Jesus
comments on the cartoons depicting Mohammed
Kim: Jesus, I would like to hear your input on the cartoons
with caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, originally published in
a Danish newspaper. Obviously, having grown up in Denmark, I am interested
in hearing whether you think the cartoons should have been published
and why it happened in Denmark. But on a broader scale, I would like
to know how you assess the entire situation and the reaction from
both Muslims and the West.
NOTE: This answer was given on February 3, 2006, after the NEW
DIRECTION was implemented.
Jesus: Let us look at the big picture. The Ascended
Host are the spiritual teachers of humankind. It is our assignment from
God to help all people raise their consciousness. Raising your consciousness
is not something that can be forced or faked; it must come from within
because you – meaning an individual, a group of people, even humanity
as a whole – make the decision to change. Yet before you can decide
to change, you must come to a point of clarity, where you see that you
need to change and how you need to change. And you must come to a point
of honesty, where you decide that you are willing to change, that you
are willing to leave behind your old state of consciousness.
In practicality, this means that people must see and admit that their
old state of consciousness, including part of their belief system, is
incomplete or incorrect—it needs to be expanded or replaced. What
does it take for people to get to that turning point? You have two extremes:
-
One is that people are
willing to change, willing to grow. They see the need to change
through honest and open self-examination. To this end, we have given
a number of spiritual teachings, including the teachings that formed
the basis for the major world religions. Although it will shock
and dismay some Christians, I count the teachings of the Koran among
such transformational tools. Anyone who openly examines himself
in the light of the profound teachings in the Koran will attain
the Christ consciousness and will thus overcome the anger, aggression
and fear that springs from the consciousness of anti-christ. Many
Muslims, especially Sufis, have proven this point beyond doubt.
My larger point is, however, that when people are willing to change,
they gladly apply the tools we give them.
- The other extreme is
that people are unwilling to change. Thus, when we give them transformational
tools, people do not use the tools to transform their state of consciousness.
Instead, they use their state of consciousness to transform the tools.
They use a pure spiritual teaching to create a rigid and dogmatic
religion that they use to justify why they don’t have to change.
They actually use their religion to justify why they do not have to
look for and remove the beam in their own eyes. And this inevitably
causes them to focus on the splinter they see in the eyes of another,
using their religion to justify making their neighbors change rather
than changing themselves. Psychologists call this mechanism for scape-goating,
and is is as old as Cain (actually even older).
My point is that when people
refuse to use a spiritual teaching for self-examination, the teaching
can no longer bring them to the point of clarity, to the turning point.
So what can bring such people to see that they need to change? In most
cases only one thing, namely the precipitation of some kind of crisis
or conflict that makes it obvious that people’s actions and beliefs
are hypocritical, inconsistent or out of touch with their spiritual
teaching. We might say that the beam in people’s eye becomes so
big that they can no longer ignore it.
As the spiritual teachers of humankind, we are charged with helping
people see that they need to change. We prefer to do this the easy way,
but if that does not work, we will seek to precipitate a flash-point
or crisis that exposes people’s behavior or beliefs. By making
things obvious, by bringing out what is normally hidden or unrecognized,
we hope to help people see the beam in their own eyes.
When I walked the Earth 2,000 years ago, I first attempted to help people
change by giving them a teaching or an example. Yet when that did not
work, I would often provoke or challenge them in order to bring out
in them what they were reluctant to see. I provoked the scribes and
Pharisees by calling them hypocrites, I overturned the tables of the
money changers, I healed on the sabbath. In fact, my entire mission
– including that I allowed myself to be crucified in the hands
of those who would not change – was an attempt to make obvious
the fact that people needed to change their consciousness by facing
their own fear, anger and hatred.
In the centuries after my mission, those who were not willing to change
themselves took my teachings and turned them into a rigid and dogmatic
religion. They became as fanatical as the people who persecuted and
killed me, yet they claimed to have the authority of Christ behind their
beliefs and actions. This led to the indisputable historical fact that
the Catholic Church became a totalitarian institution. It has been said
that all power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
With absolute power I mean that no one can question or speak out against
the people in power. And when people can exercise power without being
held accountable, you will inevitably see the abuse of power.
Thus, there were centuries when a cartoonist drawing a caricature of
Christ would have been burned by the stake by those who claimed to be
the only representatives of Christ on Earth. Did these people really
believe that I, an ascended being, could be offended by anything said
by human beings? Did they really think that I, the teacher who told
my followers to turn the other cheek and forgive seventy times seven,
would want them to kill those who supposedly offended me? They did,
but this shows the depth of their spiritual blindness. They had projected
their own state of consciousness, their own fear, anger and hatred,
upon me, and they thought I was made in their own image and likeness.
