Religious thought, across traditions and sects, tends to frame the relationship between self and the “other” within three broad circles. The first is a narrow, exclusive circle defined by rigid binaries: truth and falsehood, belief and disbelief, salvation and damnation. This logic often operates not only between religions but within them — across sects and even internal intellectual currents. While such a framework may remain confined to personal belief and ritual practice, its adoption by political systems transforms it into a source of division, discrimination and conflict.
The second circle expands slightly. It allows coexistence within the same religion across different sects, yet it often maintains exclusionary attitudes towards followers of other faiths or ideologies. When such a framework is projected onto state structures — particularly in plural societies — it can still produce tension, hierarchy and social fragmentation.
The third circle represents a broader humanistic vision. It recognises that religious and sectarian identities are often shaped by geography and circumstance, while human essence remains shared. Within this framework, coexistence becomes not a compromise but a natural condition grounded in justice and compassion.
Historically, this outlook has been more evident in certain spiritual and philosophical traditions, though it has gained renewed relevance in modern discourse.
In this context, the position of the Pope — head of the Catholic Church — becomes particularly significant. Over its history, Catholicism has moved through these three circles. It experienced periods of religious exclusivity marked by conflict with other faiths, including during the Crusades and colonial expansion. It also witnessed internal struggles, such as the Inquisition and conflicts with Protestant movements. Yet in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Church began to move towards a broader humanistic approach.
This evolution is reflected in the recent stance of the current Pope, who has openly criticised the ongoing war involving the United States and Israel against Iran.
According to reports published by Vatican News, the Pope called for an immediate ceasefire and the reopening of dialogue, stating that violence can never lead to justice, stability, or lasting peace. He highlighted the human cost of war, noting the suffering of civilians, the destruction of homes, and the targeting of schools and hospitals. He also expressed concern over the situation in Lebanon, urging political solutions that prioritise the common good.
Further commentary in Western media suggests that the Pope’s position is also a response to the growing tendency to frame geopolitical conflicts in religious terms. Statements by political figures invoking Christianity to justify military action — presenting war as a sacred duty or aligning it with divine will — have drawn strong criticism. The Pope has rejected such narratives, insisting that God does not bless war and that faith cannot be used to legitimise violence.
This stance reflects a deeper concern: the dangerous fusion of religion and political power in contemporary conflicts. When war is framed in theological terms — whether through concepts of divine mission or civilisational struggle — it becomes harder to question, and easier to justify the killing of innocents. Such narratives reduce complex political realities to moral absolutes, feeding cycles of violence rather than resolving them.
The current moment, therefore, demands a shift towards a more universal ethical perspective. The Pope’s call is not limited to Catholicism but extends to all religious and cultural institutions. War, by its nature, cannot be separated from its human consequences. Those who suffer are civilians, while those who initiate conflict often cloak their actions in ideological or religious justification.
What is needed today is a conscious effort to move beyond narrow identity-based frameworks — whether religious, sectarian or cultural — and to embrace a broader human-centred approach. This does not require abandoning belief, but rather reinterpreting it in ways that uphold dignity, justice and coexistence.
Ultimately, the challenge is not theological but moral. The question is whether religious discourse will continue to be used as a tool to justify conflict, or whether it can serve as a force for restraint, dialogue and peace in an increasingly volatile world.
(Translated by Badr al Dhafri. The original version of this article was published in Arabic in the print edition of Oman newspaper on April 15)
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
