a planet.
This contradicts Divine transcendence.
Manifestation concerns the appearance of the effects of the Divine Names and Attributes within receptive beings, not the division of the Divine Essence.
Mercy manifests in one place.
Power manifests in another.
Wisdom manifests in another.
Provision manifests in another.
Beauty manifests in another.
But the source of these Names is one.
In this way, multiplicity can be understood without falling into either polytheism or the idea that God is incarnated in the world.
Fourth: The Receptive Being Determines the Form of Manifestation
Here we reach an important concept in ‘Irfan:
receptivity and preparedness.
Clear water reflects an image more clearly than disturbed water.
The difference between the two reflections does not mean that the sun itself has changed.
Likewise, beings differ according to their receptivity.
The human being is not like the animal.
The animal is not like the plant.
The plant is not like inanimate matter.
The intellect is not like the senses.
And the gnostic heart is not like an intellect that has not undergone spiritual purification.
Therefore:
The difference between manifestations does not necessarily indicate a difference in truth. It may indicate a difference in receptivity and determination.
This is precisely where a philosophical critique of relativism can be constructed.
Fifth: The Qur’an Itself Can Be Understood Within This Framework
Here a precise distinction must be made between the Qur’an as the revealed Word of God and its appearance, understanding, and realization within different worlds and levels.
The Qur’an is one in terms of its source and revelation, but human beings receive it according to their own level.
The scholar understands from it what the ignorant person does not understand.
The jurist derives from it what a non-specialist does not derive.
The ‘arif contemplates its spiritual horizons.
The ordinary person may receive its fundamental guidance.
But the complete reality and inner dimension of the Qur’an are present in the heart of the Infallible.
Differences in reception, understanding, and epistemic manifestation do not mean that the Qur’an itself has become contradictory truths.
This is consistent with the principle of:
the unity of truth together with the multiplicity of levels of understanding.
Likewise, the Qur’an itself does not deny that it was revealed gradually, even though we know that individual verses or short chapters could be revealed independently to the Messenger of Allah according to the circumstances of their revelation.
Sixth: Here the Error of Absolute Relativism Becomes Apparent
Absolute relativism states, in various forms:
There is no single truth that transcends the human being and culture; whatever we consider to be truth or value is determined through the human being, language, society, or culture.
But here a serious philosophical problem appears:
If every truth is relative, is this statement itself relative?
If the statement “There is no absolute truth” is an absolute truth, then it contradicts itself.
And if it is itself relative, then it cannot impose itself upon others.
Thus, absolute relativism faces the problem of self-reference.
‘Irfan, however, begins from a different point:
Absolute truth exists, but the ability of a limited being to comprehend it is not absolute.
This is a radically different solution.
Seventh: Epistemic Difference Does Not Mean Relativity of Truth
Two people may differ in their understanding of a particular issue.
Cultures may differ.
Philosophical schools may differ.
Civilizations may differ.
But none of this necessarily means that truth itself differs.
For example, one person may understand a mathematical problem incorrectly, while another understands it correctly.
Their disagreement does not mean that mathematics itself is relative.
Likewise, differences among human beings in their understanding of justice do not prove that justice is merely a human invention.
Here we must distinguish between:
Relativity of knowledge
—that is, the relativity of human knowledge because of its limitations—
and:
Relativity of truth
—that is, the claim that truth itself is relative.
Many aspects of the first can be accepted. But for us, it remains limited by religious foundations, including:
“The lawful of Muhammad is lawful until the Day of Resurrection, and the unlawful of Muhammad is unlawful until the Day of Resurrection.”
As for the second, it is unequivocally false.
Eighth: Ethics and Jurisprudential Rulings Are Not Relative Simply Because Cultures and Historical Periods Differ
This conclusion is extremely important.
If two societies differ in their understanding of justice, this does not prove that:
justice itself does not exist.
It may mean that one of them is mistaken.
It may mean that both have perceived one aspect of the truth.
It may mean that the application differs according to circumstances.
But all of this is different from saying:
There is no ethical truth at all.
In the Islamic conception, there are values connected to Divine perfection:
justice, truthfulness, mercy, trustworthiness, benevolence, preservation of human dignity, and faithfulness.
God says:
“Indeed, Allah commands justice and excellence.”
﴿إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالإِحْسَانِ﴾
A value does not become correct simply because society decides that it is correct.
Rather, society may move closer to it or farther away from it.
This is precisely analogous to the differences among beings in their degrees of manifestation:
Variation in realization does not mean relativity of truth.
Ninth: Worship Is Also Not Merely a Cultural Construction
If truth is one, and the human being is limited, then worship can be understood ‘Irfani-wise as a means of returning the human being toward truth.
Prayer is not merely a ritual produced by a particular community.
Fasting is not merely a social custom.
Remembrance of God is not merely a psychological technique.
Rather, from the religious perspective, these are means of purifying the human being and restoring the proper relationship between the human being and the Source of existence.
God says:
“Indeed, successful is the one who purifies it.”
﴿قَدْ أَفْلَحَ مَن زَكَّاهَا﴾
Worship does not change God.
It changes the human being.
Nor does it make truth more true.
Rather, it makes the human being more receptive to truth.
This corresponds deeply with the ‘Irfani concept of receptivity.
Tenth: The Human Sciences Need to Distinguish Between “Human Diversity” and “Multiplicity of Truth”
Here lies a fundamental contribution that the Islamic worldview can offer to the human sciences:
Yes, human beings are diverse.
Yes, cultures are diverse.
Yes, societies are different.
Yes, human ways of understanding existence are multiple.
But:
The multiplicity of human beings does not equal the multiplicity of truth.
The multiplicity of languages does not mean the multiplicity of reality.
The multiplicity of cultures does not mean that all values are equally valid.
The multiplicity of interpretations does not mean that all interpretations are correct.
The multiplicity of manifestations does not mean the multiplicity of absolute truths.
This distinction is extremely important.
Eleventh: ‘Irfan Does Not Deny Multiplicity; It Explains It
The philosophical strength of the theory of manifestation does not lie in denying multiplicity.
Rather, it lies in explaining multiplicity without making multiplicity the standard of truth.
There is:
unity in origin,
multiplicity in manifestation,
variation in receptivity,
variation in degrees of knowledge,
and variation in degrees of perfection.
Thus, we can understand how the world can be multiple without truth itself becoming relative.
Twelfth: The Ethical and Epistemological Conclusion
If the human being himself is one of the limited beings, he cannot make himself the ultimate standard for everything.
Rather, he should move from:
“I decide which truths and standards are best”
to:
“I seek the correct truth and standard through an integrated approach.”
And from:
“Value is whatever I choose and approve of”
to:
“What is the true and correct value and standard that I should discover and realize according to my circumstances?”
And from:
“I am the center of existence”
to:
“I am an existentially poor and dependent being in need of God, yet I possess the capacity to know the truth and move toward it through His will, His mercy, and His grace upon me.”
Here, epistemic humility no longer becomes a weakness of the human being.
Rather, it becomes a condition for transcending his limitations.
https://mohammadabbaskawrani.com
#حضارة_عالمية_مشرقة_قادمة #Merciful_Dignified_Civilization
#العلوم.الانسانية.الاسلامية
#Merciful_Dignified_Civilization
#Islamic_Humanities
