| Introduction
Three years ago, representatives of the world major religions and cultures met
here in this historic city, and in this stronghold of culture and administration:
The Academy for State and Society Building of the President of the Republic
of Uzbekistan; on that day I had the privilege to represent Egypt, or
rather the Arabic culture in the international conference: Religion
and Democracy, together with elite specialists who gathered to discuss
the relation between religion and politics, being the main theme of
the Conference
which had sub-themes such as: the nature of divine religions, the association
between political violence movements and religion, forms of religious
violence, the religious influence on political practices, among other
related issues. After three days of thorough discussions, our meeting
winded up with a historical statement known as the Tashkent Declaration.
The Declaration called for drawing a clear distinction between the essence of
religion and phenomena of religion-related violence. It also called
for driving attention to religious tolerance and the human aspect
of each religion. Although the Declaration circulated on a large scale,
and received wide media coverage and worldwide political attention,
the following three years witnessed a global rise of religious violence,
violence in the name of religion, and, in turn, violence in the name
of fighting religious terrorism ! As guns speak louder than words,
and violence is more clamorous than and jamming to rational thinking,
the world entered into a cycle of violence and counterviolence that could have been avoided if only
decision makers had listened to the voice of reason coming from Tashkent
and manifested in its Declaration.
Here we meet again after three years to
re-present the case of religion and politics, maybe with more depth
and a truer desire to reiterate the human meanings agreed upon before,
in the hope of making a better world for the present generation and
generations to come.
It is commonly held that in these kinds
of issues there are various views, many disciplines, and an endless
number of explanations that all seek a better understanding of such
overlapping, or rather intricate problems. In our paper, we shall
focus on an issue that we deem both pivotal and central at the same
time: the tangency between the circles of religion and politics, the
fierce political encounter with religion and, subsequently, the religion-violence
transformation; It is pivotal because, one way or the other, many
problems of the old and contemporary human society revolve around
it in almost similar orbits in the majority of religions and beliefs.
It is also a central issue as the trilateral correlation: religion-politics-violence
manifests itself in manifold ways that are unclear most of the time.
Such correlation shows in the dialectic between the three parties,
on which we shall hereafter elaborate. We use the term ‘dialectic’
at this juncture in its traditional philosophical sense, i.e. the
process of thought over two or more issues, which creates a new issue
that may maintain its abstract form, or manifest itself in actual
reality. In ancient philosophy, Plato applied the term to the process
of thought accompanying self-elevation from the world of changeable
earthly matters to that of eternal ideals (ascending dialectic,) then
returning to the earthly world (descending dialectic); by that time
the human soul will have established eternal knowledge of the world
of ideals. In modern philosophy, Hegel applied ‘dialectic’ to moving
from one notion to its opposite, then to a combination of both notions,
in a trilateral motion that ends at the absolute. Karl Marx then transplanted
Hegel’s abstract dialectical method into a materialist world-view
that accounts for the ‘political-economic’ transformation of society,
according to dialectical laws such as: focusing on the essence or
‘what’ of things, the
conflict theory, etc.
In this view, dialectics is an explanatory
tool and a philosophical approach seeking to explore the basic relations
between general issues (religion-politics) and reflect on the hidden
ties between them, and how their interaction may lead to the development
of a new issue, namely violence.
Autumnal Solstice:
Ancient astronomers had defined certain
moments at which seasons change through the year; when the Sun crosses
with the First Point of Aries the phenomenon of vernal
equinox occurs, where day and night are of equal length. Summer
solstice occurs when the Sun crosses with the point of Cancer,
ushering a decrease in the length of day. As the Sun approaches the
point of Libra, autumnal equinox
takes over where day and night share equal length again. The phenomenon
of winter solstice occurs when
the Sun crosses with the point of Capricorn, marking a gradual increase
in the length of day, which passes once again through the moment of
vernal equinox and continues to increase until it reaches its maximum
point at summer solstice.
Religion and politics move in two separate orbits, each revolving
about its axis; the politics orbit moves about the ‘ruler’ axis, whether
it be an individual (emperor, king, president, chief of tribe) or
a control group (democratic, oligarchic, or otherwise). The religion
orbit, on the other hand, revolves about the ‘god’ axis depending
on the theological views of each religion and belief, which govern
the relationship between Man and God .
