M
Mankind
Guest
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. God is in no way blind to the violence created by Islam, but he also see that this religion has brought much good and has brought many people closer to Him. Thus, for the Pope to use this statement is simply unintelligent.
God also clearly sees 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?
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. God is in no way blind to the violence created by Islam, but he also see that this religion has brought much good and has brought many people closer to Him. Thus, for the Pope to use this statement is simply unintelligent.
God also clearly sees 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?