It should be obvious to any thinking person that these people were completely
out of touch with the true message of Christ. Therefore, we of the Ascended
Host clearly were looking for ways to help the people in Medieval Europe
see the fallibility of the so-called infallible Catholic doctrines.
In other words, though the original spiritual teachings of Christ were
given to set people free, those teachings had now been perverted and
turned into a tool for imprisoning people’s minds. The only way
to help people be free was to help them see the fallacy of some Catholic
doctrines and help them question the infallibility of the outer religion.
Two things helped bring this about. One is that the blind leaders of
the church took their blindness to the extreme in the inquisition. The
brutality of this event caused many people to open their eyes to the
gaping chasm between the teachings and example of Christ and the actions
of those who claimed to represent Christ. The other event was the emergence
of science that brought certain Catholic doctrines into question. Contrary
to what many Christians think, we of the Ascended Host inspired several
of the early scientists and we did so precisely to set people’s
minds free from the prison created by Catholic doctrines.
When you look at this situation from our perspective, it looks as follows.
People in Medieval Europe had been imprisoned in a mental prison created
by church doctrines and fear. It was our assignment from God to help
people escape that prison. To do this, we needed to help people see
beyond the beliefs that imprisoned them, we needed to bring people to
the point of being willing to question these beliefs and admit that
they had to change. Given the situation as it was, who were the people
we could work with to bring forth new ideas that would help people see
that their beliefs needed to change? The answer is obvious, namely the
early scientists. Unfortunately, many of today’s scientists have
used science to create another mental prison, called materialism, which
makes it impossible for us to use most scientists to bring humanity
to the next level—but that is another story.
What has this got to do with the present uproar over a few cartoons
published by a newspaper in a small country that never offended anyone?
Well, from an overall perspective you have a situation in which two
cultures, the Islamic culture and the Western secular culture, both
need to change. Yet both are reluctant to change, each thinking it is
so advanced or right that it doesn’t need to change. By bringing
the two together, the inevitable clash forces people to face the need
to change, thus giving both an opportunity to look in the mirror and
face the beam in their own eye. So from the perspective of helping people
change, the clash can be seen as an opportunity for growth. As always,
the actual outcome depends on whether people will be willing to change
or whether they will cling to the old ways—and that is the essential
problem on Earth.
Let us take a look at the current state of Islam. For anyone who is
willing to look at the historical facts, it should be obvious that Islam
has followed a parallel track to what I just described for the Catholic
Church. Those who were not willing to change themselves took the teachings
given by Archangel Gabriel through Mohammed and projected their own
state of consciousness upon them. They turned the transformational teachings
of the Koran into a rigid and dogmatic belief system.
As I explain elsewhere, the Koran
was originally given to help people in the Arab world overcome their
warring ways. As I said earlier, anyone who uses the teachings in the
Koran as a tool for self-examination, will overcome all anger, hatred
or the desire for revenge. In fact, such a person will overcome all
need to take offense over anything done to him/her by other people.
The fact that so many modern Muslims tend to respond with anger, hatred
and violence to any real or perceived offense is a clear sign that Islam
has moved as far away from the original intent of Archangel Gabriel
and Allah as the medieval church had moved away from my teachings. If
you are willing to draw the obvious historical parallels, you will see
that Islam today – and the Arab world – is in many ways
at the same stage of development as the Catholic Church and Europe at
the end of the middle ages.
If there is one lesson that history should have taught all perceptive
people, it is that change is inevitable. When you look at medieval Europe
with modern eyes, it should be obvious that things had to change and
that the wheels of time would inevitably bring this change about. People
could resist it for a while, and the Catholic Church was one of the
major factors that did postpone change. Yet in retrospect, change was
inevitable. The old, restricted society simply had to give way for a
freer, more flexible way of life. The more people or institutions resisted
the change, the more pressure was built and the pressure eventually
shattered the individuals and institutions that resisted change. Had
the Catholic church been more flexible, it would not have lost so much
credibility and influence and the Western world might have found a more
mature approach to the role of religion in society.
If you are willing to transfer this to the current Muslim world, you
will see a society that is steeped in rigidity and a holding on to values
and lifestyles that have been left behind by time. The people are suppressed
by an elite, they do not have self-determination, there is no equal
economic opportunity and the plight of women in Muslim nations is simply
out of step with time. This must change, and the wheels of time are
grinding away with absolutely no respect for human feelings and people’s
unwillingness to change.