Politics is primarily communal; in the sense that it is only complete
in communities, whereas that of religion is individuality; religious
conviction is built upon a direct relation between the individual
and his god. Nevertheless, there is an elliptical overlap between
the paths of religion and politics and an intersection of their orbits;
politics cannot control a community without controlling the individual
first. On the other hand, an individual cannot establish his personal
religious conviction away from the stored ‘sanctity’ arising from
the community, being the primary source .
Religions start mostly as an effervescent emanation that soon takes
an almost final, special path during the lifetime of the prophet or
messenger; this goes in parallel with a previously formed settled
political system in the community in which the new religion appears.
Here goes the first ‘solstice’ in the religious-political dialectic
as the new religion rejects the existing political system, and seeks
to topple or even completely undermine it so as to make room for itself
in the community. Hence, the newborn religious state clashes with
the existing political system as the former begins to disseminate
and move from the prophet’s person to the community, being the field
of political control … and the community enters a gloomy autumnal
state … then violence starts.
Primary Violence:
Violence then joins as a third party in the religion-politics dialectic
upon initiatives made by the settled and threatened party; the political
system. The first generation of believers of the new religion meets
violence with ‘brave’ submission, patience that is both praiseworthy
and exclamatory, and casting aside mortal worldly needs and holding
on to the everlasting: God, Paradise, internal
content … Such is a primary religious confrontation of the violence
initiated by the political system, using different direct and shallow
means. In Judaism, the early Israelites bore Pharaoh’s harm; the Exodus
and wandering in the desert of Tih (Wilderness of the Wandering)
was their means of resisting the violence that they
incurred. In Christianity, Jesus accepted to render unto Caesar the
things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God’s;
he even surrendered (crucifixion in Christianity, or elevation in
Islam) and his Apostles agreed to leave their lands, be scattered
in different areas, and dwell on peaceful Bible inscription. In Islam,
early believers tolerated the atheists’ torture with a fascinating
submission that was manifested in events like placing a huge stone
on the chest of Belal, the Messenger’s caller to prayer who kept reciting
that “there is only one God, and only He is Allah;” staying in Abu
Talib’s defiles under the siege of Kuraish’s nonbelievers, and suffering
from the pains of thirst and hunger; Prophet Mohammed’s taking refuge
in Ta’if and tolerance of the harms and evil there; early Islamic
migration to Abyssinia; migration to Medina (Hegira,) etc.
Hence, in each time during the lifetime of the prophet or messenger,
violence is initiated by the existing system as a source of protection
and stability for its sovereignty, which will be already established
by that time. Thus, religion faces the ‘primary’ political violence
by tolerance, immigration, and content, which may seem negative on
the surface but is, in fact, more effective than aggressive political
action ! This is due to the fact that physical political violence
is limited, no matter how fierce it is. Early believers, led by Prophet
Mohammed (peace be upon him,) are armed with an endless spiritual
power and unlimited conviction. It should also be noted that worldly
life is the ultimate goal of politics whereas religion transcends
life and longs for the hereafter … the present life is the mainstay
of politics but immortality is the aim of religion.
Meanwhile, religious confrontation of the ‘primary’ political violence
leads to two ways that will have a great effect in the second stage
of the first religious emanation, the first of which is giving way
to dissemination of the new religion among ‘righteous’ people who
are marginalized, victims of injustice, rebels against the political
system, and radical-power seekers who cannot seize power by common
traditional means that could be a justification for political power
such as succession, tribal belonging, currying favour with ruler, etc.
The
second way is the state of temporary content that comes over the prevailing political power, and its false conviction that religion escaped the confrontation
and is no longer a threat to this power. Consequently, ‘primary’ violence
in the centre of the political power subdues gradually whereas religion
grows increasingly in the lands to which it travels, and becomes self-organized
in a new way that is different from the existing political system;
then after a while religion comes back strong to uproot the old political
power, which was purportedly settled.
Primary Equinox:
A span of time passes by then religion comes out of its temporary
purdah through the Jewish Exodus and wandering in the desert of Tih,
or the passing away of Jesus Christ and the departure of his Apostles,
or Islamic Migration to Abyssinia and Medina … Religion comes back
strong to prove the failure of political violence to resist it, and
to introduce to the ‘old’ system new approaches to share power and
authority, as well as novel systems that are usually more convenient
for the community and more satisfying to the ‘spiritual’ values which
attracted the attention of the community and permeated through the
‘infrastructure’ on which the prevailing political system was founded,
then caused it to disentangle … Religion comes back promising of two
paradises: an earthly paradise and a heavenly one ... It comes back
stronger, deeper, and more capable of negotiating and compromising
with the existing political system; and through time it becomes monarchical!
