At the end, I asked him if it is possible to extract a version of world peace from the sacred texts. He said that even if it is possible, I personally do not agree with it. He then explained, “The prerequisite for world peace is to enter into government, and we have seen and experienced in history that when religion enters into government, it creates problems. Why don’t we pay more attention to the ethics of religion? With the ethics of religion, we can help achieve world peace without getting involved in politics and government. When we enter into laws, especially the limits and penalties, we encounter problems that are not compatible with our time and era.”

This is the end of a detailed conversation with Ayatollah Abdol-Hamid Masoumi Tehrani, a well-known cleric, about peace in religious texts. He has been a student of prominent scholars and clerics such as Ayatollah Seyed Ahmad Khansari, Mohammad-Taqi Davoudi,

What does peace mean to you? Do you believe peace means the absence of violence or peaceful coexistence, or a combination of both?

The sum of both of these is. It means both the absence of violence and peaceful living. It means people can live together comfortably without violating each other’s rights. These concepts exist in all religions. In Judaism – specifically – they are in the Ten Commandments, and we see the same concepts in the two commandments given by Jesus Christ in the Gospel. The same concept exists in the Quran, to respect the rights of individuals. Avoid violence and have a peaceful life.

Of course, another discussion has been added today that cannot be separated from religion, and this discussion is the absolute definition of human dignity. We cannot bring a document from within religion for absolute human dignity because it is a new issue. But we can discuss issues related to religious violence based on the conditions and needs of the time, which has a different explanation.

You said that human dignity is a new concept, but many see peace based on human dignity. The question is, what is the basis of peace in religious texts? What understanding of humanity and social relationships exists in religious texts that allows us to derive and perceive the concept of peace from them?

The concept of peace in Abrahamic religions means resolving conflicts and disputes between two individuals or groups in order to reach an agreement and understanding. This concept is mostly applied in Islamic jurisprudence in matters of transactions and inheritance, but the word “salam” is used to refer to the more accurate meaning of ending war and hostility.

The peace in religions is based on not violating personal and social rights. For example, in the Torah, it talks about not committing murder, adultery, theft, or lying. When it says not to covet your neighbor’s possessions, it does not necessarily mean that your neighbor must be of the same faith. This is a general statement, meaning that you should not covet anyone’s possessions, not just your neighbor’s. You should not have envy towards their lives or give false testimony. The same concepts are mentioned in the Bible, where it says to love your neighbor, not just your fellow believers. In Islam, this concept also exists, although not as

Is your perspective the term “human dignity”?

Yes. The concept of absolute human dignity is not mentioned in the Quran. It is true that the Quran says: “We have honored the children of Adam,” but this “honoring” has a different interpretation and explanation here. It does not mean that humans have a special dignity. It mentions qualities that are not relevant to our discussion and are beyond the scope of our topic.

But overall, what we understand from the Abrahamic religions is not a discussion about the concept of absolute human dignity. But today, when you talk about human dignity, you also consider other aspects and the concept has become much broader than before. For example, in the discussion of execution, which is now a hot topic, they say do not execute people. The reason is that not only is execution against human rights, but it also goes against the inherent dignity of humans and prevents reform. In the Abrahamic religions, you do not see such an interpretation. There, there is a specific punishment for someone who

You brought up the issue of not violating the rights of others. Let’s return to Islamic teachings. How are these “others” understood here?

Islamic teachings are not separate from the teachings of Christianity and Judaism. Rather, they are in line with and an extension of those teachings. Therefore, we cannot consider Judaism and Christianity as separate religions from Islam, with the justification that Islam is the final religion and therefore complete. As a Muslim, you must believe in both the Torah and the Gospel. One of the signs of a Muslim is belief in the previous books and messengers. Therefore, they have not been eliminated and are still relevant. This means that we must also consider them as a reference. Unfortunately, due to the mixing of Arab prejudices with Quranic teachings, this important matter has been neglected. The effects of this neglect can be seen in many issues.

Peace does not make a difference with whom it is made. The Prophet of Islam made peace and showed kindness even with the polytheists. He did the same when he came to Medina. But what we understand from history is that it was the pressure from the polytheists of

Mr. Masoumi, with all the definitions you have made, in terms of religious teachings, what is this peace defined against? And is there generally any conflict of this kind?

