Should
the Pope apologize for offending Muslims?
NOTE:
This teaching was given on September 15, 2006, after the NEW
DIRECTION was implemented.
Kim: Jesus, I would like to ask for your comments on the Pope’s
speech in which he quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel
II Paleologus, who said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought
that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,
such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Apparently the Pope was not agreeing or disagreeing with this emperor
but was using the remark to show the incompatibility of religion and
violence. Nevertheless, offense was taken by a number of Islamic groups
and governments. The Pakistani Parliament has just voted to condemn
the remarks and here is another example:
"The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) regrets the
quotations cited by the pope on the Life of the Honorable Prophet
Mohammed, and what he referred to as 'spreading' Islam 'by the sword.'"
"The attribution of the spread of Islam around the world to the
shedding of blood and violence, which is 'incompatible with the nature
of God' is a complete distortion of the facts, which shows deep ignorance
of Islam and Islamic history."
Muslim Brotherhood Chairman Mohammed Mahdi Akef said: "The pope's
statements come to add fuel to fire and trigger anger within the Muslim
world and show that the West with its politicians and clerics are
hostile to Islam."
Jesus: Well, it is a bit early to comment on this since
one does not have to be a prophet to predict that Muslim anger will
spread, as it did over the Mohammed cartoons
earlier this year. The “big” question is whether the protests
will become violent? In other words, will the Muslims – who claim
to be offended by having their religion linked to violence – use
violence to protest that they were labeled as violent? Or will they
respond peacefully so as to disprove the claim?
My immediate response is to say to both parties:
Either how canst
thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is
in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in
thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine
own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that
is in thy brother's eye. (Luke 6:42)
I have already talked about
the changes that need to happen in Islam when I made my remarks on the
Cartoon conflict, so let me be brief here.
If you truly look at the example and teachings given by the Prophet
Mohammed, you will not take offense over anything. Thus, you will not
attack others and say, “You should not have said something that
triggers anger in me.” Instead, you will use your own religion
to overcome all anger in yourself, as Mohammed demonstrated by forgiving
his enemies. Those Muslims who do take offense over something
like this are demonstrating that they have a “deep ignorance of
Islam and Islamic history.”
A remark such as, "The pope's statements come to add fuel to fire
and trigger anger within the Muslim world and show that the West with
its politicians and clerics are hostile to Islam" is so deeply
hypocritical that it almost defies description. As I just said, the
very fact that the fire is there in the first place shows an unwillingness
to apply the teachings and follow the example of Mohammed. If more Muslims
were willing to do so, nothing could “trigger anger” within
the Muslim world. Jihad would
have been a thing of the past that no modern Muslim would consider worth
a second thought.
Using the remarks of the Pope to generalize and say that “the
West with its politicians and clerics are hostile to Islam" is
not only hypocrisy but shows a clear agenda. This demonstrates that
anger against the West does not come from the Muslim people themselves.
It is an anger that is created by a few groups within Islamic countries,
groups that have a vested interest in creating anger against the West
and setting up a “clash of civilizations.” There are several
of such groups and their motives are both complex and contradictory.
Nevertheless, my point is that the people in both Muslim countries and
in the West need to see through such hidden agendas – in both
areas – and avoid forming a negative opinion of each other.
Let me now focus on the Pope. It is clear that the Pope actually intended
to further dialogue on the matter of violence and religion. The remark
quoted above was taken out of context and used to characterize the entire
speech—as the press loves to do in order to create a sensation.
Nevertheless, the big question is why the Pope chose to include that
remark in his lecture?
If you are trying to promote interfaith dialogue with Islam over the
topic of violence, why would you quote from an emperor who lived at
a time when – after centuries of crusades – hostility between
Christians and Muslims was at a high point? Could this emperor possibly
have an objective view of Islam? So why quote him in a speech that is
supposedly meant to build bridges and promote dialogue?
Using the statement that Mohammed has brought nothing but things that
are “evil and inhuman” is not likely to foster dialogue.
Furthermore, it is a statement that is patently false. We of the Ascended
Host are in no way blind to the violence created by Islam, but we also
see that this religion has brought much good and has brought many people
closer to God. Thus, for the Pope to use this statement is simply unintelligent.
