Can't we all just get along?
According to the Associated Press, Saudi King Abdullah recently said that he plans on attending a meeting in November at the United Nations in New York to further his "initiative to promote interfaith dialogue.” The King further remarked that “extending Muslims' hands to non-Muslims will help ‘purify’ the reputation of Islam at a time when the world is criticizing the faith.”
Of course, none of this is new; Abdullah has been “reaching out” to infidels for some time now. Prior to the much touted interfaith conferences in Madrid, the Saudi monarch is said to have “made an impassioned plea for dialogue among Muslims, Christians, and Jews” — going so far as to refer to the latter two as “our brothers.” The Jerusalem Post further wrote that such talks would be geared toward developing “respect among religions.”
The Arabian kingdom, however, is famous for tenaciously upholding and exporting “Wahhabism/Salafism,” that literalist brand of Islam that preaches absolutely no tolerance, murders apostates, and condemns all non-Muslims as infidels. It is also famous for having supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11, “educating” fellows such as Osama bin Laden, and boasting, of all things, a sword on its national flag. One can’t help but question the old monarch’s motives. Moreover, while the Saudi king was/is beguiling infidels with his calls for “dialogue,” that the textbooks of his kingdom are still instructing the youth of Saudi Arabia to hate all non-Muslims, is further demonstrative of Abdullah’s sincerity, or lack thereof.
Here’s another telling anecdote: days before the Madrid conferences, prominent Saudi Sheikh Abdul Rahman Barrak issued a death-fatwa against two Saudi writers. Their crime? They wrote articles in the Saudi paper Al-Riyadh questioning the Muslim position that holds all non-Muslims — whom the Saudi king would otherwise call “brothers” — as infidels. According to the Arab News, Barrak had said: “Anyone who claims this [that non-Muslims are not infidels] has refuted Islam and should be tried so that he can take it back. If not, he should be killed as an apostate from the religion of Islam.”
Does this mean that King Abdullah truly believes Christians and Jews are not infidels, and if so, does that also mean that Barrak should issue a fatwa for his life, for having apostatized?
At any rate, is the Saudi king aware that “dialogue” is supposed to be held by two or more singular participants who nonetheless genuinely believe that they share some basic human rights — such as the freedom to practice whatever religion they wish without being molested? Only civilized peoples who are agreed to such fundamentals can move on to more temporal matters, such as territorial disputes (e.g., Israel/Palestine). But what is the point of having “dialogue” over secondary matters when the primary issues — basic human rights — are not endorsed by all participants?
In Saudi Arabia, the facts remain: native citizens who dare apostatize must be slain; absolutely no churches, synagogues, or any other symbol of non-Muslim worship (e.g., crosses, Stars of David, Bibles) is permitted on the peninsula; non-Muslims are barred from entering Mecca or Medina.
These are just the visible forms of intolerance practiced in the home of Islam and its founder. Theoretically — or rather, theologically — speaking, the juridical worldview of Islam is little better: whenever the opportunity presents itself, the whole world must be brought under Islamic rule, either willingly or by the sword, following the pattern of the Islamic prophet and the first “righteous” caliphs. What is even more troubling is that this Muslim view of world conquest isn’t merely a product of certain obscurantist schools of Islamic thought; nor is it a “hijacking” by Bin Laden and his likes. Rather, it is the codified worldview of all four schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam. In fact, it is a communal duty (a fard kifaya) imposed on Muslims.
In light of all this, where exactly does Abdullah get the gall to call for “dialogue”? The measure of any community’s sincerity and tolerance toward the “Other” is how well that community treats the “Other” when the latter is under its authority.
In the United States, for example, Muslim minorities have the exact same rights — to build places of worship (mosques), publicly carry their scriptures (Korans), to worship and proselytize, and, simply, to be Muslim — as do Christians, Jews, and the rest. That is proof that the West is prepared for dialogue over ancillary matters: it has already visibly demonstrated that it firmly believes all humans are guaranteed basic rights.