Yet when people resist change, they feel threatened by the wheels of
time and this inevitably leads to fear. When people are not willing
to change themselves, they cannot adapt to the winds of change, and
thus they fear they could only lose their old lifestyle instead of attaining
a better one. This leads to a sense of powerlessness, and this inevitably
leads to anger. When people are not willing to change themselves, they
always look for an infallible justification for not changing themselves.
In medieval Europe, Catholic doctrine provided this justification, and
in today’s Arab countries, fundamentalist or conservative Islam
provides it for many people. When people feel they have infallible justification
for not changing themselves, then other people who are changing
themselves will be seen as a threat. Thus, people’s – self-created
– powerlessness will be directed into hatred for those people
who are changing and thus threatening the illusion that you don’t
have to change.
In this case, the powerlessness that many Muslims feel is directed against
the West, which is – at least to a higher degree – flowing
with the necessary planetary changes. For many Muslims, the West brings
out their worst fears of what changes would mean for their own society.
And because they have used a misinterpretation of the Koran to justify
not changing themselves, they inevitably see the situation as a battle
between the West and Islam. They feel that the West is out to destroy
their infallible religion and impose its culture upon them. Thus, they
fail to see the obvious alternative that Muslim nations could change
without repeating some of the mistakes – including unbalanced
secularization – made in the West.
Yet the real problem here is that fundamentalist Muslims have followed
the historical pattern of fundamentalists in every religion –
even many of today’s fundamentalist Christians – of projecting
their own state of consciousness upon their prophet and their God. They
think that because they are angry, Mohammed and Allah are angry. They
think that because they feel threatened by the West, Mohammed and Allah
feel threatened by the West. They think that because they feel offended
by a cartoon in a Western newspaper, Mohammed and Allah feel offended.
And they think it now becomes their holy duty to destroy the threat
to their religion—thus failing to see that what they are seeking
to destroy is the very thing that is forcing them to change themselves.
They are – as are all people who engage the dualistic battle –
fighting something in themselves.
The inevitable effect of this is spiritual blindness, which causes people
to think that they are no longer bound by the laws of God. In other
words, they think that even though the laws of God clearly say “Thou
shallt not kill,” the offense to their religion makes it justified
in the eyes of God that they kill the offenders. They not only think
they can escape being held accountable for their actions, they even
think God will reward them. That is why it is entirely appropriate that
one of the cartoons depict Mohammed as saying to a group of suicide
bombers approaching Heaven’s gate: “Stop, stop, we are out
of virgins.”
The belief that Allah would reward anyone for violating his own laws
against killing will only remove Muslims further from their God. If
Allah could be offended, he would be far more offended by this belief
than any of the cartoons. Surely, it should be possible for people to
see that a prophet would be far more concerned about the actions of
those who claim to follow him than about the actions of those who are
not his followers.
If such people truly believed in the teachings of the Koran, they would
believe that Allah is almighty and all-powerful. Thus, an all-powerful
God is perfectly capable of punishing – even destroying –
a tiny nation like Denmark if it has offended him. Yet apparently these
people do not believe that Allah is capable of doing so, which is why
they take it upon themselves to do what Allah obviously is not doing.
Thus, they appoint themselves as the “defenders” of Allah,
who have to do for him what he – for a reason they prefer not
to contemplate – is not doing for himself.
As I said earlier, if you truly understand the Koran, you will know
that Allah is completely beyond being offended by anything on Earth.
Allah does not need to punish people, for they punish themselves when
they go against his laws. By going against the laws of Allah, you separate
yourself from him, and that is the severest form of “punishment”
there is.
A person who truly understands the Koran will become completely surrendered
to the will of Allah, who is unmoved – and cannot be offended
– by anything on Earth. Thus, a true Muslim will know that killing
someone in the name of Allah or in the defense of his prophet is a far
greater violation of Allah’s laws than drawing a cartoon. The
Muslims who seek revenge in the name of Allah are actually going against
his laws, and thus they are separating themselves from him—just
as the Christians who killed in my name were setting themselves apart
from me by their own state of consciousness.
So if you look at the state of modern Islam from the perspective of
the Ascended Host, which includes the founders of Islam, you see that
many Muslims are trapped in a mental prison. How can we help people
escape this prison? Only by bringing them to the point where they are
willing to do some honest self-examination and consider whether their
beliefs and actions are truly in alignment with the true teachings of
Islam. What can bring people to this point?
