| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Saudi calls for “inter-faith” dialogue must be seen for what they plainly are: attempts to curry international, particularly Western, favor, vis-à-vis the monarchy’s more “radical” countrymen, who threaten to overthrow it.
“Saudi king set to lead rare interfaith talks in Spain," by Caryle Murphy for the Christian Science Monitor, July 8:
RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA - In a first for a Saudi Arabian leader, King Abdullah will convene a conference in Madrid as part of a Saudi outreach to defuse interfaith tensions, improve Islam's image, and restore respect for religious values. King Abdullah's initiative – a three-day meeting starting July 16 that will include Muslim, Christian, and Jewish clerics, as well as representatives of Eastern religions – stands out among interfaith gatherings that have become commonplace in the post-9/11 world.Not only is Saudi Arabia the birthplace of Islam, but it also is the wellspring of an austere, exclusivist version of Sunni Islam. Sometimes called Wahhabism, it bans the open practice of other faiths in the kingdom and tends to reject inter-religious dialogue with non-Muslim "infidels."
So by calling for an inter-faith dialogue, is the Saudi king in essence rejecting “Wahhabism,” or, as the average Saudi understands by that term, Islam?
Ever since the kingdom experienced its own terrorist attacks in 2003-04, however, Abdullah and other officials have been stressing a more moderate, tolerant expression of their faith, sometimes over opposition from hard-liners in the religious establishment. […]
Note that the Saudis have been stressing “moderation” only after they too were targeted. Sure puts a big question mark on the old monarch’s sincerity.
Some observers see the international conference – first broached by Abdullah in March – as a way to strengthen his hand against extremist elements at home. […]Hastily organized in the past month, the conference is not expected to achieve breakthroughs in the wide array of mutual grievances roiling relations between the Islamic world and the West, ranging from cartoons regarded as blasphemous by Muslims, to restrictions on religious freedoms in some Islamic countries, to the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [...]
It’s not supposed to. As all the above makes clear, this is simply about further legitimizing the Saudis vis-à-vis their “extra” radical kinsmen.
Spain was chosen as the conference site, Saudi officials said, because of its historical symbolism as a place where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in relative peace under Islamic rule from the 8th to the 13th centuries.
Whether or not “Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in relative peace under Islamic rule” in Andalusia, and there is considerable evidence that this was not the case, the only question to the Saudi monarch and all his kinsmen is: Does your creed—call it Wahhabism, Salafism, or simply Islam—allow for the peaceful co-existence of Muslims and non-Muslims, and under total equality? Or is it true, as your sacred texts and most authoritative ulema all maintain, that Islam must dominate the globe? That should be the only question debated at these so-called inter-faith dialogues, since everything else hinges on the answer.
Given the Saudi religious community's suspicions toward non-Muslims and deep hostility toward Israel, it would have been extremely difficult to hold the event in Saudi Arabia.
And so here we go: after all those wonderful allusions to Andalusia and inter-religious tolerance, we get this—“ suspicions toward non-Muslims and deep hostility toward Israel.” Back to reality.
Posted by Raymond at July 8, 2008 10:04 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Another BS and taquiya. The Al Saud just want to keep their lavish way of life, contrary to their barbaric religion tells them to. The propaganda machine at its best. With all that money the royals have not given a penny to help with any humanitarian aid. What they have given money to is the spread of Wahhabism in the west and others areas of the world. If the rest of the UMMAH and ordinary Muslims saw what these Arabs are doing they would at least recognize the hypocrisies of the Saudis and that Islam is a ideology for Arab supremacy.
Posted by: savsiv![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 8, 2008 10:22 AM
Be a man! Hold your dialogues with non-Muslim people in Saudi Arabia. My suggested location: Mecca. Allow Jews and Christians into Mecca for the dialogue. Let them bring their Bibles and answer any and all questions from Muslims. Let them visit the Grand Mosque and Kaaba and whatever else you have. Why do you hide your faith from outsiders? You can't even claim it's against the koran. I think Mohammed said no other faith could be "practiced" in Arabia, not that no one of another faith could set foot there.
Posted by: PMK at July 8, 2008 10:23 AM
I like to call it King Abdullah's Interfaith Monologue.
Posted by: MarisolJW at July 8, 2008 10:30 AM
"Saudi calls for “inter-faith” dialogue"
hahahahahahahaha
No doubt the Archbishop of Cantabury and the Pope will be fighting each other to take part
Posted by: mtfury at July 8, 2008 10:32 AM
Ever since the kingdom experienced its own terrorist attacks in 2003-04, however, Abdullah and other officials have been stressing a more moderate, tolerant expression of their faith,. . .
2003-2004?
Let's go back just a wee bit further in history, shall we?
Conveniently forgotten is the terror of
November 20, 1979 at the Siege of Mecca
the events of which initiated this very same Saudi royal family to actively nurture and export Juhayman Al Otaibi's violent brand of Islam around the world - wahabbism.
