John Hick and Motahhary comparison Truthfullness in religions

John Hick believes in religious pluralism. He believes that the plurality of religions is obvious and undeniable. He tries to explain this plurality. Hick believes that all religions are fairly equally spaced, and the claims of all religions are true, and the supporters of all religions are to be saved and salvaged. In his view, we have not just one right, but we have many rights. In other words, Hick believes in the truthfullness pluralism. To illustrate the issue of multiplicity of religions, he uses the Kantism distinction between noumenon and phenomene, and Wittgenstein's See theory. All religions are reactions to the ultimate truth. Various religions, even if they have different responses and reactions to the divine reality, can all contribute to the salvation, or perfection of their followers. The essence of religion is the transformation of human personality from self-centered to God, and in all religions, the important thing is that man turned to God. In contrast, Professor Motahhari believes that all religions have the right, but each in their own time. There is a right religion at any time. He believes that the multiplicity of religions is due to the lack of maturity and intellectual development of man, but believes that at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, man had reached a level that could maintain his holy book. Our goal in this article is to answer some of the following questions: What are the benefits of religions to the truth? What is the basis of the validity of religions from the perspective of these two thinkers? What is the multitude of religions? What is the philosophical basis of the theory of multiplicity of religions ?