One way is the hard way, namely that the extremists act out their extremism
until it becomes so obvious that most people should be able to see it.
This is precisely what happened in the September 11, 2001 attack on
the World Trade Center and subsequent terrorist attacks fueled by extremist
Muslim anger. These attacks were in no way supported or condoned by
the Ascended Host. Nevertheless, they were a wake-up call that presented
both the Western world and the Muslim world with a very urgent call
for self-examination.
After the attacks, you saw some Muslim leaders distance themselves from
terrorism and claim that Islam is a peaceful religion. Yet it is a fact
that since then the Muslim leadership has not put forth a consistent
and determined effort to speak out against violence committed in the
name of Allah. Thus, these very leaders bear part of the responsibility
for the continued violence, just as medieval Catholic leaders bore the
responsibility for the atrocities committed during the crusades and
the inquisition. There is an – unstated and unaddressed –
belief among too many Muslims that violence can be justified when it
comes to defending their religion, its prophet and its God. It is precisely
this belief that has now been exposed in the anger and hatred against
these cartoons of Mohammed.
This brings us to your question of why this happened in Denmark. Let
is be stated clearly that we of the Ascended Host are constantly seeking
for positive, non-violent ways to help Muslims (and all people) recognize
the urgent need for self-examination. We are therefore looking for people
who can serve as instruments for pointing out this need. Therefore,
the original idea behind these cartoons was, in fact, the result of
the editors of the Danish newspaper tuning in to the intentions of the
Ascended Host. I am not thereby saying that we inspired or necessarily
approve of the way the cartoons were executed—that was left to
the free will and creativity of the individual artists.
Yet the original intention of the newspaper editors was to point out
the need for debate and the fact that the Western world has self-imposed
a virtual censorship when it comes to issues relating to Islam. Thus
Islam has – in practicality – become a taboo in Western
media. This is close to elevating Islam to the status of absolute power,
which – as I pointed out earlier – will inevitably have
negative consequences. The Ascended Host fully support the intention
to open up – even provoke - a debate about this issue and the
tension between Islam and the West.
Why did this happen in Denmark? For two reasons. Denmark has a long-standing
tradition for freedom of speech, which has often resulted in Danish
people and artists making fun of authority figures. During the Nazi
occupation, people made fun of the Germans, even at the risk of their
lives. Not all countries have this tradition, and thus not all countries
could have been an instrument for this purpose.
The other factor is that Danes have a long-standing tradition for making
fun of themselves. This has resulted in a national character that causes
most people to rarely take themselves or anything else too seriously.
The danes have such a tradition for this that they simply could not
imagine that Muslims would be so offended by these cartoons. In my view,
it is healthy when a people do not take themselves too seriously, and
you will see that many nations in the world are actually moving in the
direction of being able to laugh at themselves. The Danes are in the
forefront of this, and that is why they could become the instruments
in this situation.
I am well aware that the Danish people are very reluctant to take a
stand for or against anything. Had they not been blinded by their own
sense of humor, they would never have published these cartoons. And
had they known what they know today, they most certainly would not have
published them. Nevertheless, the situation is an example of how people
can – even unwittingly – become the instruments for bringing
a taboo out into the open so that people can no longer ignore the issue.
Having said that, the Danes also have something to learn from the situation.
They need to learn that even when you live in a small county, you sometimes
have to take a stand—even if it offends the big world. Danes also
need to realize that their mentality has caused them to be very self-centered,
thus making them insensitive to the attitudes and beliefs of other people.
This is a factor that makes it more difficult for immigrants of any
background to integrate into Danish society, and it would be beneficial
for all parties if the Danes came out of their “own little world.”
My point is that the entire situation is an opportunity for all –
both Western nations who tiptoe around the issue of Islam and Muslims
everywhere – to face the need to overcome the taboo and openly
debate the clash between Islam and Western civilization. If this issue
is not debated openly, the tension will simply continue to mount, and
it can in its extreme lead to World War III between Muslim and Western
nations.
Kim: I understand
clearly that the newspaper did not intend to offend Islam and that
it only meant to prove the point of the unwillingness to debate the
issue. Yet many people have said that given the tension between the
Muslim world and the West, this was an unnecessary provocation that
only brought World War III closer. What would you say to that?
Jesus: The
indisputable fact is that the Muslim world is like a smoldering volcano.
The mounting anger among Muslim people is like a pool of lava that is
right under the surface, ready to break through at the slightest weakness
in the surface. This is a volatile situation that will inevitably lead
to an outbreak sooner or later. The only chance of avoiding war is to
diffuse this tension through non-violent means.
