 |
|
|||
 |
||||
Sharif Kronemer is a junior at Springbrook High School, where he is enrolled in the International Baccalaureate program and runs cross-country and track. Essay Abstract: The Enduring Model gives details about Muhammad's, Moses' and Jesus' life and what struggles they faced. The essay explores how they reacted to their struggles, and how they were finally victorious in promoting peace. Their examples to promote peace are then put into the context of the 21st century. The Enduring Model explores how their models for peace can be used to promote peace in today’s conflicts. On the value of the Children of Abraham project: In a challenging and divisive time, it challenges us to think about unity and inclusion. The Enduring Models "There are times when to make peace is more daring, more creative and more enduring." Karen Armstrong Is peace more daring than war, as Karen Armstrong says, or is war the only real solution to conflicts between people and countries? The voices for war are always many. Yet the voices against war are from some of the greatest people who have ever lived: the voices of Muhammad, Jesus and Moses. Muhammad Jesus and Moses all worked to establish a new moral code. They all experienced violence against their teaching. They all responded with various strategies for peace. Today, their approaches provide models for some of the greatest conflicts we face. Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses were men of coexistence, who understood the power of peace. Each provided a unique model: Moses provided a model for incrementally pursing moral absolutes, Jesus taught how to win by risking defeat, and Muhammad provided the example of a surprise peace attack. With their examples and teachings peaceful coexistence can be promoted today. Moses: Incrementally Pursuing Moral Absolutes Moses was grounded on firm moral standing. He believed in giving his enemies the chance to redeem themselves and see their faults. Moses’ story is found both in the Bible and the Qur’an and is largely the same in both. In the Bible, Moses is raised as a prince of Egypt. But after killing a fellow Egyptian who is cruelly persecuting the enslaved Hebrews, he was forced to flee to the deserts of Egypt. There he had his first encounter with God and was commanded to go back to Egypt to free the Hebrews from bondage. With his arrival to Egypt, he realized the great difficulty he would face in freeing the people. According to the Bible, Moses held the power of God, yet Moses understood the importance of peace, and did not use his power to destroy the Egyptians, despite their continued and increasing violence against the Hebrews. Instead, Moses believed in an incremental response to violence. He wished to allow the Egyptians to see their faults, and not break them with one blow. The Bible displays Moses’ incremental response, with the ten plagues that God unleashes on the Egyptians, each worse than the last. After each one, he calls to the pharaoh “let my people go.” Each time the pharaoh refuses, and with it a new plague comes to Egypt. Finally, Moses leads his people across the Red Sea, and the Egyptians pursue them, intending to kill them all. Only then does Moses react with the ultimate, and they are destroyed. The Bible’s depiction of the Exodus clearly portrays many of elements of this incremental approach. Though finally the Egyptians were killed, this was as a result of their moral intransigence. Moses did not wish to destroy the Egyptians. With the power of God at his disposal, he could have destroyed the Egyptians upon his immediate return to Egypt. He wished only for the freedom of his people. His approach was without vengeance or violence for violence’s sake. Jesus: Risking Defeat to Achieve Victory “Love one another.” Jesus Of the three men, Jesus is thought as the most peaceful. Both Muhammad and Moses used some form of violent retaliation against their enemies, while Jesus faced violence with defeat. Jesus wished to represent a moral point of view. He called for coexistence, and professed the power of peace. He preached grace and forgiveness of sin, and the importance of faith. At the height of his life, he attracted thousands to hear his preaching. Eventually the Roman Government regarded him as a threat and moved to kill him. He did not try to escape or form any sort of retaliation. Without much trouble, the Romans killed Jesus. But with Jesus’ death—his perceived defeat—he gained victory. His route to peace was through defeat. Sometimes an act of sacrifice has the most power to change hearts and minds. After his death his disciples continued to preach his message and in the following centuries, Christianity would spread across Europe, and then around the world. Christianity’s ability to spread across the world would have been impossible if Jesus had fought the Roman Government. This would have ended in the destruction of the Christian community. Yet, with his death and with a peaceful response to the Roman Government, his teaching was able to spread across all people and continues to thrive today. Muhammad: The Power of a Surprise Peace Attack “Do not consider any act of kindness insignificant, even meeting your brother with a cheerful face.” Muhammad Muhammad, a man who could not read or write, was born into an absolutely hopeless situation, but in a space of 23 years was able to spread peace and new hope across Arabia. Muhammad, an orphan, grew up in an environment of violence and warfare, with the tribes of Arabia caught in an endless cycle of violence and warfare.. According to Islamic tradition, at the age of 40 he received the divine word of God and became the prophet of God. Muhammad worked to spread a moral and ethical message. He called