نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار، گروه معارف اسلامی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه جهرم، جهرم، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Introduction
Peace does not have a fixed and universal concept in religions, but rather it is reinterpreted and has different functions in the historical, theological, and political contexts of each religion. This article examines the concept of peace in the Torah and the Quran with a historical-analytical approach and shows how the religious understanding of peace affects the production of legal rules and the performance of religious governments. Judaism considers the root of all conflicts to be eternal and its attitude towards peace (Shalom) is a concept that is entirely historical and derived from religious texts, which is understood within the framework of internal order and loyalty to the divine covenant, towards the superiority of the Israelites. As a result, peace has a discriminatory and racist nature.
In Islam, the concept of peace, which is defined by the word Silm prefers peaceful coexistence to conflict, and although it has a broader scope than Jewish beliefs and is conditional on the interest of the Islamic community,
it does not consider breaking a peace treaty without a reason to be permissible. If a war becomes unavoidable, it can be calmed by resorting to a Hudnah. This is more compatible with the standards and laws of current international treaties and shows more flexibility, which has led to better management of conflicts and stabilization of Islamic religious power throughout history.
Methods
This research is based on a historical-analytical method, and its content is compiled and analyzed through a review of library resources. To achieve the research goals, an effort was made to study Jewish and Islamic religious sources with an impartial view, and interpretations were based solely on explicit text.
Findings
The study of the Torah shows that a significant part of the Jewish religious narrative is based on concepts such as the chosen people, the promised land, and eternal and perpetual enemies. Since the establishment of the State of Israel was initially based on access to the Promised Land, these concepts have not remained in the theological realm but have also spread to the field of public law and legal policy through Zionism and have been reproduced in a secular-legal format. In Israel, the Jewish identity of the state as a fundamental principle of basic rights plays a fundamental role in the interpretation of the law, and the Israeli Basic Law of 2018 explicitly considers a superior position for Jews and, in fact, is an extension of the Torah narrative that distinguishes between Israelites and other nations. The divine promise of forgiveness and possession of lands and the negation of sustainable peace with previous residents and the legal permission to remove and expel others in the Torah have also influenced the security doctrines of the Zionist regime and have justified preventive wars, occupation of lands, settlement construction for Jews, and structural violence against the non-Jewish population, which actually keeps the memory of Amalek alive with a particular reading of history. In fact, the Basic Law can be considered an example of institutionalized apartheid. Therefore, one of the ways to restrain Israel is to make it accept the fact that interpretations of the Bible cannot be revived in modern times.
In comparison, the legal mechanisms of Islamic governments, especially Shi'a, are in accordance with the Quranic verses and have an ethical and social dimension, and even in dealing with non-Muslims who are not belligerents, they emphasize fair coexistence and humane treatment. These verses, by emphasizing kindness and justice towards non-belligerents, extend the scope of peace to the realm of citizens' rights.
Conclusion
This research shows that history has a high value for Jews, and the current Jewish attitude towards peace is influenced by Torah narratives based on concepts such as the chosen people, the promised land, and the permanent enemy. These beliefs have not remained solely in the theological realm but have been institutionally embedded in the legal system and public policy of Israel, especially in the "Jewish Nation-State" law of 2018, through religious Zionism and Jewish nationalism. By monopolizing the right to self-determination, eliminating the principle of equality, and sanctifying Jewish settlement, this legal framework has created a kind of legal ethnic superiority that is a logical continuation of the same Torah presuppositions. This legal framework, in conjunction with security doctrines, has led to the reproduction of the logic of the permanent enemy and the legitimation of occupation, structural violence, and conditional and hierarchical peace, and from the perspective of international law, it can be adapted to the concept of institutionalized apartheid.
In contrast, an examination of the Quranic verses shows that peace in Islam, although temporary and conditional on expediency, is based on principles such as determining the duration, absolute loyalty to the covenant, prohibition of treaty-breaking, and commitment to good faith. Accordingly, while the legal system of the Zionist regime defines peace within the framework of ethnic superiority and the continuation of conflict, the Islamic approach considers peace and war as tools subject to justice, public interest, and human dignity. This comparison shows that religious readings can either lead to the legitimation of structural discrimination and persistent violence or, on the other hand, provide a basis for convergence with the universal principles of international law and political ethics.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)