The consequences of this forgotten crisis—which remains blotted out of history books in Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim lands—last to this day.In tackling Juhayman’s brazen attack on its holiest shrine, the Saudi government showed sickening arrogance, cruel incompetence, and bewildering disregard for the truth. The royal family’s image was sullied forever. Many Muslims in Saudi Arabia and beyond, including the young Osama Bin Laden, were so repulsed by the carnage in Mecca that their loyalty started to fracture. In following years, they drifted toward open opposition to the House of Saud and its American backers. The fiery ideology that inspired Juhayman’s men to murder and mayhem in Islam’s holy of holies mutated with time into increasingly more vicious strains, culminating in al Qaeda’s death cult.
By a coincidence of global events, it is precisely this ideology that American policy makers—and the House of Saud—found right after the crisis in Mecca to be of great value on the Cold War battlefronts. Instead of being suppressed, Juhayman’s brutal brand of Islam was encouraged and nurtured as it metastasized across the planet since 1979. Today, hordes of his spiritual heirs are busy blowing up airplanes, tourist hotels, and commuter trains on four continents, self-satisfied smiles of true believers curling their lips.
The significance of the Mecca uprising was missed at the time even by the most sharp-eyed observers. Too many other threats preoccupied the West. The seizure of the Grand Mosque—the first large-scale operation by an international jihadi movement in modern times—was shrugged off as a local incident, an anachronistic throwback to Arabia’s Bedouin past.
But with the benefit of hindsight, it is painfully clear: the countdown to September 11, to the terrorist bombings in London and Madrid, and to the grisly Islamist violence ravaging Afghanistan and Iraq all began on that warm November morning, in the shade of the Kaaba.
Interfaith dialogue - huh? Appears the Saudi Royals will be in town to size up their efforts in reclaiming Al Andulus.
Posted by: heroyalwhyness
at July 8, 2008 10:48 AM
Can't non-Muslims be killed for entering Mecca? Weren't three French non-Muslims including a teenager killed recently for that "crime"? The internet has made the world a very small place and phony calls for interfaith dialog by Muslims outside of the Islamic world will not fly. I see Al Gore and Franklin Graham had the good sense to avoid this conference due to prior engagements.
Posted by: Roxane at July 8, 2008 11:09 AM
This should rank as one of the most hypocrytical conference.
Let them first allow HINDU IDOLS Inside their Kingdon for PERSONAL WORSHIP, mind you not building temples.
They are targetting Jews and christians which has some what elevated status compared to idol worshippers in Islam. They know they can always buy americans with their money
at July 8, 2008 11:37 AM
Roxane,
Non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca. There's no reason that can't change however. Let Abdullah make such a move.
heroyalwhyness,
Thanks for the link to the siege. I had forgotten it as well. Note that it coincided with the Iranian revolution and the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, which I had always considered the countdown to 9/11.
Iranians had been holding Americans hostage for just over two weeks. We thought Shia Islam, a minor sect in the scheme of things, was the greatest danger we faced. Then came Mecca, followed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. All three events took place within two months.
at July 8, 2008 11:54 AM
The Barbarians want to talk because they see their Wahabi ideology cracking. We in the West are reading and studying their ‘holy’ texts and understanding where they’re coming from. Not a pretty sight, 1400 years of jihad against all cultures, rapine and enslavement, degradation of women, murder and looting, cultural genocide, all in the name of their Mesopotamian moon god Allah. But now they realize that we realize that their evil 7th century cult is deadly for our future, totally antithetical to our natural human freedoms. Let them do their monologue on their perverse ‘religion’ and catch all the taquiya. We’re getting good at it, so good for entertainment value. They lie as their deceitful ‘perfect man’ lied. Let them talk. LOL
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at July 8, 2008 1:16 PM
In Madrid?
He has met the Pope in Rome. He just wants to go to a new soon to be reclaimed Islamic city to measure the windows for drapesand figure out where to put the mosques.
at July 8, 2008 1:40 PM
Oops, that should read drapes and
Posted by: dentalque at July 8, 2008 1:41 PM
"...interfaith dialogues with islamists....?
A waste of time. Islam IS what islam DOES and we can all plainly see what that is. 13 centuries of bloodshed and every base form of human behavior in order to 'glorify' their percieved deity......
"Vengeance is Mine" saith the Lord
Posted by: n.a. palm at July 8, 2008 1:45 PM
dentalque,
I'm intrigued. Just how does one drape sand? Do you reduce the countryside to a moonscape, then let the unimpeded wind pile up the sand against the windows?
Posted by: John C at July 8, 2008 3:36 PM
dentalque,
I'm intrigued. Just how does one drape sand? Do you reduce the countryside to a moonscape, then let the unimpeded wind pile up the sand against the windows?
Simple minds want to know.
Posted by: John C at July 8, 2008 3:37 PM
If I were CAIR or someone similar I would copy and circulate this blog post as an example of Jihad Watch's alleged unthinking, intolerant one-sidedness. I'm not talking about the comments, just the post itself.
It would seem that the Saudis are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they act in accord with the Wahhabist model, Jihad Watch condemns them. If they depart from that model, Jihad Watch condemns them.
