Saudi King & Muslim Scholars Call for Interfaith Dialogue
Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 07:06PM Preparing for a landmark initiative to boost dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews, Muslim scholars met in the holy city of Mecca for a 3 day conference to unify Sunnis and Shiites and present a more accurate picture of Islam.
Saudi King Abdullah, one of Sunni Islam’s most prominent figures, spoke at the start of the conference and urged Muslims to get on the same page ahead of opening dialogue with Christians and Jews. King Abdullah also called for an end to extremism in the name of Islam.
The conference was groundbreaking partly because Saudi Arabia’s adherence to the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Sunni Islam restricts other sects and discriminates against Christians, Sufis and Shiites. Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death in the kingdom. The gathering of Muslim scholars to unify the sects and dialogue with Christians and Jews shows a shift toward positive change within Islam.
The scholars also called for “solving the problems and disagreements that might take place among Muslims and other (non-Muslims) … and to achieve an understanding among civilizations and human cultures.”
King Abdullah told the 500 Muslim delegates from 50 Muslim nations in his opening speech:
“You have gathered today to tell the whole world that … we are a voice of justice and values and humanity, that we are a voice of coexistence and a just and rational dialogue.”
“That’s why (the conference) invitation was extended — to face the challenges of isolation, ignorance and narrow horizons, so that the world can absorb the good message of Islam.”
Abdullah announced in March that he wanted to sponsor an interfaith dialogue between the world’s monotheistic religions, specifically including Jews. It was the first such initiative from a nation with no diplomatic ties to Israel and a ban on non-Muslim religious services and symbols.
He said Wednesday that the Islamic world faces difficult challenges from the extremism of some Muslims, whose aggressions “target the magnanimity, fairness and lofty aims of Islam.”
Iranian politician Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani praised Abdullah, saying,
“Our brothers in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia … have presented a great message to all humanity in the world.”
“Before we speak with other religions, we must speak among ourselves and reach an understanding on a particular Islamic path.”
Participants say they hope the gathering will culminate in an agreement on a global Islamic charter on dialogue with Christians and Jews. They expect Saudi Arabia will launch its formal call for an interfaith dialogue at the conference’s close or soon after.
Abdullah’s message, which has been welcomed by Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders, is significant. Abdullah said Saudi Arabia’s top clerics have given him their approval — crucial backing in a society that expects decisions taken by its rulers to adhere to Islam’s tenets.
One of the worst stumbling blocks to positive movements within Islam are those who condemn the entire Muslim religion and demonize or mock their faith based on terrorism and intricate Muslim theologies. It’s especially disturbing when Conservatives and Republicans who support the war effort in Iraq make incendiary and stereotypical statements blasting Muslims which serve to reinforce Middle Eastern ideas that Americans are secularists who want to do away with their religion.
The fact is that whatever you think of Islam, America needs Muslims to win the war. We cannot win in Iraq or Afghanistan without the participation of Muslims, period. Remember it is Muslims who won back Anbar Province by turning their back on al-Qaeda. It is Iraqi security who throws themselves on suicide bombers to protect civilians and U.S. soldiers. These are all Muslims.
For years we’ve been asking, “Where are the Muslims who reject extremism?” They’ve been answering loudly since then but we continue to reject the progress they are trying to make and Islam along with it.
Isn’t it finally time we work with Muslims who want peace rather than against them?
PREVIOUSLY:
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1895962
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (19)
"The difference between nations in beliefs and cultures are God's will, so they should use their common values as a base for cooperation that would be for their benefit," the statement said.
But the scholars insisted that dialog should not mean abandoning their principles and their religion's fundamentals."
Middle East Online
It seems that the conferees agreed that God wanted to set up these conflicting beliefs because, why? He enjoys a good fight? He likes bloodshed over Him?
Can't they just discuss what actions might be best for humanity, rather than trying to meld conflicting superstitions?
Of course they can't. Their ancient childish myths are more important to them than the fate of actual human beings. Until they can recognize this simple fact, nothings going to change.
Just sad.
Sad? Are you kidding? This is exhilarating!
Have you ever been to the middle east? This is an astounding surge of progress between the west and Islamic societies that would never have been possible without the democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq.
There is no scenario - none - of a secure USA that does not include deep, lasting and faithful relations with states that have a majority of Muslims in their populations. It is disappointing (not to mention dangerous) to observe American pundits, bloggers and apologists assailing Islam's sacred texts in a misguided attempt to identify the terrorist's motives. Identifying ordinary God-fearing Muslims with terrorists is extremely insulting and forces most Muslims to defend their faith against the perceived aggression of the west.
I heard David Horowitz (whom I respect) on the radio Saturday make the worst of all possible tactical blunders by demanding that Muslims denounce certain passages in the Qoran (!). It is this kind of intrusive, arrogant and blunt attack on Islam that fuels the terrorists's rhetoric and enlists new insurgents in the cause of (so-called) Jihad. We have no right to demand that anyone from any faith denounce a portion of their sacred texts - especially when we have no understanding of the tradition of orthodox, mainstream interpretation.
We in the west need to embrace King Abdullah's heroic stand against extremism and join in the dialogue between faiths and societies as humble and fraternal partners.
Amy, thanks for posting this and for keeping this issue going in the blogosphere. The only way to a safe future is through strong and mutually supportive relationships with our Muslim partners and allies.
