During my first trip to Turkey, I visited the city of Şanlıurfa in the country’s southeast. Urfa, as it is commonly known, is a beautiful city with a rich religious history. This includes sites associated with Abraham and Job, both of whom are key figures in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As I entered the cave where Abraham reportedly hid from the tyrant Nimrod and the cave where Job cleansed himself, I meditated on the sacredness of the areas. Even though these sites touch on overlapping religious claims and compete with other countries for their authenticity, there was no sense of tension or unease there, only peace and the chance for inter-religious understanding.

Most observers of Middle East politics approach sacred spaces in the region warily. They worry they will become a flashpoint for conflict or serve as a target for extremist violence. As a result, much work on Middle Eastern sacred spaces—from both scholars and practitioners—involves attempting to manage conflict over them. Yet, this overlooks another side of sacred spaces in the region: the opportunity they present for states and civil society. Many sacred spaces around the Middle East have not only been peaceful, but they have also brought benefits to the countries in which they reside. States have gained legitimacy and tourism dollars from them, while some have also promoted interfaith dialogue in civil society.

In this article, I discuss several examples of the opportunities sacred spaces provide as the first steps toward providing guidelines on how policymakers and religious peacebuilding advocates can resolve tensions over sacred spaces. I also acknowledge the limits of this article’s optimistic approach, however. Many of these sacred spaces exist in authoritarian regimes, suggesting a tradeoff between liberties and religious peace that some may not accept. Additionally, some of these sites have come under attack by religious extremists. Finally, the most notable sacred sites in the region, in Jerusalem, may be too inherently contested to ever be reframed in this manner. Yet, I argue that spreading inclusive political theologies that celebrate religious diversity and approach sacred spaces in a relationship of stewardship can expand the opportunity they bring to societies.

Why We Fear Sacred Spaces

Most discussions about sacred spaces in the Middle East are negative. We worry about the possibility that they will be a target of extremist violence. We worry that they will cause conflicts between warring countries or faiths. Indeed, the record of politics surrounding such spaces in the region validates these concerns.

Ron Hassner provided one of the most comprehensive studies of tensions surrounding sacred spaces in his book War on Sacred Grounds. In it, he points to a tension within sacred spaces; they are both “sites of infinite beauty” and have a “history of extreme violence.” He argues that it is their very value to believers that creates conflict, both within a group and across faith communities. These spaces are “indivisible,” with neither side willing to accept a division of the site as this would destroy its value. He argues that conventional attempts at management, partition, and exclusion are doomed to fail. Instead, close cooperation between religious and political authorities to reframe the sites’ nature can lead to peace, albeit fragile and short-lived.

Others have expanded on Hassner’s work with sacred spaces and conflict. Jobani and Perez, in Governing the Sacred, explored the various strategies governments have used to manage sacred spaces. Ben Shitrit discussed the role of women in creating indivisible disputes over Jerusalem in Women and the Holy City. Others have looked at the development of indivisible tensions over specific sacred spaces.

Thus, most see sacred spaces as a problem. Even those who push back on Hassner’s generally pessimistic take on the likelihood of conflict focus on the difficulty of managing sacred spaces. Some have discussed reframing the understanding of sacred spaces to be less exclusive. Others argue that separating concepts of sacred land from sacred space can lead to more opportunities for peace.

A few, however, have pointed to the potential opportunities sacred spaces could provide. Some have discussed the possibility of pilgrimage to sacred sites to increase interfaith understanding. And others have discussed successes in turning sites of tragedy into solemn sacred spaces. These discussions tend to be rather general, however, or look at contexts outside of the Middle East. It is worth exploring whether there are sacred spaces that could present similar opportunities in the region.

The Opportunities Sacred Spaces Provide

While acknowledging the powerful challenges sacred spaces pose for peaceful coexistence, I would like to point to numerous examples of Middle Eastern sacred spaces that have not only experienced peace but benefited the countries in which they exist. Specifically, I am looking at sites that are either shared by different religious traditions or belong to the minority faith in a country. This list is not meant to be exhaustive but instead will hopefully highlight the possibility of opportunities provided by sacred spaces.

There are many sites where one would expect conflict, but it has not occurred:

• One of these is the Tomb of Ezra. The site is believed to be the tomb of the biblical figure Ezra, who reportedly authored several books of the Hebrew Bible and rejuvenated Jewish beliefs after the end of the Babylonian captivity. Ezra is also a saint in Orthodox Christianity and is venerated by some Muslims. It has also become a pilgrimage site for local Shia Muslims. Rather than becoming a source of conflict among religious groups, though, contemporary Muslim pilgrims continue to respect and recognize its Jewish roots, with the tomb’s Hebrew inscriptions left in place.
• Another is the Tomb of Ezekiel, also in Iraq. This tomb is believed to be the resting site of the prophet Ezekiel and was an important pilgrimage site for Iraqi Jews before they were forced out of the country in the 1950s. Shiite Muslims also claim the site, and there have been some tensions over control and access, although current overseers claim all faiths are welcome.