Countries like Saudi Arabia evince no respect for basic human rights and freedoms. The contrast is amply demonstrated by the recent comments of one high ranking Saudi who said that “It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church [note the singular] in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognize the prophet Muhammad” — which of course would make all Christians Muslim.
How would Muslims react to a requirement that, to build mosques in the U.S., they must first publicly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?
Indeed, Saudi calls for dialogue are akin to the following hypothetical scenario: Imagine if the U.S. today enshrined, and enforced, laws in its Constitution maintaining that blacks are inferior to whites, and that, at best, they must be treated as second-class citizens. Then, despite the fact that the whole world is aware of these laws, despite the fact that blacks living outside the U.S. are constantly hearing about Americans persecuting blacks in the U.S., despite all that, imagine the U.S. also “reaching out” to powerful African nations, insisting that there is a need for “dialogue”—you know, to “clear things up” and (verbally) demonstrate how blacks are viewed as "brothers."
Perhaps the greatest proof that the old king is being insincere is the fact that, in most of his ostensibly “multi-culti” speech, polytheists are conspicuously left out. Prior to Madrid, for instance, Abdullah continuously stressed that this dialogue is to be only with “our brothers in all religions which I mentioned, the Torah [Jews] and the Gospels [Christians].” If the Saudi king was honestly trying to promote religious tolerance around the world, why weren’t polytheists invited to the talks? Specifically, why weren’t Hindus invited, who also have a long and often bloody history with Islam, including territorial disputes (e.g., Kashmir) that continue to this day?
The theological reason is that polytheists (“al-mushrikun”) are held in an even worse position than Christians and Jews (whom the Koran refers alternatively to as “people of the Book,” but in the latter chapters and verses — which take precedence, according to systems of abrogation — as “infidels” who must be fought in perpetuity). So while Abdullah’s “brothers,” Jews and Christians, can in fact cling to their faiths (once subdued and made to live according to second-class, “dhimmi” status), polytheists must either convert, or die.
Still, it is evident that the king’s failure to reach out to Hindus is not so much due to theology—as we have seen, doctrinally speaking, Jews and Christians are marginally better—but rather that, while the king sees a need to reach out to the currently powerful Judeo-Christian West, he has no pressing need to reach out to Hindus.
Yet, if dialogue is meant to ameliorate conflict, shouldn’t Indians at the very least also be invited to these talks, since Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan—which, combined boast some 1.5 billion people—are, whenever the latter is not experiencing internal upheavals, sometimes on the brink of nuclear war? The answer is obvious: the Muslim brothers of Pakistan are enough of a stalwart, as they are both equally armed, and so there is, at this point, no need to “reach out” and touch those particular infidels.
While Abdullah’s “impassioned plea for dialogue” is certainly worthy of support, the starting point of that discussion must be the Muslim world’s treatment of the non-Muslims in their midst. Once Saudi Arabia affords basic human rights to non-Muslims — not to mention Saudi citizens who simply wish to convert without being executed — then dialogue over secondary matters can ensue. Until then, the Saudis have absolutely no place at the negotiation table and, if anything, should be ashamed of these continuous public displays of blatant hypocrisy.
Oh look - the guy has Two Faces - har har!
One English word perfectly describes Abdullah's
'interfaith dialogue'....'PHONY'...
No wonder real muslim hate him.
The " Litmus Test " of 'sincerity' of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia would be when he 'invites' the polytheist 'Hindus' and 'Buddhists' too. Be sure , he will prefer to 'die' than to 'invite'. Let this be a Bet of all 'polytheist Hindus'.! Thank you Mr Raymond Ibrahim ,Mr Robert Spencer and his friends.
"The theological reason is that polytheists (“al-mushrikun”) are held in an even worse position than Christians and Jews"
Actually, a few verses in the Koran establish that Jews and Christians are also polytheists:
9:30 establishes that both Jews and Christians are Kuffar and commit the crime of Shirk:
“And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!”
A few other verses mention this too, example 5:72:
“They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.”