Definition of peace; abstaining from violence and reforming personal and social affairs in order to not violate the rights of others. It is a discussion of human dignity. Anything that goes against this concept is against peace. When you clearly define what peace means to you, its opposite becomes clear as well. What goes against peace is war, bloodshed, violating the rights of others, lying, and giving false testimony. In the Quran, punishments have been prescribed for only four acts, which can be called crimes or criminal acts. Each of these four acts is essentially a violation of someone else’s rights. It means that in these four acts, you are violating someone else’s rights. One is theft. Here, you are violating someone else’s property. One is adultery. This is a violation of someone else’s honor! One is murder. This is a violation of someone else’s life. It doesn’t matter who it is. But it must be intentional. And the last one is slander or

You have raised the issue of violating the rights of others. But what we see in history, specifically in Islam, is full of wars and religious conflicts. How can these be justified when peace, from a religious perspective, is essentially the rejection of violating the rights of others? What is the relationship between these wars and conflicts with the religion itself? Both the Prophet and the first Shia Imam had wars.

Wars during the time of the Prophet were mostly defensive. Perhaps with today’s perspective, we could say that better actions could have been taken. However, you must consider the historical and geographical circumstances and then say whether they could have acted better or not. In my opinion, it was not possible to act better than what the Prophet did. Muslims interacted with polytheists in Mecca for thirteen years and did not achieve any results. On the contrary, they were subjected to pressure and torture, which led to their migration to Abyssinia and then to Yathrib. Peace and abstaining from violence cannot be one-sided. When one side resorts to violence, it naturally spreads. But those wars and the verses related to those events represent a period in the history of the descent of Islam, not a rule for all ages. But when the issue of governance arose in the first century, those events became solidified for the rulers to justify their actions according to the Quran. It is the same in

Your perspective is that this issue is completely political and stems from the Arab culture during that time period in Hijaz, and has no connection to religious teachings?

Exactly. It has no connection to religious teachings. Unfortunately, it is these same thoughts that have no relation to Islam. Just as there was no such teaching in Christianity. But various wars took place and different countries were occupied, and those countries were forced to become Christian.

However, in the text of the Quran, there are words like “qatilu” and it seems to encourage war in certain places in the Quran.

Yes, it encourages war, but only for that period of time. The audience is also those specific individuals. This is not something that applies to all eras. It is related to a specific date and period of time. If you were to act on these words today, you would have to fight against the whole world. This is not at all reasonable.

There was a time when we used to say it’s reasonable. There was a time when we used to say it doesn’t make sense. If we say it’s not reasonable, it can be understood that we don’t have the ability now, but we will do it someday when we have the ability.

No, you see! These issues cannot be extracted from the holy text, because it is a discussion about specific historical events. The reason I say it is not reasonable is because ultimately, religion must also have a rational basis and be compatible with individual reasoning and perception. It cannot be said that this is what God said and that’s it, and we have no use for our own reasoning. God does not say anything that is not in line with the understanding and perception of the listener. When God speaks to the Arabs, He gives an example of a camel. He does not give an example of a fish. Because they had not seen a riding fish in their lifetime. He says look at the camel and how I have created it. If they had seen a riding fish, perhaps He would have given that as an example and said look at how I have created it, that its color changes every moment. So He speaks in a way that is in line with the understanding and reasoning of those people

You mentioned Daesh. Daeshis and believers of such ideologies do not see themselves as equal or equal in terms of humanity with a non-Muslim. Can a religion be understood in a way that a religious person sees themselves as equal and on par with a non-religious person? So that this non-religious person, for example, can be considered as an example of that neighbor you mentioned and be punished for it?

Here, there are some issues. You have two types of verses. Some refer to Jews, Christians, Muslims, and even Sabians. Of course, I am discussing the issue of Sabians. By Sabians, I do not mean the Mandaeans. It is not reasonable for the Mandaeans to be present in the Hijaz region. This is because their rituals and practices are dependent on the presence of flowing water, so they could not have been present in the deserts of that region. The Sabians mentioned in the Quran, who are also referred to as star-worshippers in translations, were people who lived in certain areas and followed the ancient Greek religion. As they were proficient in the Greek language, during the Abbasid era, they were brought in to translate Greek philosophical and medical texts into Arabic.

