 |
Posted: Dec. 26 2005,18:55 by Hutter from
Germany - |
 
|
A Vision
for Inter-Religious Peace leading to Peace Worldwide
How the
quarrel over a tiny peace of land has plunged the world into turmoil
And a way to peace
In our enlightened secular way of
thinking we hardly take religions into account as factors of peace.
In fact we rather know the religions, and especially the Abrahamitic
religions, to have been causes for conflicts, killings, and outright
wars throughout the centuries.
Whereas before our time the
religions had their areas staked out and conflicts only occurred at
the borders – today the borders are everywhere. Consequently we have
the conflict right in front of our doors. And there is no way to
turn history back. The world has become one, whether we like it or
not.
Therefore it has become a necessity for us to persuade
the three Abrahamitic religions to take a new look at themselves, at
each other – and at the places of conflicting interests.
They
incessantly must be reminded: for them to be taken seriously in our
time they will have to practice what they preach: the brotherhood of
man. If there is only one god, and if this one god has been
communicating with mankind throughout the times, as the Abrahamitic
religions claim, there needs to be peace at least between these
religions. But until now this is not the case.
Worldwide
terror – the consequence of only one inter-religious
conflict
In the center of interest of the worldwide Islamist
movement is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And at the center of
the Palestinian conflict we hardly can overlook the constant
quarrels over one small piece of land in the middle of Jerusalem,
the Temple Mount or Haram Ash-Sharif.
That place once
harbored the ancient temples of the Jews. And even though many of
the Jews living in Israel or elsewhere are denying that – the dream
of a new temple is still alive in Judaism; and that dream shows the
new temple again at exactly that spot. But that spot no longer is in
Jewish possession. It now harbors the third most holy place of
Islam, the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque.
So the
acts of terror the world experiences today are the remote
repercussions of a direct conflict of two religions over a tiny
piece of land. This conflict is, at first sight, insolvable – yet
its outcome is absolutely crucial, because losing in this conflict
would be a devastating blow for the losing side.
Resistance
against Israel from the beginnings up to Hamas and Al
Qaeda
Exactly this conflict had an effect long before the
state of Israel was established. It already loomed in the background
as the first Zionist settlers appeared in the 19th century. Without
ever being mentioned, this conflict made it impossible for the
Arabic nations to accept the UN Plan of Partition of Palestine of
November 1947; and no kind of provisions for the Palestinian
population could have made it acceptable. This was in my view the
main force behind the Arabic notion of that time to drive the
Israelis into the sea, and consequently the cause of the united
Arabic war against the establishment of the Israeli part of the
partition, and also behind all other conflicts in the area since
then – including the recently expressed desire of the Iranian
president to wipe Israel off the map.
But that “kernel” of
the matter always stayed in the background. It could not be talked
about. For the enlightened Western states religious matters had to
be kept out of politics, so they could not take that aspect of the
conflict into account. Most of the Jews were secular in their views;
the temple was out of question for them. They only wanted to have a
safe haven after millennia of pogroms and after the experience of
the Holocaust. The religious Jews could not talk about it, because
talking about it might even have blocked the UN Plan of Partition,
and in later stages it would have let the Jews appear as aggressors.
The Arabs could not talk about it, because they didn’t want to put
their sanctuaries at risk. So they only talked about general rights
and borders, and every now and then they went to arms: the Arabs to
prevent the Jews from establishing a secure homeland, and the Jews
to reach their dream - the Promised Land, an Israel of biblical
dimensions.
In spite of ever increasing violence, no one side
could claim victory. Israel became ever more ineradicable. More and
more Islamic states started to recognize the state of Israel, but a
growing Islamist movement continued to see Israel as its main
enemy.
Seeing that the Palestinian resistance did not
endanger the existence of Israel and also seeing that poverty was
increasing in the Islamic countries, the spearhead of the Islamist
movement, Al Qaeda, decided to go against the main supporters of
Israel and against prominent symbols of the secularist enlightened
Western views of life, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This
way, they hoped to promote the glory of Islam, and simultaneously to
contribute to the bringing down of Israel by striking at her main
supporters.
Even though questions of justice and not of
religion are the most pressing issues in the conflict, religion
plays a completely underestimated role – in fact if it wasn’t for
the question of the Temple Mount, peace would have been established
long ago.
The four religious belief-systems of the Middle
East conflict
As far as I can see, four religious beliefs are
involved in the conflict between Israel and Palestine: The first one
is Judaism which claims to have the original rights. The second one
is Christianity; it hardly is involved in the conflict. But since
most Christians in Israel and Palestine are Arabs, the local
Christians tend to lean to the Palestinian side while Christians on
the outside support the Jewish side. The Christians therefore have
the potential to act as a mediating force. The third party are the
Muslims, the majority of the Palestinians; they deny the Jewish
claim of original rights and claim the sole ownership of Haram
Ash-Sharif, as they call the Temple Mount. The fourth party are the
secularists, who rule out any religious claims, but want to find a
pragmatic solution. But since all parties negate some of the claims
of the other sides, they can’t agree on a solution.
My
personal experience taught me to appreciate all four sides: I have
experienced Islam as a religion that certainly is able to guide
people to an active and a reliable relation to their creator and to
a good life. I have experienced Judaism as the ancient but still
vigorously living religion of God’s own People. I have experienced
Christianity as an unsurpassable way to relate to the creative
source, the heavenly Father.
And I have experienced
secularist enlightenment as a way to explore the laws of nature, to
explore the laws of human communication, and to find solutions by
freeing the mind from all preconceived ideas.
With this
perspective, I looked at the problem and, to my own surprise, I
could view a very simple image of peace:
An image of
peace
If the space for the prophesized temple was already
occupied, maybe the temple could be built a few stories
up.