The only reason Mohammed tacked on a special label for the Jews and Christians ("People of the Book") and gave them the chance to pay the Jizya to save their skins was probably because he recognized they were relatively powerful and also because he wanted to endow their religions with some respect since he was stealing a lot of their religious symbols and stories from them and claiming they were really about Allah and Islam.
From Woody Allen's film "What's up, Tiger Lily?"
"My beard can eat your mustache."
Seriously, why can't these "interfaith dialogues" occur in the Kingdom? This can't have anything to do with Mohammed's wish that Arabia be free of any religion but Islam?
The litmus test will be when he invites the representatives of everybody his culture detests, with their religious paraphernalia visible, and their customary diet provided, to a highly visible convention in Mecca.
That I might think about as possibly meaning something.
Otherwise it's all taquiya.
I imagine that from the arab point of view, holding a dialogue with dhimmis is sort of like the part of an old movie where the explorer gives worthless beads to the local savages.
For King Abdullah, or for any Muslim, "interfaith dialogue" means only one thing: DA'AWA, -proselytizing-, making the kuffars understand that Islam is the only religion: Al-ilha is the only moon-god to be worshipped along with the pedophile profit-pretender.
Abdullah is concerned that the spread of Islam doesn't happen fast enough, that some kuffars might actually rise up against it and cause Muslims to engage in more acts of terror. Why fight wars with little chances of winning when da'awa can do the trick?
The infidels have been more than accommodating, and all a good Muslim wants is that the islamization of infidel lands continues at a faster pace.
Don't expect reciprocity, similar rights or privileges for infidels living under Muslim rule, who must lick the dust of Arab sandals, that's just not on. Neither can be found in the koran or hadith.
Muslims asking for Interfaith dialogue =
"Lets try to be civilized in our discussions for your dhimmitude."
Ohhh I'm so touched! They are offering us Salaam, peace with justice, instead of the Jihad sword at the moment. How thoughtful of them.
Let me think about it for a sec...
Here is my response.
الله [موهمّد] [ستن]
كان إسلام [بدوفيل]
لغز بابل
أنا أبدا سأقدّم
*Allah is satan*
*Muhammad was a pedophile*
*Islam is mystery babylon*
*I will never submit*
Free speech is grand, isn't it?
Just looking at this sick monster Abdullah is more than enough to turn one's stomach...the gold braids, the perfectly coiffed goatee, the ostentatious robes and not least the chiffon on his head...all this to hopelessly hide his hideous mental sickness-Islam-interfaith dialogue indeed...just his arrogance in announcing such an oxymoron is altogether repugnant...FGM, cross extremity amputations, etc etc are what I SEE through his reptilian pupils...
That guy is wearing my mother's table cloth!
Boo!
Can this be translated to Arabic and Urdu?
Allah is not God
Mohammed was not a good man
Islam is not a religion
Muslims are not citizens
So while Abdullah’s “brothers,” Jews and Christians, can in fact cling to their faiths (once subdued and made to live according to second-class, “dhimmi” status), polytheists must either convert, or die.
"cling" to their faiths
Obama used the same verb in his speech to the fundraiser in California. Coincidence?
Was Obama's unfortunate choice of words inspired by Islamic teachings?
In Saudi Arabia, the facts remain: native citizens who dare apostatize must be slain; absolutely no churches, synagogues, or any other symbol of non-Muslim worship (e.g., crosses, Stars of David, Bibles) is permitted on the peninsula; non-Muslims are barred from entering Mecca or Medina.
As long as these conditions persist, there can be no dialogue. Even a convention in Riyadh will not be sufficient.
A good first step might be for the Saudis to pay for the building of churches and synagogues for those who work the oil fields.
Let workers bring their Bibles, Torahs, rosaries, statues and whatever else they desire. Facilitate the travel of priests and rabbis and representatives of other faiths to the area where foreigners work.
As long as non-Muslims are barred from Mecca and Medina there can be no equality between the faiths.
Islam will forever remain an instrument of repression.