Others actively benefit the country in which they reside:

• Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Egypt, the oldest continuously used Christian monastery, was built by the Byzantine emperor Justinian over the site traditionally believed to be where Moses encountered the burning bush. The bones of Saint Catherine were later buried there after being found nearby. As John Pinna has discussed, the monastery provided an early opportunity for interfaith dialogue when the Prophet Muhammad sent a letter promising freedom of worship for the Christians there. Today, the monastery continues to play an important role in Egypt. Researchers have been digitizing its collections to raise awareness of the site, which also remains a popular tourist destination.
• The Ben Ezra Synagogue in Cairo is reportedly built on the site where the baby Moses was found. Despite being destroyed multiple times, it has remained prominent throughout Egypt’s history, with the famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides having worked there. Although Egypt’s Jewish population has nearly disappeared, the Egyptian government recognizes the synagogue’s importance as a tourist site and has been renovating it.
• Al-Maghtas in Jordan is believed to be the baptismal site of Jesus. Situated along the Jordan River, significant work on the site only began after the Jordan–Israel peace treaty. It has since been recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage site and has attracted both tourists and dignitaries.
• Saint Elian’s Monastery in Syria has been an important pilgrimage site since its founding in the fifth century CE. It remained so through the modern era, with both Christians and Muslims worshipping there and numerous tourists visiting the site.
• The Deir Mar Musa al-Habashi Monastery is another significant Christian site in Syria. It serves as a pilgrimage site and has also attracted tourists from around the world. Moreover, the Christian monastic community running the site explicitly aimed to promote interfaith dialogue and understanding between Christians and Muslims.
• Iran is the birthplace of the ancient Zoroastrian faith and the home of the religion’s sacred mountaintop sites. Although Zoroastrians were displaced or converted after the spread of Islam to the area, the country’s Zoroastrian heritage was promoted during the era of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Under Mohammed Reza Shah, Iran embraced Zoroastrianism as part of its national identity and incorporated Zoroastrian rituals into official activities.

Limits to This Optimism

Of course, there are limits to the optimism in the above section, and readers may have already raised some of the points I am about to make. First, many of these peaceful sacred sites depend on protection by authoritarian regimes. The relative stability of sacred Christian and Jewish sites in Egypt has occurred under the rule of successive autocratic regimes. Similarly, Syria’s brutal ruling Assad family has made it possible for pilgrims and tourists to visit Christian sacred sites there. Likewise, Iran’s shah implemented widespread repression even as the country advanced secular reforms that made space for Zoroastrianism to be embraced as part of Iran’s heritage. Even relatively moderate Jordan is far from a democracy. Some champions of religious freedom have argued for the acceptance of repressive regimes that protect religious minorities, especially Christians. Many, however, will find this choice distasteful.

Additionally, the peace of many of the sacred sites discussed here has been shattered by religious extremists. While Zoroastrians are legally protected under the post-1979 Islamic Republic of Iran, they have experienced mistreatment and harassment by authorities. After the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Iraqi government renovated the Tomb of Ezekiel, removing some of the Jewish elements of the site in the process. More recently, the Islamic State waged a genocidal campaign against religious minorities in Iraq and Syria, including the destruction of Christian sites. Chaos in Syria during the civil war undermined the activities of the Deir Mar Musa al-Habashi Monastery, and its leader, Father Paolo Dall’Oglio, was kidnapped by the Islamic State; his whereabouts are still unknown. The Islamic State also completely destroyed St. Elian’s Monastery. This destruction is in line with Hassner’s pessimistic argument, that sacred spaces become the targets of violence due to their importance to another faith.

Finally, the conditions that gave rise to the opportunities these sacred spaces provide may never be present in the most important site for Middle East conflict—Jerusalem. As Hassner argues, sacred spaces vary in their centrality to a faith and their vulnerability to defilement. It is relatively easy for Muslims and Jews to peacefully share a small shrine in Iraq or one of the many claimed sites for the tomb of Job. It is much harder to figure out a way to not only coexist but actively benefit from a site such as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, over which multiple faiths have claimed exclusive control.

How to Reframe Sacred Spaces

Thus, while conflict over sacred space is not inevitable—and they may even present opportunities to the countries in which they exist—the more optimistic outcome for sacred spaces is also not guaranteed. However, commonalities among the sacred spaces that benefited their countries can provide a few suggestions on how to achieve the desired outcome.

The first is for the government and society to take pride in their religious diversity, rather than seeing it as a threat to national integrity or a potential source of instability. It is true that the protection regimes like Egypt’s or Syria’s gave to Christians was often cynical and part of their overall authoritarian statecraft. But their experience shows that a commitment to religious diversity does not necessarily lead to instability. Consequently, defending sacred spaces does not have to be a burden for regimes.

The second is for countries’ relationship to sacred spaces to not be an exclusive one; instead, they should recognize that their importance transcends national boundaries. Some of this involves maintaining sacred spaces as tourist destinations—rather than limiting outside influence—as Egypt has done with the Ben Ezra Synagogue. But a lot of it involves adopting a state like Jordan’s approach to the Christian sites in its territory. Jordan has framed itself as a steward for the internationally significant sacred spaces, welcoming visits by important Christian figures.

This is, of course, easier said than done. But research on sacred spaces and religious peacebuilding provides some guidance. Hassner called for close cooperation between religious and political authorities when managing sacred spaces, as the former can reshape the nature of sacred spaces to promote peace. Similarly, Nukhet Sandal has discussed the way trusted religious leaders in Northern Ireland spread what she called inclusive political theologies to build trust across sectarian lines and ease division. Religious leaders in the Middle East could similarly engage with each other to promote a new understanding of sacred spaces as a shared opportunity for all religious communities.

The claim that sacred spaces present an opportunity for Middle East states sounds naive. But as I discussed in this article there are several examples of sacred spaces not only being sites of peace but actively benefiting their countries. It is a difficult nature to maintain, as they readily become targets of religious extremists. Likewise, it may be hard to apply lessons from these sites to the most contentious sacred spaces, such as Jerusalem. But it is important, when analyzing the role of sacred spaces in Middle East conflict, to broaden our focus beyond the negative and recognize the possibility of a better world.