As you have seen with the war in Iraq, many Muslims feel that when a
Muslim country is attacked or threatened by violence, it is fully justified
that they respond with violence. This is the Old Testament philosophy
of "an eye for an eye" which became obsolete when I inaugurated
the new age of Pisces and the Christian dispensation of turning the
other cheek.
You would be surprised to know how many “ordinary” people
and leaders of Muslim countries are silently approving of the insurgency
in Iraq—even despite the fact that they kill civilians –
Muslims – to make a political point. My point is that you have
people who are simply looking for an excuse to respond with violence.
So if a provocation had been based on violence – as when Israel
responds violently to the Palestinians – Muslims will use violence
in retaliation.
What was unique about the cartoons is that they are a non-violent measure.
Thus, many Muslims have come to question whether it is justified –
according to both common sense and Islamic law and tradition –
to respond with violence. Given the volatility of the situation, there
is no guarantee that it will not lead to violence. Yet in any event,
this will only serve to further expose the anger and hatred that Muslim
people need to confront in themselves. Compare the situation to the
British occupation of India and how Ghandi and his followers used non-violent
protests to make the British empire face what they had been unwilling
to see in themselves.
The stark fact is that many political and religious leaders in Muslim
countries have complained that the cartoons picture Mohammed as the
stereotype of a Muslim terrorist. They claim this is offensive because
Islam is a peaceful religion. Yet the violent reactions to the cartoons
disproves these claims. Let me mention a couple of examples:
-
Some religious and political
leaders have stated that the Danish government should restrain the
press. Yet many media outlets in the Arab world have encouraged
anger, even violence, and the boycott of Western products. These
same leaders have not spoken out against or sought to restrict their
own press—even though some have the legal authority to do
so which the Danish government does not.
-
You see people in the
streets of Muslim nations demonstrating against the cartoons by
burning Danish flags, closing embassies or threatening the lives
of Westerners. Yet the leaders in those nations are not speaking
out against this, taking a stand against violence in any form. If
you see violence and do nothing to stop it, you are – in actuality
– encouraging it. A representative of a peaceful religion
would not do so.
-
Some religious and political
leaders in Muslim countries have encouraged the boycott of Danish
products while very few have spoken out against this. A boycott
only punishes companies and employees– meaning regular people
– who had nothing to do with the cartoons. This is lumping
all Danes or all Westerners in the same category as those who supposedly
caused offense. Two things are wrong with this attitude.
First of all, it
is stereotyping people, which is what Muslims claim is being done
to them when people in the West see all Muslims as terrorists.
Second, it is being willing to punish everyone in a certain group,
even those who had nothing to do with the incident. If this kind
of mentality had been common in the West, the American government
would have deported all Muslims after September 11, 2001. Of course,
most Muslims would have felt this was highly unjust—as it
would have been. However, most Muslims do not see that they are
quick to adopt the very same attitude that they do not want to have
directed at themselves. Do unto others . . .
-
Muslims take offense
when Western media depicts them or their faith in a non-favorable
light. Yet the media in many Muslim nations regularly depict Westerners
and Jews in a non-favorable light. Few in the Muslim world speak
out against this.
- It is a fact that many
Muslims believe their faith is the only true religion, and they have
little respect for other religions, even though the Koran clearly
acknowledges the prophets of both the Old and New Testament. Obviously,
some Christians feel the same about their religion, but this consciousness
of exclusivity and superiority is behind the times and it must go.
My point is that many among
the Muslim press, the political and religious leaders and the people
have a double standard. They believe other people should live up to
their standard, but they are not willing to follow it themselves, nor
are they willing to see that they are not following it. This is exactly
what I addressed when I challenged the scribes and the Pharisees 2,000
years ago. I used one word to characterize their actions: “Oh
ye hypocrites!” That word has not lost its relevance.
The fact is that this situation was the perfect opportunity for Muslims
everywhere to demonstrate that they can respond peacefully to a situation
that offends their religion. Unfortunately, the debate has so far been
dominated by those who failed to take this opportunity. Yet I remain
hopeful that we will begin to hear from the more moderate and open-minded
Muslims—those who have the potential to bring Islam and the Arab
world into the modern age.
What do you think about the Pakistani Parliament stating that
many people’s faith had been hurt by the cartoons?
If your faith in your religion
can be hurt by a cartoon in a newspaper – or anything else said
by anyone on Earth – then your faith obviously isn’t very
strong. Yet why isn’t your faith strong? Because you have an incomplete
understanding of the spiritual teachings behind your religion, causing
you to have internal contradictions and inconsistencies in your beliefs.
