Aspectos Radiográficos 1 Radiografía Periapical

Most people think they know what peace means, but in fact different people often have different understandings of this seemingly simple word. According to the Oxford International Encyclopaedia of Peace, peace can be perceived as happiness, harmony, justice and freedom, because peace is something that is mostly recognised by its absence. This is seen in the origin of the word peace, from the word “pees”. “Pax” (akin to the Latin “pacisci” – ‘to agree’) is the Latin feminine noun from which the English word “peace” is derived. The concept of peace varies, as it refers to reaching agreement between two parties; respect for others; equality of life; a peaceful time; civil safety and security; a peaceful mind, etc. I agree with the above concept of peace, because the word peace encompasses all aspects of human relations and has become one of the primary needs of humanity since the dawn of human history. In the words of Galtung (1985:141), there has never been a consensus on the concept of peace, much less a model to achieve it. To be candid, it is a reality that peace has not been achieved, and human beings have never even come close to it. As a result, there has been conflict amongst human beings in many countries. This is seen in to Galtung’s (1969:167) statistical understanding of periodical peaceful coexistence and conflicts, in relation to which he shows that, from 1496 BC to 1861 AD to the present era, over a period of 3 357 years, there were 227 years of peace and 3 130 years of war – 13 years of war for every year of peace. Going on the history of lives struggling for peace in the contemporary world, it appears as a normal phenomenon of human life (Galtung, 1985:141). This is because peace is a mental or spiritual condition marked by freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions. Therefore, peace is personal peace of mind, as well as calmness of mind and heart, and a state of freedom from outside disturbances and harassment, because it implies harmony in human relations.

Galtung’s (1985:141) understanding of peace is that there is positive and negative peace, based on the different understandings of the concept, because many philosophers, religions and cultural and social systems have referred to peace from different perspectives. One of the

77

concepts of peace is “freedom from civil ‘clamour and confusion’”, and it is described positively as “a state of public quiet” or order within a community relating to law, custom or public opinion. The above understanding of peace is in line with Abu-Nimer (2001b), who says that peace is a state of mutual concord between governments: the absence of hostilities or war. This meaning of peace is negative peace, caused it entails a period of freedom from war. Another concept of peace is as absence of activity or noise; deep stillness; quietness, or what may be called inner peace. Peace has an undesirable connotation because the Roman poet Tacitus spoke of making a desert and calling peace an unwanted place of sterility and emptiness. This affirms that peace is a state of tranquillity or quiet; freedom from civil disturbances; a state of security or order within a community provided by law or custom; specifically absence or cessation of war; a state of reconciliation after strife or enmity; etc. The above statements show that peace is the absence of war, which some consider as ideal, and others regard peace as the removal of all internal and external violence and conflict, and still others consider it to be certain conditions, such as stability, justice, human rights, equity, freedom, happiness among and within individuals, peoples and nations of the world (Galtung, 1969:167). Because of the influential identity of the concept of peace in religions and the world, Küng (2007) says that if there is no peace among religions there will be no peace in the nation, and without peace among the religions there will be no dialogue, and consequently, without dialogue between the religions there will be no comparative theology of religions. With this in mind, peace is portrayed as the greatest need in the world today, and according to the Christian and Muslim religions’ comparative theology of religion, the concept of peace is the foundation of peace for the religions themselves, as well as for the nation. Peace can be obtained through religious dialogue by comparing the theological foundations and understandings of the religious model of and for peace that gives birth to peace in and amongst the religions and also in the nation at large (Küng, 2007). The above statement shows the importance of peace within and outside of religion, which opens up possibilities for society that cut across all social, economic and intellectual distinctions. 3.3.1 Negative and positive

The above concept portrays that there are two different dimensions of peace – as a negative and positive concept. Therefore there is a need to explore the two perspectives of the concept of peace in order to relate the conceptual understanding of the model of and for peace in Christian and Muslim religious theology through a comparative theology of religion, because

78

it will foster more understanding on the model of and for peace between the two religious groups for interreligious dialogue (Galtung, 1969:191). Therefore, based on the above understanding of the model of and for peace there is a need to discuss the negative and positive identity of peace proposed by Galtung (1969) that was mentioned above.

The negative model of peace is referred to as the identification of peace by the absence of war or armed conflicts – when the model for ceasefire is enacted by ensuring that it will never happen again. This model of peace is a condition under which there is active, organised military violence taking place. This is seen as a condition of more or less lasting suspension of rivalry between political units. This affirms that negative cultural salvation/peace is when war or another direct form of organised state violence has stopped, and oppression is ended (Galtung, 1985:141). The negative model of peace fails to understand that peace is not only the absence of armed conflicts or a partial suspension of rivalry between political units, but also the absence model of and for human rights.

This is referred to as a sustainable model for peace that respects human rights without any coercive restoration of a religious or social relationship for the constructive restoration of conflict. It is also referred to as a social condition in which exploitation is minimised or eliminated, and in which there is a continuing presence of an equitable and social order as well as ecological harmony. This affirms that the model of peace is not the total absence of any conflict, but the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of conflict in different ways. Therefore, the model for peace exists where people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict positively, with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interests of all concerned (Galtung, 1969:167). I agree with the above affirmation because the model of peace is primarily considered not as the lack of a model for war, but the lack of a model of and for human rights. This is because the model of and for is referred to as a sustainable model of peace that respects human rights without any coercive involvement in the restoration of a religious, social relationship for the constructive restoration of conflict. It is also referred to as a model for a social condition in which exploitation is minimised or eliminated, and in which there is a continuing presence of an equitable and social order as well as ecological harmony (Lederach, 1995). This affirms that peace is not the total absence of any conflict, but the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of conflict in different ways. Therefore, the model for peace exists where people are interacting non-

79

violently and are managing their conflict positively, with respectful attention being paid to the legitimate needs and interests of all concerned (Galtung, 1985:148).

The following questions now arise: Will it ever be possible for human beings to live peaceable with one another without encounterology? What are the models of da’wa and mission in relation to human beings in the Christian and Muslim religions? Can missiology agree with the above perspectives on peace and conflict as normal phenomena? Can the missiological understandings of peace in the Christian and Muslim religions play a role in establishing a model of peace in the theology of religions for interreligious dialogue? With the aim of finding answers to such questions, encounterology can be fruitful if done with truth and sincerity, and without monopoly, as it can be used as model for sharing the conviction of the value of interreligious dialogue, especially in the Nigerian context, where the two religions are contesting the ultimate truth of identity (Knitter, 2002:9). The encounterology needs to be done in an open manner and in love, esteem and respect for both theologies of religion in order to acquire knowledge about how human beings can use peace for dialogical purposes, as doing missiology through a comparative theology of religion is all about learning. Therefore, the missiological approach can communicate a specific depth dimension, an all-embracing horizon of meaning, even in the face of suffering, injustice, guilt and meaninglessness, and also a lasting meaning of life (Küng, 2007). As a result of the above missiological questions, there is a need to explore the understanding of peace in the Christian and Muslim religions, and to explore the model for ‘as practices’ in mission-da’wa and in human beings for interreligious dialogue.