If it is said that this conference is only a minor departure from the model (and maybe no departure at all, if it is merely a deceptive public relations thing), well -- can a major departure from the model happen without minor ones happening first? What would first steps look like, if not like this?
The Wahhabists get a two-by-four upside the head in the form of attacks in their own country and then decide to hold a conference. I could see that as evidence in *favor* of their sincerity -- certainly it is more credible than the idea that they were sitting around drinking coffee after Friday services and decided spontaneously that an interfaith conference was a fine idea.
We can take it for granted there is a mixture of motives. Certainly the PR is important. Does that pre-emptively exclude all other motives?
I myself do not have enough information to evaluate this conference; nor do I have the command of Arabic or knowledge of Wahhabist writings that Raymond has. But it seems I cannot depend upon Jihad Watch to gather information and evaluate the conference, since (according to this post) Jihad Watch has already reflexively dismissed it.
Posted by: Pilgrim at July 8, 2008 3:39 PM
You cut the Saudis too much slack, Pilgrim. Their test of sincerity should rest upon this:
Not only is Saudi Arabia the birthplace of Islam, but it also is the wellspring of an austere, exclusivist version of Sunni Islam. Sometimes called Wahhabism, it bans the open practice of other faiths in the kingdom and tends to reject inter-religious dialogue with non-Muslim "infidels."When the Saudi kingdom can honestly discuss these issues in Mecca, or stop destroying bibles or other religious items brought into their kingdom, or openly discuss human rights issues with the rest of the world as equals, or let women drive and be seen in public unaccompanied by their male superiors, then we might consider their claims to “dialogue” legitimate. But until they change their primitive Medieval ways, I wouldn’t give them benefit of doubt. The onus of proof rests on them, not us. Are they civilized enough to hold such dialogues? Not yet, not here, and not to be taken face value. Posted by: Battle_of_Tours
at July 8, 2008 3:50 PM
Simple minds want to know
John C at July 8, 2008 3:37 PM
The conference is in Madrid, Spain. Not in the desert. Look at the Spainsh birthreate compared to the Islamic one. In a few generations the Spanish Christians will be out numbered and out voted.
Posted by: dentalque at July 8, 2008 4:01 PM
That's birthrate
Posted by: dentalque at July 8, 2008 4:02 PM
Simpleton I am, but I know that desertification is on the march--it's called "Islam."
Posted by: John C at July 8, 2008 4:13 PM
That's right, dentalque--putting the "threat" in "birthrate."
Posted by: John C at July 8, 2008 8:08 PM
Here's an 'interfaith dialogue' that took place between Islam and Christianity, in the city of Otranto, 1480. I am sure that 'dialogues' of a similar nature took place on many, many occasions during the First and Second Jihads.
"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...
“About one hundred men were presented to the pasha, who had at his side a miserable priest named Giovanni from Calabria, an apostate from the faith.
"He employed his satanic eloquence for the goal of persuading the Christians that they should abandon Christ and embrace Mohammedanism, sure of the good graces of Ahmed, who would grant them their lives, possessions, and all the benefits they enjoyed in their homeland: otherwise they would all be massacred.
"Among those heroes was a man named Antonio Primaldo, a tailor, advanced in age but full of religion and fervor. In the name of all, he replied:
‘Would that all believed in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and were ready to die a thousand times for him'."
The first of the chroniclers, Giovanni Michele Laggetto, adds, in the “Historia della guerra di Otranto del 1480 [Story of the war of Otranto in 1480],” transcribed from an ancient manuscript and published in 1924:
“And turning to the Christians, Primaldo spoke these words: ‘My brothers, until today we have fought in defense of our homeland, to save our lives, and for our earthly governors; now it is time for us to fight to save our souls for our Lord. And since he died on the cross for us, it is fitting that we should die for him, remaining firm and constant in the faith, and with this earthly death we will earn eternal life and the glory of martyrdom.’
'At these words, all began to shout with one voice and with great fervor that they wanted to die a thousand times, by any sort of death, rather than renounce Christ.”
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/161401?&eng=y
Posted here on jihadwatch by: atheling at October 11, 2007 1:50 PM
in the comments field to discussion of the 'A Common Word' letter from the Muslims to the Christians, October 2007
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 8, 2008 9:49 PM
I love your narrative posts, DDA. Stirring!
Posted by: John C at July 9, 2008 12:24 AM
John - don't praise *me*. All I wrote was the introduction and conclusion.
Look carefully : the entire narrative, within the quotation marks, from "After fourteen days..." up to "rather than renounce Christ", is from an article in an Italian Catholic newspaper; which was originally unearthed, and shared here with everyone at jihadwatch, by the poster known as 'atheling', in October last year.
That was when *I* read it, and liked it (for it is indeed a stirring narrative) and carefully copied it and tucked it away in a file for future reference.
So your thanks are primarily due to 'atheling' and to whoever wrote the original online article (which I recommend: I think the link is still active).
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 9, 2008 2:55 AM
I know that, in this case, you quote another; all the same, it's your post, and your posts are food for thought.
Posted by: John C at July 9, 2008 5:20 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)