Perhaps grumpy didn't actually read the article? Of course this good news. How can Muslims, NATIONAL LEADERS, wanting to make peace with Jews and Christians be a bad thing? That doesn't make any sense.
Johnny, as usual your comments are on the money. I guess that's why the Army considers you an expert.
;)
Amy,
I read your article. Did you read the article I posted from the end of the conference?
I was curious what the outcome of the conference might be, given the huge divide in the fundamental differences in beliefs systems. Predictably, the result of the conference was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
As long as none of the faiths is going to seriously address the fundamental absurdity of their their particular "fundamentals", there isn't much hope for the humanity caught in the crossfire.
GoF, be advised your condescending dismissal of religious faith is deeply insulting and provides ample evidence that people with your POV do not understand the complexities and intracies of the modern world.
Religion matters in the Middle East. The world cannot be safe without interreligious dialogue.
"Be advised"?
oooh. How scary!
"deeply insulting"?
And?
Look, You're a fundie Christian, right? You believe all Jews and Muslims are going to burn in hell, right?
Great basis for a dialog.
Uh, no, grumpy. You don't understand our theology and all we have advocated is peace between all religions. I don't know why you'd find that difficult to accept except for the fact you're an atheist.
Johnny is right and I have the right to delete your comments and ban you from this site.
We have made a great basis for dialogue. All you have to do is look at this entry to see that our "basis" is tolerance and mutual respect while yours is condescension and disrespect.
And yes, that was a warning. I have no problem in my conscience banning you.
Perhaps I don't understand your understanding of Christianity.
Must not one accept Jesus to be saved in your theology?
GoF:
We are Roman Catholics. Our Church teaches that Christians, Jews and Muslims all adore the one true God. Jews have a Covenant with God that has never been rescinded. Muslims are bound by those tenets of Islam that overlap with Christianity. God will judge all people with justice and fairness at the end of time. No one will be held accountable for what they should have believed but through no fault of their own were unable to believe. Only God knows where that threshold exists in each man's heart.
The fullness of truth is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ. We proclaim that He is the divine 'logic' (from the Greek logos) of God in human form. God offers forgiveness of sins and eternal life to all who receive Him.
The point of all this was not a theological one, but a diplomatic one. People who build their civilizations on religious creeds must be respected, engaged and dealt with circumspectly. Dismissing religious believers from any tradition is reckless, risky and foolish in our shrinking global community. You may elect to practice no religion but you are part of a global society where 5/6ths of the world think that religion is very important not only for faith, but for political, economic, military and social relations.
"No one will be held accountable for what they should have believed but through no fault of their own were unable to believe."
"...through no fault of their own...?
What does that mean?
"You may elect to practice no religion but you are part of a global society where 5/6ths of the world think that religion is very important not only for faith, but for political, economic, military and social relations"
If 5/6ths of the world thought the world was flat, would that be worthy of respect? Would it help the world to give deference to such stupidity? The fact that belief in things for which there is no evidence (faith) is "very important" to much of the world makes it no more worthy of respect.
Don't get me wrong. I hear what you're saying. It would indeed be helpful if everyone would agree to be less fundamentalist in the practice of their beliefs for the sake of humanity.
But how do you convince the faithful to take their faith less seriously?
Except that religion, not humanism or athiesm, is what keeps the world from imploding. Christianity has been the glue that bonds humanity over the centuries. There is nothing stupid about Christianity or belief in a higher being, and comparing it to a flat earth is an unfair comparison in every respect.
"...through no fault of their own..."
Any help here Johnny?
"
This refers to people who have been 'innoculated' against the Gospel by womb-to-tomb teaching that explains Jesus as someone other than His real identity as the Son of God. It also includes those who have never heard the Gospel. It may in rare cases include those who have been so poisoned against the Church through mistreatment at the hands of Christians that they cannot accept the Truth - but that is between them and God.
To be able to put faith in Christ is itself a gift of divine grace. No one can claim merit in this. However, God enables all men in their moment of hearing the Truth to embrace it should they choose. Further than that, I can offer no explanation. These matters are of the gravest importance and concern deep and profound mysteries.
"God enables all men in their moment of hearing the Truth to embrace it should they choose"
So any educated Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, etc should be able to hear the "truth", no?
In other words Johnny, what I originally said was correct. Jews and Muslims are headed for an eternity of hell in your darked aged mind. Great Basis for a "dialogue".
At least the "islamofascists" are honest about their crazy beliefs.
GoF:
You betray your own darkened intellect by dismissing the eager, intentional and thorough engagement between Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious leaders. We seek cooperation without theological compromise. Its sad that in your mind that is not a worthy goal. I thank God you are not a decision-maker in this historic and strategic endeavor.
Keep ducking the point Johnny. It's fun to watch.
"We seek cooperation without theological compromise. Its sad that in your mind that is not a worthy goal."
Of course cooperation is a worthy goal. Barriers to such cooperation like, "My theology says you are going to burn in hell for all eternity", isn't exactly helpful.
Um, you keep trying to divide and conquer, grumpy, but that's not what Johnny said. Who said that quote above you keep referencing about burning in hell? It wasn't Johnny. But there is eternal damnation. Those who reject God are bound for it.
But check this out: we still need to co-exist with those not not theologically aligned with us. What's wrong with that?