The Ascended Host also clearly see the violence comitted by Christians,
much of which was created by the very church the Pope represents. In
fact, it is undeniable that Christians have caused more violence and
killing than Muslims. Even the Catholic Church itself has caused more
violence than the entire religion of Islam. Could the Pope possibly
have “forgotten” this? Or does he think the Crusades were
justified on the part of Christians?
Obviously, in today’s age Muslims have turned more violent and
Christians have become less violent. Nevertheless, before you attempt
to create interfaith dialogue, you should – especially when you
claim to be a representative of Christ – remove the beam in your
own eye before you address the mote in the eye of a brother. And this
the current Pope has not done and neither did his
predecessor. I am aware that the Catholic Church has modified its
outer behavior to become less violent, yet the underlying belief that
caused violence in previous centuries has not been completely removed
from the Church.
It is a simple fact that if you talk about interfaith dialogue while
still maintaining the belief that your religion is superior, then you
are acting as a hypocrite. The Catholic Church is still based on the
following assumptions:
It is not my intention here
to comment on the validity of these claims as I have done so throughout
this website, Link
1 , Link 2.
Yet even a person who believes the claims are valid should be willing
to admit that if you believe that your religion is the only true religion
and that all people should be converted to it, you cannot at the same
time honestly engage in interfaith dialogue. The real purpose of interfaith
dialogue should be to foster understanding between religions that can
lead to mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. So as long as both
the Catholic Church and Islamic leaders hold on to the belief that their
religion is the only true one, there can be no meaningful interfaith
dialogue. There can be no peaceful coexistence between groups who claim
exclusivity and seek to convert everyone.
Take note that I am not hereby saying that interfaith dialogue is worthless.
On the contrary, many of the people who are engaging in such dialogue
have already let go of the belief in exclusivity and superiority. Therefore,
such talks are essential for reducing the tension between religions.
Nevertheless, unless people also address the topic of exclusivity, there
is a very real limit to how far such dialogue can go. I talk about this
in much more detail in the book Beyond
Religious Conflict.
So, in the case of Christians, there will be no real progress in interfaith
dialogue until the Christian community is willing to openly and honestly
address the issue of whether Christianity is the only true religion
and whether all non-believers will “burn forever in hell.”
Until that happens, I will consider that those who claim to be my followers
are acting as hypocrites and refusing to remove the beam in their own
eye. For I tell you that the belief that the outer religion of Christianity
is the only road to salvation is the major beam in the eye of the worldwide
Christian community.
Kim: So do you think the Pope should apologize for using the
quote?
Jesus: A good question—as they say when they
really have no answer.
I think the Pope should have had enough sense not to use the quote.
Now that the act cannot be undone, one could say that apologizing would
be an act of humility and an admission that he made a mistake. Yet for
the Pope to admit that he made a mistake would be seen by many Catholics
as undermining the claim that he is the true representative of Christ
and that the Catholic Church is the only true church. Thus, the Pope
could reason that in order to maintain the integrity of his church,
he should not apologize. I am not saying I agree with this, I am simply
describing the temptation facing the Pope.
Objectively speaking, the Pope has no need to apologize as he has not
caused any offense. It is Muslims who have chosen to take offense and
it is a fact that Muslims are far too prone to take offense. Thus, apologizing
could be seen as submitting to the obvious attempt from Muslim leaders
to use the threat of violence to bully world opinion into remaining
silent on the violent side of Islam.
On a practical note, no amount of apologies will silence the outspoken
clerics of Islam, as their agenda clearly is to spread Islam to the
entire world with all means they think are acceptable. And as long as
they are not willing to remove the beam of superiority from their own
eyes, nothing but the West’s total submission will satisfy them.
So my answer is that I have no answer. What often happens on Earth is
that because people are blinded by the duality consciousness of the
human ego,
they create situations where there is no ideal outcome. Thus, it is
impossible to come up with a quick and easy solution that will fix this
situation. Whether the Pope apologizes or not, it will make no substantial
difference.
What would make a difference was that the situation was used
to foster real dialogue and attention on the problem of exclusivity
that I described above. However, I predict that this is unlikely to
happen as the world press and most people involved with this debate
are currently too superficial in their thinking to even fathom the problem.
Nevertheless, there is always a potential that a conflict like this
will focus attention on a problem and bring certain things out in the
open where people can finally see them for what they are. Thus, I am
ever hopeful that situations like this will help some people on both
sides see the beam in their own eye more clearly.
Back
to top
Copyright
© 2006 by Kim Michaels |
