It is good to see a Saudi columnist support religious tolerance in the kingdom. And a third of the Shoura council supported it too. Too bad about the other two thirds that still want totalitarianism, repression, and the seventh century.

Modern media and communications give some cause for hope about the eventual breakdown of the totalitarian system. Like water against a stone, (but these days the dripping seems to have become a torrent) modern technologies are in some ways a huge and growing force against dogmatism and for freedom of conscience.

Posted by: traeh at March 27, 2008 6:26 AM

So basically, Muslims want religious respec, but only in the West. When it comes to Muslim lands, Muhammad's religion prevents Muslims from respecting other faiths. Gotcha ya!

Such hypocrites

Posted by: Crusader at March 27, 2008 7:12 AM

Start treating Muslims in the West like non Muslims are treated in Islamic lands. Seems like treating Muslims as equals isnt going anywhere.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 27, 2008 7:35 AM

Why are we not surprised?

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 27, 2008 8:41 AM

From their point of view it makes perfect sense, just keep pushing the boundaries back until only islam is the religion with respect.

Then they've won.

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at March 27, 2008 8:45 AM

So if other religions can't build "houses of worship for those religions in Muslim countries" - why can Muslims build mosques in non-Muslim countries?

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 27, 2008 8:47 AM

"one member told Al-Watan newspaper that the negative effects might outweigh the positive ones as it would give legality to nonmonotheistic religions."
-- from the article above

A false, but not entirely false reason. The Saudis do not accord, or extend, "respect" even to the same tiny degree that do other Muslim states, to the "fellow abrahamic faiths." Jews and Christians are not supposed to be on the Arabian peninsula at all. The former are not knowingly tolerated even as temporary workers (a lightning visit by, say, Henry Kissinger, or Tom Friedman -- you know, one of the Great Men -- is however, endured for the sake of Islam's image and Islam's cause); the Christians are there, but only as temporary wage slaves, for the benefit of Muslims and are not allowed to attend church, sing Christmas carols behiind closed doors, or even read the Bible, and copies of that Bible are seized and destroyed (so much for those howls of protest about the Americans who actually hand copies of the Qur'an to prisoners at Guantanamo, and elsewhere).

But it is true that bad as is the treatment of Christians and Jews at Saudi (or other Muslim hands), the "non-monotheistic" faiths, such as Hinduism, are not to be endured at all. The worry about legitimizing "nonmonotheistic religions" could be a real one (it might, for example, help make the Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Indian Muslims more willing to consider the Hindu faith of their ancestors). Certainly the Saudi king Abdullah's attempt to cut out the Hindus and Buddhists from a proposed meeting of representatives of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism could be prompted both by propagandistic considerations (pushing that "three monotheistic faiths" and the putatively so much they have in common) and also by contempt for Hinduism, Buddhism, and other beliefs deemed polytheistic.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2008 8:52 AM

They're beginning to worry that people in the West are realising what's happening around them but their numbers are still too small to make a move.

How can this be resolved peacfully?

I think only mass conversion or mass emigration are the options.

Posted by: Big Luke at March 27, 2008 9:09 AM

"I think only mass conversion or mass emigration are the options."
Posted by: Big Luke

"Mass conversion?" To what?

Posted by: Eastview at March 27, 2008 9:42 AM

Hugh,

Ironic, considering that the Saudi King called for a conference to have "diolouge" among the 3 Abrahamic faiths a few short days ago. Oh well, their true colors are showing.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 27, 2008 10:13 AM

Saudi Wahabist clerics consider Christianity to be nonmonotheistic; profoundly misunderstanding the Trinity, consider Christianity to be polytheist.

Posted by: John C at March 27, 2008 11:26 AM

I am not surprised with this vote. I was surprised to read from another poster that 1/3 of the council actually voted for it. But I am suspect as to their reasons for voting for it.

Posted by: R_not at March 27, 2008 11:41 AM

The dilemma for Muslims is that they can't denounce religious intolerance among non-Muslims without bringing their own sacred texts into question. If they denounce the intolerance of the Quran, how could it be the verbal word of God?

Islam wants to join the Abrahamic Faith club, but its credentials are flimsy at best. How can they explain their hatred toward Jews per Surahs 5:59-60? How will Muslims handle the problem that Christianity is considered a polytheistic religion per Surahs 4:171 and 5:72-73?

