The former Iranian president speaks of a dialogue to attain peace, justice and freedom, but on whose terms? Examples abound in the Dhimmi Watch archives of just how one-sided that dialogue will be. From IRNA:
Addressing a large number of Lebanese scholars, cultural figures and religious leaders, Mohammad Khatami said dialogue among religions can end misunderstandings in today's world.Dialogue among religions, particularly between Islam and Christianity, aimed at resolving regional and world problems, can prove to be of great use to researchers, writers and journalists in their work, the Iranian scholar noted.
Life in this contemporary age will be a lot simplified through dialogue and exchange of experiences, Khatami, who first proposed the concept of `Dialogue among Civilizations', said.
Khatami further expressed the hope that the world will get to witness efforts toward peace, justice and freedom for all instead of inequality, war and discrimination in the near future.
What "dialogue"? Based on what -- Infidel knowledge of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and of the history of Muslim conquest, or Infidel ignorance of texts and history? Which, from the point of view of Muslims such as Khatami, would be preferable? Infidel ignorance, or Infidel knowledge?
So all the times in history that muslims have rushed in, taken over a land, and oppressed the Chrisians, if not outright killing them, shouldn't be taken into account? Muslims don't know how to dialogue to learn how to live in peace with peaceful, i.e., Christian, people. (I'm not implying that Christians are the only ones who are peaceful, I'm using Christians simply because those are the ones mentioned in the article.) We see how muslims have treated Christians throughout history. Why should we trust them now? They have some sort of alterior motives behind this, but what it is, I'm not sure. We'll have to wait and see how it pans out. One thing is for certain though, the muslims will try to find some way to convince Christians that they need to be dhimmis under the control of islam in order for there to be "peace" and "understanding".
Of course. Freedom for male Muslims. Justice for the Infidel. Peace in subjugation or death.
Before starting the dialogue, let's define peace, justice and freedom and let's determine how inequality, war and discrimination happen and who's are on the short end of everything.
3812Michelle is correct. We have a vastly different definition of peace, tolerance, war, terrorism, etc., then the islamists do. To the islamist, "peace" is defined as "all the world in subjugation to islam." "Tolerance" is defined as "islam being the only religion in the world." "Innocent" is defined as "one who is a muslim." These are the definitions they use, and ones that go totally against what these words actually mean.
3812 Michelle is right on the money. We certainly hold a conversation, much less a dialogue, without defining these and other terms. Perhaps this was the hangup that has brought down the Europeans as they initiated a so-called dialogue with Arab Muslims as described by Bat Ye'or in Eurabia. The recent Barcelona Conference is just the latest.
Few Arab countries sent representatives. Could it be that they believe Europe to be in their pocket. But the Europeans are resisting. At the Conference, they didn't follow the Muslim lead in defining "terrorism."
It's getting to the point that when I hear terms like "peace", "justice" and "reconciliation" I just want to vomit. Especially if they are preceded by the terms "Conference on" or "Department of" or "Committee for" or "Study of" or "Institute for" or "Interfaith dialogue on" etc. These words have been uttered by so many charlatans who mean the precise opposite of these words that when I hear them my shackles are raised (just by the mere choice of such terms). They're just Orwellian terms to me now.