This sort of thing couldn't have anything to do with Muhammad's dictum that "war is deceit," could it? Naaah. To think that would be "Islamophobic." "Jewish Leaders, Israel at Odds Over Ties With Muslim Group," by Nathan Guttman in the Forward, October 14 (issue of October 23), with thanks to Joel:
The Muslim World League, an organization emerging as a ubiquitous presence on the interfaith conference circuit, boasts close ties to the Saudi monarchy and produces a magazine that has published antisemitic screeds.That dual identity has put Jewish groups in a bind in deciding how to relate to the group and the widely attended, high-profile interfaith forums it is producing on behalf of the Saudi king, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz.
In September, Jewish groups abruptly withdrew their participation in one of those interfaith conferences after the league's magazine published an article depicting the world media as under total control of the Jews.
But now, in part at Israel's apparent behest, one of the Jewish community's primary umbrella groups for interfaith affairs plans to proceed with an unprecedented trialogue this December involving world Jewry, the Vatican and -- representing Islam -- the MWL.
At Israel's apparent behest? What on earth are the Israelis thinking? Sometimes we let Realpolitik get the better of us, to our own detriment.
The original article in the FORWARD left out just one fact. It stated that Israel apparently felt there would be a benefit in engaging in dialog with the MWL, despite their anti-Semitic writings. However, nowhere are we told what that benefit is. I think Israel is better served not giving this kind of group legitimacy. Ultimately, everyone knows what the Saudis want -- to damage and destroy Israel. Their attempts to "reach out" in interfaith dialog are another facet of their propaganda war. Does anyone in the Muslim world really take these efforts seriously? They are taken seriously by naive people in the West and by the leftists at the Jewish FORWARD.
Let me add that a country that has as its daily policy the confiscation of bibles by visitors cannot be taken seriously when it presents itself as a promoter of interfaith dialog.
Kind of reminds me of the fairy tale " little Red Riding hood:
If interfaith dialogue with a Muslim organization isn't a joke, then nothing's a joke. Might as well have conferences with Marxists or neo-Nazis to explore all that one has in common with them. Supremacist, totalitarian ideologies like Islam are not interested in true dialogue but rather monologue disguised as dialogue-----they talk while you listen and you either accept what they say or you're scheduled for subservience or even elimination. And what the hell, the non-believer is already scheduled for subservience or elimination so why bother? The proper approach to any totalitarian ideology is permanent opposition with the goal of eliminating it before it does away with you. This ain't rocket science.
Another danger of groups like this is that they study the worldview of the liberal churches whose position is that mutual understanding will lead to world peace. This Muslim organization is all to eager to play the role of (disingenuous) Muslim counterpart. The conclusions these dialogers will reach are foregone, if not now then later. Israel must give up historic Jewish lands from which Iranian proxy rockets will rain down on them and all will be well with the world. I guarantee no hard questions will be put to the Saudis at this conference. All will be sweetness. Saudis sponsoring an interfaith dialog? The concept is an oxymoron.
No dialogue is ever happening at these meetings.
Its merely an opportunity for Muslims to do da'awa, to convince the kuffars that Islam is a religion of truth and that we're all Muslims. Now if we would only be reasonable and logic and come to accept Islam everything will be just...................
Agreed. It has often been said, though not nearly often enough I'm afraid, that while we remain egalitarian when it comes to our relationships, we must simultaneously remain elitist when it comes to our most sincerely held-to convictions.
The main difference, then (at least socially speaking), would be that I'm less inclined to behead, explode, or otherwise inflict grievous bodily harm upon those that happen to practice a different faith than my own.
Does that mean that I agree with the core tenets of my neighbor's faith, then? If that were true, then my faith is founded upon the quicksand of civil religiosity and, therefore, irrelevant beyond its own post-modern, contradictory scope.
Does that, by extension, mean that I hate my neighbor?
Only by the most foolish and absurd of definitions.
He who sups with the devil had best bring a looong spoon.
If I were a Christian or a Jew who had previously taken part in these 'interfaith' snake-oil events, but had subsequently reached a realistic understanding of Islam, there is only one reason why I might attend: in order to be seen ostentatiously carrying a dessertspoon to which I had affixed a very, very long handle.
(Persons wishing to protest outside such gatherings might also consider carrying long-handled spoons).
Further thought: wouldn't it be fun to organise an 'interfaith' event for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians/ Parsees...*without* inviting the Muslims.
And let that gathering devote itself to hearing the testimony from persons of all those belief systems who have endured Muslim aggression and/ or Muslim rule; along with the witness of history.
How about a few Buddhist monks from southern Thailand to talk about Muslim murders of peaceful unarmed Buddhist monks? And then some Coptic monks from Egypt could tell *their* story. Allow people to absorb the fact that at opposite ends of Eurasia Muslims are doing the *exact same thing* to peaceful inoffensive people who were pursuing a contemplative spiritual vocation. The families of the young Jewish Torah scholars of the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, who were gunned down in study hall and library by a Muslim jihad thug, could describe what happened to their teenage sons; the young survivors of that massacre might find a voice to relate what it was like.
How about some Catholic farmers from the southern Philippines to describe what it's like when marauding Mohammedans invade your peaceful village, or kidnap the nice Irish priest who was visiting you?
How about Hindu and Sikh and Christian parents [from Pakistan] and Coptic Christian parents [from Egypt] whose daughters have been 'disappeared' by Mohammedan male kidnapper-rapists, tell their harrowing stories - so eerily similar - to everybody else?
Zoroastrian refugees from Islamic Iran and Jews from Yemen and Iran (now resident in the West or in Israel) could tell their stories of what it is like to live inside the Predator Pit, perpetually at the mercy of the Muslim Mob.
Let the Armenian Christians (why not invite Vahakn Dadrian to be guest speaker) and the black Sudanese Christians, and some Biafrans, explain what it's like to be the targets of full-on jihad genocide...and then let an Indian speaker present the gist of K S Lal's devastating books about Muslim invasion and mass murder and mass enslavement of people in India, carried on relentlessly for a thousand years; followed by Tidiane N'diaye describing exactly the same sort of campaign that has been waged in Africa.
Let the Serbs and the Israelis describe what it's like to try to defend yourself against an endless stream of murderous Muslim attacks, while the rest of the world attacks *you* and vilifies you and weeps for the pooor persecuted Muslims.
How about testimony from family members of people murdered by Muslims in the major jihad terror raids that took place in Bali, Mumbai (the train bombings; the assault in November 2008), New Delhi, Beslan, Madrid, London, New York City?
Now *that* would be a conference worth holding.
Capital idea, dda.
This group is being funded by the Saudis! This would
be like a group called the Christian Brotherhood League
being sponsored by the KKK putting on conferences about
love and race.