In an age of mass media of every sort, there is no tyranny greater than the tyranny of our attention. When a tinpot dictator seizes hostages and dominates headlines for weeks even months when the world has so many major major problems it infuriates me no end.
In the media, in universities everywhere we are forced to think about, dialogue with, ISLAM day in and day out argue about our latest 'offense' to their barbaric sensibilities and I am SO EFFING SICK of it. I don't WANT to understand you anymore than I want to go see the latest installment of the 'Saw' franchise at the movies.
This can only fool the fools. Unfortunately, there are plenty of them out there.
Another "F%ck Mohammed" moment. These Saudis are the biggest hypocrites of all. I really believe that Uncle Mo was not able to get the Jews and Chritians to worship him, hence he invented 'Allah', which is really a sort of alter ego and nothing else. This way he gets ppl to indirectly worship him. Everyday i read of the crap that these ppl do and Jihad Watch and it drives me crazy. We should all make his name a swear word, imagine Oxford dictionary posting that...
Mohammed: 1)Holy Prophet of Islam.
2)A swear word used by frustrated kafirs when provoked by muslims.
3)Rapist and child molestor.
It is up to America!
America must stop its agreements with Saudi Arabia unless all non Muslims get their rights respected even in Saudi Arabia!
Also: CIA makes a deal of division of the country at the death of the king. The good princes respecting natural law (i.e. basic human rights) receive the east and all the oil, the bad princes respecting sharia receive Mecca Medina and western desert and no money and no oil.
The King further remarked that “extending Muslims' hands to non-Muslims will help ‘purify’ the reputation of Islam...
Yeah, 'purify'...What a load that is. The only time Mohammadans extend their hands to filthy kuffars is to receive jizya, or when holding a sword...
I blog with muslims all the time and they are not ready, nor willing, to have a dialog. What they want is 'you accept what we tell you and do not read the koran and hadiths, or islam's history because we are going to tell you our version instead and that is what you will accept, or else you are an islamophobe, misinterpreting islam, or a kafir'.
Well, how can one have a dialog about islam when it is just mohammed telling his followers to 'follow me' and allah is 'whatever mohammed says it is'? And when I say 'follow me' I am saying that his followers are to follow a looter, a mass murderer, a marauding gangster, a pedophile, an assasin, a lustful womanizer, a liar, an enslaver, and what not.
How can one have a discussion when a whole religion is based on that?!?! The only question I have is - how can people be so dumb as to think it is otherwise!?
A couple of examples of 'interfaith dialogue' Muslim style: one from six centuries ago, one from this month.
Both involve a - brief - conversation between a Muslim and a Christian.
First, from the city of Otranto on the coast of Italy in the 14th century:
"After fourteen days, at dawn on August 12, the Ottomans focused their fire on one of the weakest points along the walls: they opened a breach and poured into the streets, massacring anyone in their path, and came to the cathedral, where many had taken refuge.
"They broke down the doors and flooded into the temple, where they found the archbishop, Stefano, who was there in his pontifical vestments and with the crucifix in his hand.
"To the order that he no longer speak the name of Christ, because from that moment Mohammed was in command,
"the archbishop responded by exhorting the assailants to conversion,
"and at this his head was cut off with a scimitar...".
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/161401?&eng=y
(story and link originally Posted by: atheling at October 11, 2007 1:50 PM)
And now, from Mesopotamia, our newest Assyrian Christian martyr:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023255.php#comments
"Masked gunmen walked up to Mr Hashim {an Assyrian Christian} as he stood with his two children outside their house in the east-side of Mosul in late September.
"They demanded to see his identity card, confirmed he was Christian and executed the 41-year-old on the spot."
I am sure that Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists could supply examples of similar brief one=way dead-end 'conversations' between Muslims and members of non-Muslim faith communities.
As regards Judaism, one might remember Ha-Tsaddiqa, 'the Righteous One', Sol Hachuel, and what happened to her as a result of the 'interfaith dialogue' between her and her (feigned) Muslim 'friend'...(see 'Note on the Cover Art' in Andrew Bostom's 'Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism').