You have these contradictions because you have not thought deeply enough
about your faith. And you have not thought deeply because you have subscribed
to the superficial approach which says that you do not have to change,
you do not have to examine yourself, you do not have to pull the beam
from your own eye. You only have to affirm outer doctrines and follow
outer rules, and then you will automatically be saved—without
having to change your state of consciousness through self-examination.
This is what the Old Testament calls the way that seemeth right unto
a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.
When you take this approach, you subconsciously know your faith is shaky,
and that is why you feel threatened when your faith is questioned in
any way. You want your religion to be raised to the status of infallibility,
of being above questioning. However, this is not out of true reverence
for your God, it is to avoid having to examine yourself. As I said,
you have projected your own state of consciousness upon your religion,
and you are now using your religion to justify not pulling the beam
from your own eye.
Many people have said that the cartoons went way over the edge by
striking at the very heart of Islam. What is your comment on that?
First of all, they had to
strike at the heart of Muslim beliefs in order to provoke the debate.
There would have been no debate had the issue not gone to the very core.
You will notice that the debate did not gather momentum until several
months after the original publication. This is actually caused by Mother
Mary’s judgment that all that is hidden under the surface
must now be exposed.
In reality these cartoons do not strike at the heart of Islam—at
least not the original teachings of the Koran. It is true that Islamic
law and tradition states that it is forbidden to create an image of
Mohammed and Allah. Yet you will find no direct statements in the Koran
that express this view. You will find warnings against idol worship,
which Muslim clerics have interpreted to mean that images are forbidden.
Yet this is an interpretation imposed upon the Koran, and it goes beyond
the original intent. There are several problems with this interpretation:
-
The cartoons did not
depict Allah, but only Mohammed. Yet in the Muslim mind, the two
are the same. If you insult Mohammed, you have insulted Allah. This
is elevating the prophet – who is merely a human instrument
– to the same status as the God he serves. As I said, the
servant is not greater than his Lord. Obviously, some Christian
churches have elevated me to the same status as God or have portrayed
me as being God. Yet this is against my own statements, and it is
clearly a form of blasphemy. Thus, the Christians who do this to
me and the Muslims who do it to Mohammed are engaging in idol worship.
-
Even if the cartoons
had depicted Allah, it would not have been blasphemy. If you truly
understand the teachings of the Koran, you will see that the benevolent
and ever-merciful Allah can never be offended by anything people
do. If people violate his law, they simply separate themselves from
him and thus punish themselves.
-
The teachings in the
Koran that warn against idol worship are true and parallel the first
two of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament. However, an idol
or a graven image does not simply mean an outer portrayal. The reality
is that the supreme God is beyond his creation and thus beyond any
words or images that could possibly be used to describe him. However,
this does not mean that it is necessarily wrong to describe or depict
God. What is wrong is when people take an image or a doctrine and
elevate it to the status of infallibility. If you take a limited
image and say that it gives a complete and infallible depiction
of God, then you have created an idol. And if you refuse to revise
your belief in the infallibility of the image and refuse to expand
your view of God, you have taken unto yourself a graven image, meaning
an image that does not change and therefore can never lead you to
the true God who is beyond all images.
- The fact is that idol
worship is more than an outer image. It is a state of mind. It begins
in the mind and it can be overcome only in the mind by removing the
beam – the graven image – from your own eye. Idol worship
begins with the creation of a mental image that you elevate to the
status of infallibility. You may project this image upon an outer
statue or you may project it on a religious scripture or an interpretation
of that scripture. Yet it is the mental image that imprisons your
mind and thus keeps you from knowing the true God who is beyond all
images in this world.
My point is that when Christians elevated me to the status of being
equal to God, they created a mental idol. When Muslims elevate Mohammed
to the same status as Allah, they turn him into an idol. And when
they create a mental image that Allah can be offended by human beings
and that he will respond with anger and hatred as they do, then they
have created an idol of God. Thus, many of the Muslims who cry blasphemy
are, in reality, guilty of blasphemy. Their idols simply reside in
their own minds rather than in outer images, but they still keep them
from knowing the true Allah who cannot be confined to any mental image.
The basic issue here is that
Muslims need to take a long look in the mirror. They need to compare
their reactions and their actions to what is actually said in the Koran.
They even need to compare some of their interpretations and doctrines
to what is said in the Koran. They need to look at what the Koran really
says and not what they want it to say—so that they can continue
to justify not removing the beam from their own eyes.