Early Jewish rulers, Roman emperors who embraced Christianity, and
Islam’s adoption, after the conquest of Mecca, of principles like
“People are of different natures, the best amongst them in the pre-Islamic
period are the best in Islam…(Hadith)” and “He who enters the house
of Abū Sufiān will be safe (Hadith),”
all these herald the beginning of the ‘primary equinox’ between
religion and politics, and mark the establishment of a co-existence
between them in a new social order where politics becomes religious
and religion becomes political. However, both religion and politics
stay the same but they gradually approach and get affected by each
other; thus, politics takes care of regulatory religious matters that
have a social dimension such as building and keeping prayer houses,
as well as approaching religious figures and trying to contain and
please them. In the meantime, religion gives support to politics by
giving legitimacy to it by various means such as the religious gown
worn by the ruler, the political ruler who in the primary equinox
becomes God’s representative on earth.
During the ‘primary equinox’ religion becomes a culture that manifests
itself in the community’s daily life, stressing on religious rites
and practices as social duties to be respected. In this stage, politics
makes renovations to itself owing to the efforts of pious reformers
whereas the friends of God and saints renew religion. Hence, religion
and politics attain a mostly peaceful collaborative progress, having
a positive and fruitful effect on both the community and the individual.
Yet, this state of stability is usually interrupted by turbulences,
some of which can be easily subdued, and some are ominous of a new
‘solstice’; the religion-politics dialectic encounters secondary stops
that could be overcome such as complaints against political injustice
and providing these complaints religious justification; the allegiance
of some sub-groups to religious figures more than political rulers; rulers’ deviation from religious norms through
religiously unacceptable deeds like Henry VIII’s wish to divorce his
brother’s widow and Cardinal Wolsey’s objection in the name of religion,
then Henry’s aspirations to appoint himself as head of the Church
of England and Sir Thomas More’s opposition to this; or when some
Muslim rulers drink alcohol although forbidden in Islam, as well as
other events and incidents that reflect the ‘restlessness’ in the
relationship between religious and political powers.
Meanwhile, most often does vernal equinox occur between religion and
politics where the two powers are resembled in one person ruling in
the name of religion; thus, distinguishing between what is religious
and what is political becomes quite difficult in this case. Throughout
the experiences of nations, one can find many examples for this assumed
representation in the ruler’s person, a union that cannot be attained
outside the framework of the vernal equinox in the religion-politics
dialectic.
As far as we can see, such union is a kind of transgression and switch
of roles; transgression by the ruler of the land of ‘religion’ so
as to affirm his political power, and transgression by the religious
figure of the field of ‘politics’ in order to maintain its religious
authority, which is ominous of further offences in the name of religion
or politics. Offence is always initiated by the religious side due
to its primary emanative nature, which inevitably leads to partial
emanations within the general order of the prevailing religion. I
mean here that emanations like the emergence of some doctrines like
Nestorianism in old Christianity, orientations such as Protestantism
in medieval Christianity, and Puritanism in contemporary Christianity;
or the movements which appeared throughout the history of Islam such
as the Kharijites, Wahhabis, contemporary extremist groups … and with
these emanations things change.
The Trilateral Dialectic:
The religion-politics dialectic becomes complicated in partial emanations;
new religious movements are based mostly on a special reading of the
origins of the existing creed, differing from communal readings (readings
of the public) and the political readings that were established during
the vernal equinox. The two last readings have a huge legacy of efforts
for interpreting religion in a compromising, peaceful manner, as opposed
to partial emanation readings that are uncompromising and radical.
At that point,
confrontation becomes inevitable; partially emanated movements do
not lack communal ‘religious conviction’ since they are born with
an inherited sub-doctrine that originates usually from hardliners,
who used to play out of tune in the vernal equinox symphony and soon
drove the others to stop so as to play a rhythmic, or rather rocking
symphony of their own.
Hence, violence joins as a third party in the religion-politics dialectic.