for compassion and justice. As his message began to grow, the merchants in Mecca feared that Muhammad’s teaching of one God would deter people from worshiping the many gods of Arabia, from which they gained most of their income. Eventually the Meccans sought to kill him. He was forced to flee to another city, called Medina. This only escalated the violence, as wars were fought between the Meccan armies and Muhammad’s army of followers in Medina. Yet even in battle, his moral and ethical message was clear. He told his followers that they should not kill women or children, and that prisoners should be well treated. In the midst of all this violence, Muhammad did something quite extraordinary: he launched a surprise peace attack. He led a thousand of his unarmed followers on a pilgrimage to Mecca. This caught the Meccans off guard. They had assumed that Muhammad would take an aggressive attack on them. But he was waging peace. With this surprise peace initiative, he was able to force a treaty with the Meccans, which allowed the Muslims to perform the pilgrimage in Mecca. This completely undermined the Meccan’s resolve, and a few years later they gave up to him. Muhammad could have continued fight, but instead used peace, which provided the turning point for his eventual victory. Muhammad was able to bring peace and prosperity through compromise rather then war with the Meccans. Their Teachings in Action Today The Palestinian Israeli Conflict is of special relevance to the models provided by Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, as their respective religions see the land as sacred. Do the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad have any relevance to this conflict? Can their teachings be used to promote peace? The modern origins of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict began in the 19th century when European Jewish settlers began to move to Ottoman controlled Palestine in hopes of having a Jewish state. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, both the Palestinians and Israelis claimed national rights to the land based on religion, culture, history, and ethnicity. This began a conflict that continues until today. Despite periodic attempts at peace, the conflict has been primarily prosecuted through violence. But using the example of Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses perhaps peace is closer then it seems. Muhammad was born into a similar situation that thousands of children are born into today in Israel and Palestine, that is, they are born into a land of fighting and constant warfare. Muhammad was finally victorious in uniting Arabia and promoting coexistence, and his surprise peace attack may provide a model to unite the Israelis and Palestinian. Both sides, Israel and Palestine, expect the worst from one another, as the Meccans expected the worst from Muhammad. If, using the example of Muhammad, one side or even both retreated from any attack, and faced their “enemy” and took a unilateral action in the spirit of peace, the other side might respond in kind. The Israeli’s could release all Palestinian prisoners; the Palestinians could renounce all use of violence. Such an act might be followed by a response in kind. As long as each side believes the other is out to do harm to them, then peace cannot be made. With Muhammad’s example of a surprise peace initiative, it is possible to end this mutually held belief, which is so detriment to peace and coexistence. Jesus’ model also provides a plan. Jesus retaliated against violence through defeat. He did not attack or try to escape, rather his stood his ground firmly. In the end, he would die, yet peace was restored after his death. His example of how to approach violence is also relevant to that of Israel and Palestine. Image how powerful it would be for Israel or Palestine to end all fighting, no retaliation for attacks, no responding to violence with violence. Perhaps to many this method may seem to be a recipe for defeat. Yet it is the fear of the other gaining total victory that keeps the conflict brewing. If one side truly risked defeat, it could reduce the fears, and therefore the violence, from the other. Moses’ model, too, lays down a plan for peace and coexistence. Moses had a strong belief in morals, and used an incremental response to violence. An incremental use of peaceful resistance by the Palestinians, for example, would provide pressure, but also safety, for Israelis to consider the moral claims of the Palestinians. Recognizing the moral position of the Palestinians is nearly impossible for Israel while it is under threat. Moses’ model also requires both sides to ask only for they can reasonably hope to achieve. Both sides must offer what is fair and just to the other. Asking for more than can be achieved, which is currently done to gain bargaining position, works against resolving the conflict. Moses went to the Pharaoh to ask for the freedom of his people. Moses did not ask for anything that Pharaoh could not give. The Palestinians and Israelis must use Moses’ example in realistic thinking to ask only for that which they can reasonably expect to receive. This is the only basis for an achievable peace treaty. Summary Bibliography Bible, Saint Joseph Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970 The Greatest Thinkers, Edward T. Bono, GP Putnam’s Son, New York “Jesus .” Wikipedia: the Free Encyclopedia . 14 Jan. 2007. 14 Jan. 2007 “Moses .” Wikipedia: the Free Encyclopedia . 14 Jan. 2007. 14 Jan. 2007 “Muhammad.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia . 14 Jan. 2007. 14 Jan. 2007 http://wikipedia.org. Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. 2002. DVD. UPF. Qur’an, Yusef Ali Translation.
|
||||