In any case, there are three conditions mentioned in the Quran for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Sabians, and if any of the followers of these religions

Well, if someone doesn’t have these conditions. Meaning they are Buddhist, atheist, or someone who is not monotheistic for any reason. Then what is the issue?

This section has no issue. Because the mentioned Sabaeans were not monotheistic in the sense that is mentioned in the Abrahamic religions. They were star-worshippers. Even they have a place in this matter.

Does someone who does not worship anything have the same religious and legal rights as someone who worships something?

They do not have any religious goodness.

Does this mean that peace cannot have a religious meaning with them?

See, this idea has been present throughout the history of religions in a hierarchical manner and every religion has spoken about it. Here, as Muslims, in a place where we lack, we must refer to the previous books. Unfortunately, it is the Arab prejudice that, despite mentioning the issue of faith and referring to the previous books, has not been willing to refer to them. Just as we consider the Quran as a book of guidance, we must also consider the Torah as a book of guidance. It came before the Quran and is a light. By referring to the previous books, we can understand this issue regarding someone who does not believe in a God, but does not harm me. It is not necessary for you to trample on someone’s rights because of their religion, thought, or ideology and, for example, kill them. This does not exist. You do not see such a thing in the Torah, for example, where someone comes and kills a non-Jewish person. Of course

Is it possible to understand the Quran, traditions, and sayings as you have mentioned, just like the previous religions had books that prevented religious and sectarian conflicts and beliefs from hindering any religion or sect?

In the foundation of religions, there is no enmity. Followers have created enmity. There is no enmity in the texts themselves. What enmity?! Prophets, from Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, were sent to guide a nation based on divine teachings. Moses was sent to bring the people of Israel out of Egypt and to convey a set of laws and commandments to them. He was not sent to guide the whole world.

Well, aren’t the Abrahamic religions for the whole world?

Good. You see, in your Judaism, you have two types of teachings. The situation is the same in Islam. In Judaism, there are a series of teachings and laws called “Noahide Laws”. These laws can be extracted from the Torah and Talmud. They believe that these laws are remnants of Prophet Noah. Whoever follows these Noahide teachings is blessed. For example, not committing murder, not committing adultery, not lying, not giving false testimony, and so on. But Jews also have a covenant called the “Sinai Covenant”, which includes the Ten Commandments and laws of Moses. These are specifically for the people of Israel and not for other nations. The situation is the same in Islam. Islam was revealed for the guidance of the people of Mecca and its surroundings, according to their language. The orders and laws are specific to that people and region. Well, this understanding was not among Muslims in the first century, that when you conquer other countries, you cannot

Does it mean you see the global face of religions based on righteous actions?

Well done. Good deeds and moral teachings that go back to the same Noah’s commandment that was mentioned earlier. There is no difference in these commandments. We create the differences. The difference is not in the Quran itself. If the discussion is about war and violence, it goes back to that region and the origin of that religion. You cannot generalize it to the whole world. When a religion is taken out of its place of origin, it becomes subject to change and transformation. This is how different religions come into existence.

And as a final question! Can we extract a version of peace for world peace from the holy texts and specifically the Quran?

If it can be achieved, I personally do not agree with it.

Why?

Because it is not necessary and its harm outweighs its benefits. Humans have reached a point where they can understand the necessities of their current conditions. The necessity of global peace is to enter into government, and we have seen and experienced in history that when religion enters into governance, it creates problems. Why don’t we pay more attention to the ethics of religion? With the ethics of religion, we can help achieve global peace without getting involved in politics and government. When we enter into religious laws, especially limits and diyya, we encounter problems that are not compatible with our era. Human understanding has reached a point where in most legal matters, it considers restraint and correction as the basis, not punishment for the sake of deterrence. The reason we get stuck in the Middle Eastern societies is that instead of using human scientific experiences, we try to bring out every issue from within religion. This is why we always get stuck. We don’t need to do this. Assuming we can bring out what

Thank you for the time you have given to the peace line.