This time it is deemed fundamental and deep-rooted as it arises from
both sides of the balance; in the name of religion, radical groups
tend to use double violence: against the political state of affairs
and against the general preconceived beliefs of the community. On
that basis, it nullifies the legitimacy of the ruler and refutes anti-religion
readings because being a sub-emanation; it has to deal with both of
them. In the name of safeguarding public security, political powers
resort to organized violence against radical religious movements;
this is done in attempt to root them out and drive them to exterminate
completely, not aware of the fact that the roots of such movements
are part of the inherited legacy of the community and are embedded
deeply in its traditions in a collaborative manner, which prevented
them from appearing independently in the past.
Thus, the three wheels turn in society in an unbalanced motion that
is fraught with clashes. The political
wheel loses its balance while trying to keep a close daily watch on
the activities of the newly born religious group(s); hence it draws
strict measures so as to tighten its grip on it/them, which is of
disastrous consequences for social stability that are reflected daily
on parties other than the target group. And so grumbles grow and politics
moves with uncertain steps. The wheel of
religion, according to the conception of the newborn group,
longs for more fundamentalism, extremism, and self-centredness, thus
it becomes more socially isolated and rejecting of social strata and
any other group that contradicts or differs from it. Nurtured by mutual
animosity between the two parties, the wheel of violence
moves rapidly and violence becomes a self-propelled, ‘holy jihad’, for the religious group; and a ‘war for survival’ of unquestionable
drives and legitimacy, which leaves no room for negotiations or compromises
or even neutrality on the part of any party, for the political power,
since he who is not with us is against us !
The paths of sub-emanations, represented in religious groups that
become more extreme, change according to the prevailing historical
state, as well as regional and international changes. Some of these
religious groups stay permanently under political pressure and social
rejection, eaten up by fire of general animosity, until they disintegrate
and become subdued; others lurk in trenches
and seek protection in certain places so as to be secluded
realms of creed, as was the ‘old’ case with the Ismaili state in the
impregnable fortress of Alamut ... as is the ‘modern’ case with the
Ibadhi state in Oman … and as is the ‘contemporary’ case with the
state of Osama Bin Laden, who sought secluded refuge in the arms of
Taliban and its forts in Afghanistan.
A trilateral dialectic between politics, violence, and religion begins
as the sub-emanating group settles in its realm of creed, where one
party dominates or retracts at the expense of the strength or weakness
of the other two. Manifestations of this rapid, unstable trilateral
dialectic are not confined to the narrow geographical scopes of the
emanating group; they rather cross political borders. This is applicable
to the Kharijites’ rebellions and the assassination system espoused
by the holders of the fort of Alamut, in the past; it even happened
lately in the Afghans’ jihad against the Soviets, then developed into
tourists carnage, and arrest of extremist religious figures in Egypt,
embassy blasts in Africa, the downfall of American prestige and sway
on 11 September and the indiscriminate war against Afghan caves, as
well as other violent episodes that the world witnessed of late. Such
is, at any rate, mutual violence that eventuates in turmoil in the
trilateral dialectic and changes it to a ‘whirlpool’ in which roles
are switched and positions replaced; subsequently, what is political
becomes with religious and violent, what is religious becomes political
and violent, and violence becomes religious and political.
Horizons
of Coexistence:
In view of our theoretical reading on
the dialectical relation between religion and politics, our main objective
here is to explore fields of peaceful coexistence between religion
and politics and balancing between them, so as to avoid the engagement
of a third party, namely violence, in this cycle. Such objective was
triggered by the destructive effects of the trilateral dialectic between
religion, violence, and politics, especially at the present time in
history where the world is fraught with other cycles of violence,
some of which resulting from clash of interests, tribal fanaticism,
border disputes, or any rational or irrational reason; this urges
the subduing of such active element that shows itself in many parts
of the world, where religious/political violence progresses in full
swing so that no place on earth is safe from its destructive effects.
Hence, we shall present, in brief, what we see a solution to get out
of this dilemma, in the following points:
1. Understanding
and Consideration:
The process of interaction, which is considered
necessary between religion and politics, cannot be tackled without
a deep mutual understanding. This, in turn, will not be achieved without
a mutual recognition of the rightfulness of the ‘potential’ political
outlook and the need for an ‘absolute’ religious view. This awareness
should, therefore, be maintained among the individuals in society;
It should also be supported with educational programmes and curricula
that stress on the potential-absolute association, and the importance
of their integration in the social activities. Politics should never
think that its working fields and activities, which are based on the
‘potential’, are a sufficient substitute for the absolute tendencies
espoused by religion and emphasized through different means. In return,
religion should recognize the right of politics to have authorized
limits of free action, at least the right to set social control regulations,
and its relations with the outside world which is of different religions,
beliefs, and doctrines. What politics achieves using its special ways
cannot be attained by religion, whereas politics fails to create what
religion does in the individual.