And at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem, in March this year, we had an example of what Muslim jihadists regard as a suitable 'dialogue' between a pious Muslim imitator of Abu'l Kassim alias 'Mohammed' (the name Maimonides used for him, Ha-Meshugga, 'the Madman' deserves wider currency among all us non-Muslims) and pious young Jewish Torah students. The unarmed teenagers were slaughtered among their volumes of Torah and Talmud. But, praise G-d, there were also Jewish men nearby who were able to respond in the only 'language' that Jihadi assassins understand, and that was the end of that.
Here is my answer to the deceiver that wishes to enslave us. The best answer is in the scripture. It uses their words and turns the tables on them.
And just to eliminate any confusion I am providing an Arabic translation of the text.
Let's leave all the explanations and comments on "interfaith dialogue" aside, i.e. let's stop wasting our precious time, and ask all those interfaith dialoguers one simple question:
"For all of your dialogues name ONE single outcome".
I have asked countless times and received not a single answer.
It's time to forget about dialogue and get down to business: Muslims need to accept that Islam is vicious, as is their Allah. And while they're at it, so should all apologists. Stop listening to apologists and dialoguers and start reading the Quran and the Hadith, or read Jihadwatch.
Let's leave all the explanations and comments on "interfaith dialogue" aside, i.e. let's stop wasting our precious time, and ask all those interfaith dialoguers one simple question:
"For all of your dialogues name ONE single outcome".
I have asked countless times and received not a single answer.
It's time to forget about dialogue and get down to business: Muslims need to accept that Islam is vicious, as is their Allah. And while they're at it, so should all apologists. Stop listening to apologists and dialoguers and start reading the Quran and the Hadith, or read Jihadwatch.
Let's leave all the explanations and comments on "interfaith dialogue" aside, i.e. let's stop wasting our precious time, and ask all those interfaith dialoguers one simple question:
"For all of your dialogues name ONE single outcome".
I have asked countless times and received not a single answer.
It's time to forget about dialogue and get down to business: Muslims need to accept that Islam is vicious, as is their Allah. And while they're at it, so should all apologists. Stop listening to apologists and dialoguers and start reading the Quran and the Hadith, or read Jihadwatch.
Let's leave all the explanations and comments on "interfaith dialogue" aside, i.e. let's stop wasting our precious time, and ask all those interfaith dialoguers one simple question:
"For all of your dialogues name ONE single outcome".
I have asked countless times and received not a single answer.
It's time to forget about dialogue and get down to business: Muslims need to accept that Islam is vicious, as is their Allah. And while they're at it, so should all apologists. Stop listening to apologists and dialoguers and start reading the Quran and the Hadith, or read Jihadwatch.
I apologize for the multiple comments. My mistake.
One question, why did Ibrahim insist on spelling this man's name "Barack" as in Barack Obama? The cleric's name was spelled "Barrak" in the Arab News, and this is the appropriate transliteration of the Arabic work derived from the triliteral root b-r-k.
Ibrahim is an Arabic speaker and should know this quite well, I can only assume he used this perverted spelling to score a cheap anti-Obama shot. I would hope this isn't the game at JW, there are plenty of secular liberals who are quite serious about standing against Jihad. In fact it is the secularists who have the most to lose if jihad wins. Promotion of bankrupt Conservative-Christian tom foolery benefits no one.
JihadWatch is a great site with great information, it can certainly do without this sort of nonsense.
Eurodhimmi,
Inter-Faith Dialog is simply taqiyya as a delay tactic to further infiltration and as an 'outreach' strategy to further dhimmification of a host country.
Wonder how long that glue holds that "mustache and beard" on?
"Interfaith" = why don't you non-muslims just make it easy for us and acquiesce already. Jeez Louise.
LOL, Kevin!
I'll believe they really want "dialogue" when they hold it in a Cathedral on Saudi soil.
Support the effort to drill here drill now. Investing 300 million dollars of Cruse Missile Technology into the Saudi Oil fields