I am a Sunni Muslim from Egypt. For many years I have tried to promote peace by reaching out to my Shi’a and Sunni brothers and sisters in my native Egypt, Palestine, Syria and America. I have tried to promote peace by reaching out to my Jewish and Christian brothers and sisters in Middle East and America I treasure the encouragement and counsel from all of them.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have a passion to see peace in our lifetime in the Holy Land. I have consecrated almost all of my personal wealth to reaching out, to bringing people of good will together to pursue peace, to my education and to my humble organizations the Ibn Rushd Institute (IRI) of Egypt and the International Organization for Peace in California.
Because of this passion, I am currently in a graduate program at Yale Divinity School and I have traveled to the Middle East and sought counsel from the scholars at Al-Azhar University. All this was done at my personal expense and at great personal sacrifice. I have dedicated myself, my time and my talents to help people of faith to recognize their common interest and heritage.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the question before us today is: How can the people of the Holy Land and their neighbors live together in peace?
Over the last decade as I have networked with others through the Ibn Rushd Institute (“IRI”), we have formulated a process with suggestions for a plan, too complex to be described here, that offers examples of how the sides can achieve consensus and peace. I believe we must first recognize that there will never be universal agreement. And we must also recognize that no use of outside force can impose peace.
What if we looked at the problem of peace from a fundamentally religious point of view? Consider the following four points:
- There is an important universally human side to the conflict. We are all human beings before we are Muslims, Christians or Jews.
- Israel’s neighbors are at least 92% Muslim. Therefore, why not look for solutions from the commandments of the Holy Qur’an?
- Why not look to Islam to make reconciliation possible? Should not the Principle of Obedience to the teachings of Allah make a solution possible?
- Why not use the Holy Land as a common name to help reconciliation? Insisting on the current names serve to prolong the conflict.
First point: the human side of the conflict
It is a tragic irony that both the Arab and Jewish traditions call for treating the weak and the destitute with magnanimity, love and care; yet Arab governments on one hand and Zionist settlers on the other hand are perceived to be doing exactly the opposite with the Holy Land Arabs. The number of those displaced Holy Land Arabs has been reported to have grown from 915,000 people in 1950 to more than five million people in 2010.
It has also been noted that the conflict created about one million Middle Eastern Jewish refugees from Arab Land after the creation of the State of Israel. However, unlike displaced Holy Land Arabs, many of those refugees quickly assimilated into the newly created Jewish state.
The issue of displaced peoples and their blight is complex. I do not wish to take sides. Too often there is a tendency toward balancing the score in matters of perceived injustice. We argue that calls for repentance have to be equalized or they are unfair and thus polemical, not sincere. There is also a desire for complete confession and repentance before any confidence or trust can again be established. Has not there been sufficient injustice enough for everyone?
Second point: the Middle East is 92% Muslim
Any hope of peace and reconciliation in the Middle East has to come from, and be based on, the religion of the majority of the people there—Islam. For the past sixty-four years U.S., Israeli and Arab politicians have been trying to find a workable but primarily secular solution—to no avail.
A legitimate religious sanction of approval from Islamic leaders and recognized by their followers will be needed. Yes, religious sanction will be needed for any sustainable political and economic peace agreement.
The second factor is that the solution must be organic, which means that it has to be initiated and led by a Jew or a Muslim Arab citizen of that region who is versed in both the Holy Qur’an and the Sacred Jewish Tanakh. Why? Because most Arabs respect the Holy Qur’an and most Jews respect the Holy Tanakh.
The conflict, at its core, is a quarrel between the largely secular followers of two very closely linked religions. We could capitalize on the fact that these religions fundamentally share much, even though they spring from two different Shari’a (covenants): the Islamic Shariʿa (covenant) of the Prophet Muhammad, and the Jewish Shariʿa (covenant) of the Prophet Moses.
Third point: Why not consider Islamic moral values as a solution?
Because the world is more religious than secular, religion will continue to dominate world politics, especially in the Middle East, and religious solutions must be found before addressing political and economic issues in dealing with the conflict. Why? Religious beliefs inspire far greater passion among supporters than the opportunities for political or economic gain.
Resolution to the conflict based on Islamic moral values (which have their equivalent in the Bible) means using such values in conflict resolution. Emphasizing the mutual good will, supported by their respective scriptures and beliefs, empowers parties to the conflict to focus more on a hopeful future and less on past injustices or differing perceptions of history and rights of possession and sovereignty.
We must defer to the values of the people involved and to the leaders who promote such values (cultural values and religious values) to create an atmosphere where resolutions can be achieved?
Against the background rhetoric of the conflict why not remind both sides of two important points; 1) Land belong to God, not to the Zionists or the Arabs. 2) Greed is a sin in both the Holy Qur’an and the Holy Torah—being greedy or too ambitious will lead to ruin.
Fourth point: Why not use “The Holy Land” as the name to help reconciliation?
As an example of one way to promote reconciliation, why not suggest the sides use a common name? It is important to call things by the name Allah chose in the Holy Qur’an. For example: if Allah calls a certain location both in the Qur’an and in the Torah ”the Holy Land”…and one insists on calling it another name, such as Palestine, then one is changing the word of Allah.
The question then is this: If the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea is called the Holy Land in the Holy Qur’an, then why do we call it Palestine? Where does the name Palestine come from? Is this an Arabic name? No. Is it in the Holy Qur’an? No, Therefore, one should call that land the Holy Land, Al-Ard Al-Muqaddasah, just as the name of the holy city to which the Prophet Muhammad immigrated was changed from Yathrib to Medina to fulfill Allah’s command. One should have no doubt that Allah will be pleased if one uses the names that Allah gave in the Holy Qur’an, such as the Holy Land, not Palestine.
Conclusion:
The IRI plan originated from the perception that the Ishmaelites, the Arab children of Abraham, should be generous with their cousins the Israelites, and rely on Allah to reward the Ishmaelites for such generosity. The plan calls for relying on the common heritage between the Ishmaelites and the Israelites by calling Israel-Palestine the Holy Land, thus explicitly recognizing that it is holy to all sides of the conflict.
Finally, I would like to humbly suggest three points: 1) together we must take the humanitarian aspects of the conflict seriously. 2) in addition to economic and political negotiations a crucial religious (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) sanction for peace is required for a long-term settlement. 3) True religion is the solution to the conflict. And true Islam is such a solution.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 omer-salem-with-sen-mike-l.jpg | 4.11 KB |