The element of ‘understanding’ may replace
the phenomenon of mutual ‘transgression’ between religion and politics,
so as to give emphasis to their independent adjacent nature. Hence,
exploration of fields of harmonious coexistence between religion and
politics proceeds, and the looming danger represented in the involvement
of a third party (violence,) draws back.
This mutual understanding is closely related
to and emphasized through the fact that any switch of roles between
politics and religion is false at the best, and at the worst it is
devastative ! Politics, which enjoys a ‘recognized rightfulness,’
should not deny religion, which is of ‘recognized importance,’
for its benefit. On the other hand, religious thought should seek
self-establishment by indulging in the spiritual experience, not by
constant displacement of the circle of politics and undermining its
importance on the pretext that ‘religion is the solution.’
Meanwhile, it must be admitted that it
is too late for world consciousness to reach a better understanding
of the rule ‘render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and
unto God the things that are Gods;’ an understanding that is not confines
to the superficial naïve association
between Caesar and God, but rather develops an awareness
of the overlap between the political process and religious knowledge,
which is built on upright communal and individual foundations.
Also, it is time to develop a perfect ‘consideration’ of the newly emanated
religious trends, and refrain from attempting to kill them in the
bud and bury them alive; because among the few emanations that are
supposedly buried, a newborn religious wave armed with a hidden legacy
of successive suppression that the buried trend incurred, will escape.
Thus the grudge, which this new trend harbours against the society of politicians and common people, intensifies; and a tendency
to destroy and overthrow the existing power, which is regarded by
the curbed outlawed religious group as the devil’s advocate, is enhanced.
Hence, a trilateral dialectic given an imaginary title: ‘God-jihad-devil,’
which is an illusory form of the ‘religion-violence-politics’ dialectic
! If such dialectic spreads there will be no cure for it; treatment
could be initiated at an early stage using this consideration, which
allows accepting others and admitting their right to disagree.
2. Exposure
as a Substitute for Concealment:
As the newborn religious trend emerges, and finds the executioner
of the political power on alert, it immediately hides behind camouflage
covers that are determined in accordance with the mode of life in
the society. Examples of such covers may be: putting on the gown of
moderation, flexibility, and defeat; sneaking into the structure of
the prevailing political power and permeating quietly through its
different layers; showing readiness to fulfill temporary political
demands, such as elimination of atheist thought or diminishing it
using its opposite (religion;) voluntarily undertaking tasks that
are troublesome fro the political power, such as fighting external
enemies or bringing money in days of want. Thus vary the illusory
covers that are, in fact, runaway tricks used by religious groups
in fear of the lurking political suppression, and the hope of postponing
the inevitable clash. Then, the acting characters get mixed and soon
the ‘afterwards destructive’ trilateral dialectic aggravates.
In answer to this, and in an attempt to avert this dialectic, ‘exposure’
appears as a safe substitute for this ominous concealment. By ‘exposure’
I mean that the society should have a mechanism for public disclosure,
instead of menacing suppression and verbal clashes between religious
and secular figures. Such clashes, which are actually ostentatious,
cause disagreement to augment. They involve a big lie as they deny
that there is life in religion, and that life cannot dispense with
religion ! Such TV debates involve another lie, namely that the ‘religious’
and ‘secular’ trends override many other trends existing in the society,
though some of them are closer to one of these axes but at varying
distances; and then the ‘imaginary’ democratic exercise becomes confines
to only two poles represented in certain persons. Subsequently, a
clash looming state of duality is created, as well as competition
between the two parties for exclusive power, to which each party finds
itself closer since it is an unrivalled competitor.
Exposure necessitates recognition of multiplicity and the endless
diversity of the human experience which, in philosophical terms, is
phenomenological. Te human experience of the individual or the community
is evolutionary, contrastive, and sometimes contradictory. The importance
of giving recognition to the right to be contradictory springs from
this fact; as it is not confined to ‘logic’ only, but rather appears
in the life experience of the individual and the society. The way
to solve such contradictions, and undermine their propensity for causing
clashes, is to grant them recognition and have constant public dialogues
with all orientations. How many a person, group, or community did
his/their orientation move from one extreme to the other, or change
from one degree to another, by virtue of public dialogue in a not
so long period.