Many of the more moderate – I prefer to call them open-minded
and true – Muslims have already begun this process. This is especially
true for many of the Muslims living in Western nations. I continue to
hold the immaculate concept that this situation will become a catalyst
for a more open and free debate about the many issues involved in the
friction between Islamic and Western culture. I hold the concept that
this debate will eventually lead to a diffusion of the tension and the
emergence of mutual understanding, so that we do not have to see a modern
reenactment of the crusades. However, this will only happen if the moderate
and open-minded Muslims begin to speak out and challenge the extremists
who have so far dominated the exchange between Islam and the West.
What do Western people need to learn from the situation?
One of the main lessons is
that you cannot maintain a free society if you create taboos in your
mind and if you have issues that you are afraid to debate freely. The
fact is that the large number of Muslim immigrants in many Western nations
has created a tension and a clash of cultures. As you clearly saw from
the recent riots in France, this has built up a tension that will inevitably
lead to confrontation—that is, if it is not diffused through a
free debate that leads to mutual understanding.
I am fully aware that many people in the West, including political leaders
and media people, have felt too intimidated by the threat of Muslim
violence to openly debate the issues. Yet the fact is that most of the
Muslims in Western countries are not extremists, and you are not doing
them a service by tiptoeing around the issues without addressing them.
Thus, the reluctance to offend will in itself become an offense—hurting
everyone.
The other main lesson is that Western people need to look in the mirror.
Many European nations – including Denmark – think they
are very tolerant. Yet the influx of Muslims in recent decades has exposed
an underlying intolerance that has not yet been openly addressed. This
is actually a major reason why Western countries have been reluctant
to debate the issue openly. Too many people have not been willing to
face their intolerance, so it is easier to ignore the issue.
For there to be a free and open debate about this issue, Westerners
must be willing to face their own lack of tolerance. It is very easy
to be tolerant of other cultures while you have them at a safe distance.
It is quite different to be tolerant when you have people from other
cultures as your neighbors. I hold the immaculate vision that Westerners
will be willing to look in the mirror as a result of this conflict and
work on overcoming their intolerance of that which is too different
from their comfortable way of life.
The only long-term solution is that Muslim immigrants become integrated
into Western culture without losing their Muslim faith. Yet for that
to happen, two hurdles must be overcome:
-
The Muslim immigrants
will have to adapt their approach to religion to the realities of
the 21st century and the realities of Western society. Expecting
that you can move to Europe and live as if you were still in the
middle East is simply out of touch with reality. If you do not want
to adapt to your new country, go back or go somewhere else.
- Westerners will have
to be willing to face their own lack of tolerance by admitting that
they are not as tolerant as they like to think they are. This will
also require them to overcome their subtle disrespect for Islam as
a religion, a feeling that is fueled by the Christian illusion of
religious superiority or the secular world view that there is no God
and that religion is a thing of the past.
Incidentally, many Westerners
could be inspired by the Muslims and their commitment to a more spiritual
lifestyle than what has become the norm in the overly secularized European
nations. And because many Western people have already gone through the
transformation to the modern world, they are in a position to help their
Muslim neighbors make that transition—if a free and respectful
debate can be created.
My point is that if there is no dialogue, or if there is not a free
and open dialogue, everyone suffers. Yet when there is openness, everyone
benefits. And when there is openness, there is no need for flash-points
– such as these cartoons – to force people to face
their taboos.
From a bigger perspective, most Western nations have not had a mature
debate about the role of religion in society. For example, people have
not processed the role of religion in the past, including the Catholic
Church and its abuses. Again, a main cause is that people are not willing
to face the beam in their own eyes, so it has been easier to ignore
the issue and let nations slide toward secularism. However, this has
led to many undesirable consequences, including a sense of purposelessness,
leading to depression and addiction.
We might say that for Islam the need of the hour is to overcome religious
extremism and for the West the need is to overcome extreme secularism.
Thus, both need to find a more mature and balanced approach to the role
of spirituality in society, and both could learn from each other.
This answer was given on February 4, 2006.
Kim: What is your comment on the fact that the Danish embassy
in Syria was burned to the ground today?
Jesus: Many
Muslims have taken great offense to one cartoon that depicts Mohammed
with a bomb in his turban. Yet the point of this cartoon – and
the intent behind all of the cartoons – is to show that –
because of the undeniable terrorist acts and numerous threats by extremist
Muslims – people in the West have come to see Islam as something
they need to tiptoe around. Western people simply expect Muslims to
respond with violence to any provocation.