It is encouraging that writers and government leaders in Muslim countries are beginning to question some of the views of the religious establishment. In Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah has overturned some of the rulings of the religious courts and the clerics have been scheduled for retraining regarding tolerance.

Posted by: Chris at March 27, 2008 11:42 AM

"how could it be the verbal word of God?"

That's the best kind of word. The "verbal" word.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2008 11:55 AM

is no need for a law running respect for the religions of other people living under Muslim rule as long as they pay protection to the Muslim for protection from the Muslims they can worship quite quietly in the background as long as they do not offend their Muslim neighbors with their infidel practices excuse me this is respect I have my doubts

Posted by: crusader at March 27, 2008 12:38 PM

"it would allow the building of houses of worship for those religions in Muslim countries."

Until I see this kind of Muslim bigotry ended and true reciprocity embraced by the majority of the Muslim world, I will continue to conclude that Muslims are grave enemies of Christians and the rest of humanity.

Unless we non-Muslims can worship our non-Muslim gods in Muslim countries without restriction or harassment, I conclude that Muslims mean to expand and destroy everyone who is not Muslim.

I comes down to this for me, if Christians can not have a church, with a cross and statue of Jesus or a saint publicly displayed in Mecca, then Islam is lying when it says it is tolerant. Hindus must be allowed to have temples in Mecca. Buddhists must be allowed to build Buddhas. And pretending Muslims who are atheists must be allowed to renounce Allah publicly in Mecca without harm or harassment. All religions are allowed freedom in Jerusalem (jews) and Rome (christian) and Varanasi (hindu) and Lhasa (buddhist). Only Islam is so evil as to not allow freedom of other human beings to worship without harassment in Mecca. It gets even worse since a sizable portion of Islam makes the KKK look like the Boy Scouts. How about the Taliban destroying Buddhist shrines. That was a crime against humanity that should give any freedom loving person pause about the essential violent nature of Islam.

I am not speaking of relativism. I think Christianity is the one true religion, but hey, you can spit on my religion and I won't kill you. Pray for you, yes, annoy you, definitely, but kill you, no. Islam (and a small amount of nationalist Hindus) are the only group that seems keen on killing others who just want to practice their religion in peace. The irony must reach to high heaven. I am counting on that.

Posted by: James Martel at March 27, 2008 2:32 PM

I am going to assume that the court was ordering 'tolerance' of other religions and symbols, and not 'respect'.

Respect is earned not issued by a court. A court should not order human emotion, or penalize for it.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at March 27, 2008 3:18 PM

Maybe old news but Fitna(Film of Geert wilders) is online
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee4_1206625795

Posted by: gerard at March 27, 2008 3:40 PM

Infidels Vote Down Respect for Islam

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 27, 2008 4:48 PM

Hurrah for the Shoura 33!!!

As the captain ay the end of “The Bridges at Toko-ri” asks, “Where do we find such men?”

Posted by: skevin at March 27, 2008 8:22 PM

In his reason for voting against the proposal, one member told Al-Watan newspaper that the negative effects might outweigh the positive ones as it would give legality to nonmonotheistic religions and consequently it would allow the building of houses of worship for those religions in Muslim countries.

Now then, where's my synagogue?

Posted by: Shy Guy at March 28, 2008 12:42 AM

Chris undoubtedly means "the literal, verbatim" word of God, as I understood him to mean.

Posted by: John C at March 28, 2008 12:47 AM

(her)

Posted by: John C at March 28, 2008 12:48 AM

That columnist Mishkas has some courage. It is however clear from his writing that his, or other writers', desire for a tolerant saudi society is not a mainstream view, and has apparently no support from anyone with "religious" authority or standing. Those who know and understand the texts of islam the best, in saudiland, are those "religious" leaders. Or perhaps a muslim-apologist-reader would care to explain to an assortment of saudi sheiks how they, the saudi sheiks, are misunderstanding their islam?

Mishkhas ends with:
"The problem is not simply with one sheikh and one fatwa; it is the tendency to rule out discussion and argument altogether. That is why this is no trivial, pedantic internal discussion. There are wider implications. In an atmosphere of menacing threats, it is hard to see how serious discussions of issues can flourish and, at the same time, we see very clearly the central difficulty that Saudi society has with the outside world."

He would have demonstrated even more understanding if he had replaced "Saudi society" with "islam", in the last sentence. But that would be far too much to expect or request.

Posted by: del at March 28, 2008 1:15 AM