At first I thought this is all too simplistic, and I
tried to dismiss the idea. But the image did not go away. And the
more I thought about it the more logical it became. Increasingly all
the details fit.
There is the Dome of the Rock. According to
Jewish legend, the rock it harbors is the very rock on which Abraham
bound his son Isaak, because god had demanded he sacrifice what was
dearest to him. Even though most Muslims today believe the son to be
sacrificed was not Isaak but Ismael and the location was not mount
Moriah, but a location near Mecca, they believe mount Moriah was the
place of the night journey of the prophet Mohammed, where he was
raised to the heavens by archangel Gabriel to meet with all the
prophets before him.
So that spot acquired a new significance
for the people of Islam, and they built a sanctuary around it, the
Dome of the Rock. And maybe the Jewish legend of that place has its
importance in that too – because the prophet Mohammed named his
religion “Islam”. Islam describes the peace that results from
exactly that frame of mind Abraham showed in his willingness to
sacrifice his son. For Mohammed, Abraham therefore was the archetype
of a Muslim.
Abraham’s attitude of surrender already had laid
the ground for the religion of Judaism; and the same attitude is
found in Christianity – even more so, since Jesus was not only ready
to sacrifice the dearest, he actually sacrificed himself to make his
disciples see. And that’s why he was not only raised to the heavens,
he was raised from the dead – according to the ones who had learned
to see by his sacrifice. Therefore, Abraham’s surrender is the
common ground and the basis for all three Abrahamitic
religions.
The Dome of the Rock stands there as a witness to
this. And why should the Jews not be able to appreciate that
fact?
The Jewish Temple in the view of the Halacha
The
Jewish temple on the other hand is not for human beings to design.
It is a matter of the Messiah at his coming. But there are certain
preconditions for his coming: Mainly there has to be peace. But how
can there be peace – with an unsolvable conflict creating ever more
trouble?
So, in spite of Halachic laws that decree “the third
temple has to be built on the ground”, which is maintaining the
conflict, couldn’t it be that the Messiah demanded of his people to
free themselves of all preconceived ideas, as the first commandment
already demands, before he gives them exactly what has been
prophesized?
So I invite the people of the Halacha to an
exercise of surrender, to a sacrifice of their dearest, of their
idea that they already know what will be – just as any son of ours
eventually will need our letting go of his life. So please set
your mind free to view an open future. Allow yourself to see a
different temple, a temple not built on the ground but high up in
the air.
In the old days they needed a mountain – like mount
Moriah, if they wanted to build high up. With today’s architecture
they can do it anywhere. It only needs to make sense. And this would
make sense: Why should the temple of God’s chosen People not be in
an elevated position, as god’s people themselves already are in an
elevated position by the fact of being chosen?
And again,
throughout history God’s chosen People always have brought forth
outstanding achievements. So why should the new temple the Messiah
is bringing not be outstanding in a literal sense? Especially if
this would resolve the conflict that stands in the way of the
Messiah’s coming? Because: as soon as the new temple does not need
the ground, there is no conflict.
What the Muslims fear is
the loss of their sanctuary, where their prophet Mohammed met with
all the other prophets. And what they hope for is to be respected by
God’s own People, to be respected as a people in the wake of
Abraham.
Making peace would require to give them that
respect, to respect their respect of Abraham, and to respect their
expression of their respect.
The three levels of the image of
peace
In this image of peace there is the ground, Haram
Ash-Sharif, with the Dome of the Rock, and there is a new temple
high above the ground, fitting the elevated position of God’s own
People. And that way we already have an image of a common sanctuary
for the Abrahamitic religions.
Only the Christians are
missing so far.
The space for the Christians in the common
sanctuary
As the Christians were second in time, in between
Moses and Mohammed, they also will have to fit in the common
sanctuary in between Jews and Muslims. This place fits them well in
many ways:
Above the Dome of the Rock Mohammed’s ascension to
the heavens is creating a vertical axis. In the same line Christ’s
resurrection also is creating a vertical axis. For that axis Christ
has been called “the axis of the world”. But what is the meaning of
“Christ”?
Jesus preferred to call himself the “son of man”,
the true human being. So the axis he represents is the axis of being
human, the axis of humanity. It revolves around the question “what
is the meaning of being human?” And so it is no surprise that the
Christians throughout history have become most famous for their
humanitarian institutions – just as the Jews are famous for bringing
forth outstanding achievements and the Muslims are famous for being
down to earth. With that of course I am not trying to say that any
of these qualities are exclusive, but they are especially
characteristic for these religions.
Taking the position in
the middle necessitates a second platform below the temple of the
Jews – that way architecturally creating a cross, the cross that has
become the symbol of surrender in the Christian view of
life.
To understand the differences between the
religions
Viewing the complete sanctuary makes one thing clear:
The three different religions, even though they have been deadly
enemies, can live in peace. Their differences are not differences of
right and wrong, they are differences of viewpoints or aspects. All
three are united by their attitude of surrender towards their
creator. But the path of their history has taken them on different
courses – thereby also creating different narratives that in some
points directly contradict the narratives of the others – as
different viewpoints always render contradicting
narratives.
Viewing the complete sanctuary will create a new
basis for communication between the three. It will create
understanding – even a better understanding of one’s own
view.
Viewing the complete sanctuary will even create
understanding in the religions for the secularist view, and in the
secularist view for the religions.
This way the preconditions
of peace are achieved and all obstacles for the coming of the
Messiah are removed.
Moreover mutual respect will be there
naturally, and any negotiations will be easy.
In this image,
peace will be guaranteed, because all parties win. |