As I said above, it is an undeniable fact that Muslim clerics and political
leaders have not made a clear and determined effort to discourage violence
in the name of their religion. The burning of an embassy – and
the burning of the Chilean embassy which had nothing to do with the
situation – simply reinforces the stereotype that when Muslims
are offended, they respond with indiscriminate violence.
It is quite understandable that many people in the West have this impression—and
only Muslims who are blinded by their own anger can fail to see this.
If Muslims want to change this impression, they should demonstrate that
they can respond peacefully to a provocation.
As I said, a cartoon is a non-violent measure, and this would have been
the perfect opportunity for the Muslim world to object to an affront
to their religion through peaceful means. The Muslim world as a whole
has so far failed this test. When violence breaks out, how can Muslims
expect people in other cultures to change their view of Islam and overcome
their stereotypes of Muslims as bomb-throwing religious fanatics? How
can you expect that other people will change their view of you if you
are not willing to change yourself? This simply is not realistic.
I know very well that most Muslims are not violent or extremist. Therefore,
it is understandable that they don’t want to be stereotyped as
extremists. Yet by not speaking out against the extremism on their own
doorstep, it is virtually inevitable that the radical Muslims will be
the face that Islam shows to the world. I am not saying it is right
for Western people to stereotype Muslims. I am simply saying that Muslims
should be willing to recognize that if they want the world’s perception
of them to change, they must begin by changing themselves. Prove the
world wrong by responding with non-violence. If you respond with violence,
you only prove the world right.
The fact is that if Muslims want to truly honor Allah and his prophet,
they should conduct themselves in a way that increases international
understanding and respect for Islam as a peaceful religion that is more
concerned about people’s eternal salvation than issues here on
Earth.
What do you think about other newspapers reprinting of the cartoons?
The papers showed they were
willing to take a stand for one of the foundations of a free society,
namely freedom of speech. Imagine that all media outlets in the world
did the same. Where would Muslims direct their anger—against the
entire world? Sure the extremists are already doing so, but that is
precisely what needs to be exposed as against the very foundations of
Islam.
The Muslims who objected
to the cartoons – even months after their publication –
were responsible for turning it into an international news issue. How
can you expect the press not to report on an issue that provokes demonstrations
and death threats? Had the Muslims responded peacefully, there would
have been no need to reprint the cartoons as few papers would have felt
the need to defend freedom of speech. They would instead have opted
for showing respect for the Muslims who deserved respect because of
their peaceful response.
It is hypocritical
to report on this issue without showing at least some of the cartoons.
How can a media outlet report a story to its customers without letting
them see what caused the incident so they can decide for themselves?
It is like asking Christians to believe in Christ without letting them
read the Bible in their own language. Or ask people to vote without
knowing the candidates.
So what about the countries, such as Britain and the U.S.
where hardly any media outlets have showed the cartoons?
They have not been willing
to take a stand, hiding behind the excuse of not wanting to offend Islam.
This shows clearly that these countries are unwilling to openly debate
the issue. They gave in to the Muslim intimidation factor, which proves
the validity of publishing the cartoons to draw attention to this problem.
The fact is that these cartoons do not offend Islam, nor do they offend
Allah or Mohammed—for they are above being offended by anything
on Earth. Thus, the cartoons in themselves do not offend Muslims. Nothing
I do to you can offend you—unless you choose to take offense.
Your offense is not caused by my actions, your offense is caused by
what you allow in your mind. I am responsible for my actions but you
are responsible for your mind and for your reaction to my actions. God
has not made you responsible for the actions of other people, which
is why he has not given you the authority to act as the avenger or punisher
of other people's actions. That is why God said, "Vengeance is
mine saith the Lord, I will repay."
The essence of all true religions
– including the Koran – is that you must raise yourself
above the dualistic consciousness that causes people to take offense.
You must let the prince of this world come to you with absolutely anything,
and you must remain unmoved by any of his temptations and offenses.
If you do not, you make yourself a slave of the false god of this world,
rather than a follower of the true God of Heaven—whether you call
him Allah, God, YOD HE WAV HE, Brahma or anything else. You cannot worship
the true God by projecting the human consciousness upon him.
Many Muslims are following a false god of anger and hatred, whereas
Allah is a God of unconditional love—which is why he is called
ever-merciful. You must use a true teaching to raise yourself above
the consciousness of hatred, so you can have a direct experience of
God’s love. This is the central message of Islam—let those
who have ears hear.
Back to top
Copyright
© 2005 by Kim Michaels |
