Victory is Illusive if Its Foundation is Sand and Not The Rock

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), May 17, 2021 at 09:18

If victory is purported to be Israel's path to peace within its own boundaries, then how does the Quran, with its own self-inflicting passions of hatred towards Israel in general and the Children of Abraham through Isaac, become any sort of blueprint to build a caring society which serves a people when those sands of hatred are sought after instead of building on the Rock of love. Where is the logic when adherents of Islam are told they cannot be halfway in their pursuit of Quranic devotion and treatment of non-Muslims is to be in dhimmitude? Devoted pursuit of the Quranic precepts is problematic when within its own paradigm there is limited agreement depending upon following the Sunni or Shi'a.
The same thing happened to Christianity when dissident voices distanced belief in the true Savior and began practicing an alternative form of religious impiety instead of following the Rock, a decidedly non-Quranic pursuit from which no peace can be derived.
As was discussed in another part of this forum, interpretations, whether attempting to redefine the Tanakh, or Arabic versus Persian perceptions in the Quran, can be deceiving and without discernment of how such interpretations are to be argued, there is no common ground. Of such is the dilemma of humanity attempting to build its societies on the sands of human reasoning.
But what of the Rock; where is this inference, indeed the declaration of the bedrock foundation of a societal blueprint upon which humanity can build peaceful cooperation and come together in true unity. It is found in the teachings of Moshe, in the song of Moshe; freedom in those words based upon a mutual understanding of life that needs no interpretation, but acquiescence to the truth; where true victory is found in the Rock of peace that exceeds all human understanding: but who is looking for that? Anyone?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".