Human motion is interactive and cannot be achieved by being self-enclosed.
It cannot also lead to violence, since it leaves no room for an individual
or group to claim absolute certainty … certainty in interactions does
not deny others, as it is collaborative and endless.
3. Balanced
Control:
With the term ‘control’ I refer to the
different social measures, which aim at organizing the lives of individuals.
Some of these collaborative measures are political such as positive
law, others are religious such as rules of dos and don’ts; each of
which complements, or rather has to complement the other in a balanced
harmonious way.
To strike a balance in the social control
regulations of individuals should not be taken to the extremes. Some
may hold that the stricter the general and common laws of society
are, the more disciplined life becomes on the level of both the individual
and society. This is a great illusion according to the physical- and
human- law, which states that pressure generates explosion; however,
the outburst of the individuals and the society, who lie under the
pressure of strict control, is a little delayed until they find a
means of escape; subsequently, those who claim to have control grow
to think that they have attained absolute and everlasting political
and religious sway. Hence, rebellions, resulting from the human need
for freedom, shake this imaginary sway and destroy the walls of control
through preludes such as the claiming the illegitimacy of the political
power and, on the other side, arguing that the prevailing religious
laws are backward.
Extremism, which rejects all forms of
social control, is not confined to anti-government extremist groups;
seculars also go to the extremes with their ideologies, considering
the fact that the religious control system limits freedom; thus deserves
revolt and demolition ! Therefore, the originally unbalanced social
control systems are overthrown, publicly and latently, leading to
an unavoidable clash.
As for our proposed balanced control whether
by politics or religion, it leaves rooms for the individuals and groups
to move; room for the needed human freedom. This, on the long run,
leads to self-control activities that are approved by the individuals
themselves for themselves; such activities shall have a stronger and
deeper effect than that of the different forms of social control,
which are imposed on the society on the one hand, and the political
or religious power on the other.
It should be noted, however, that owing
to globalization and the revolution of communications, human communities
are no longer self-enclosed, as the world became an open field. Moreover,
the severity of political control systems will feel threatened by
the aspects of the freedom enjoyed in the other countries; whereas
the freedoms allowed in the other countries threatens the social peace
process in religiously radical countries, which ultimately leads to
viewing liberal societies as atheist ones that act like puppets in
the hands of the devil. Thus, the gap widens and attitudes aggravate,
and internal as well as external clashes break out … clashes known
as terrorism.
4. International
Collaboration:
The world cannot face acts of religious
violence, and violence in the name of fighting religious violence,
without constant cooperation between world countries. Since expressions
of violence are no longer confined to national political borders,
it has become impossible to find partial or regional solutions to
them, no matter how convenient these solutions may appear to be.
Nevertheless, such international collaboration
may be one way of controlling the world in the name of fighting terrorism;
this is what the United States is currently accused of doing however,
it does not bother to refute these accusations ! This portends destructive
consequences since only one international party will not be capable
of dealing rationally with this international phenomenon; a phenomenon
that deviates from its tradition and social structure, and is above
its understanding and consideration; a phenomenon of multiple aspects,
approaches, and practices; a phenomenon that needs a great deal of
understanding, consideration, insight, and balanced control.
Now, it would be rather adequate if the
America admits defeat in fighting extremist groups in Afghanistan,
like it did before in Vietnam without affecting its prestige ! The
exaggerated American violence, exercised in the name of fighting Islamic
terrorism, has boiled down to nothing; Bin Laden was not arrested
as he will never be arrested because he is not alone; in fact, he
has become a symbol that could be cloned, symbol of the intercontinental
American hegemony. Furthermore, religious extremism was not eliminated
from Afghanistan by the funny aspects of the Western lifestyle that
were promoted there. Still there are the mountains, inherited traditions,
painful memories, and revenge.
*
*
*
Finally, this is only a quick review of
an extremely sophisticated issue; it is only a primary insight into
ways of coming out of this historical impasse, which has became an
annoying problem for the contemporary world. I have no doubts that
the brief views presented in this paper still need detailed discussions
of the trilateral dialectic, a thorough study of the serious dialectic
process, a deeper insight into horizons of peaceful coexistence between
religion and politics, and more cooperation between the world’s decision
makers, towards a better world. |
