Inter-faith dialogue to confer legitimacy on the Zionist entity

Developing Just Leadership

Mustafa Dhia Allah

Dhu al-Hijjah 03, 1429 2008-12-01

World

by Mustafa Dhia Allah (World, Crescent International Vol. 37, No. 10, Dhu al-Hijjah, 1429)

Interfaith dialogue has become fashionable these days. The dialogue bug has spread so far and wide that even the reclusive king of Saudi Arabia Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has been infected by it. He has become some kind of an expert on peace and interfaith dialogue holding one almost every month. Last July he hosted an interfaith dialogue in Spain to which religious scholars from different countries were invited. At the end of September, Abdullah hosted Afghan factions to work on a peace deal, no doubt actively encouraged by his American masters. And on November 12 and 13, he was the host at a two-day interfaith conference at the UN that was attended in addition to a number of Arab and Muslim rulers, by Israeli President Shimon Peres as well.

What exactly was the purpose of the two-day event at the UN attended by many heads of state? If it was to foster religious tolerance, as the conference organizers claimed, then there were certain basic requirements that should have been met. It would have been more appropriate if religious scholars from different faith communities had met to determine how and why they differ with each other and whether these differences are the real cause of so much bloodshed and misunderstanding in the world. Muslims have seldom targeted members of other faiths based on their beliefs. The converse is not the case; Muslims have been persecuted for their faith. This is most clearly evident in the West today where a virulent Islamophobic campaign is underway. It was also witnessed 16 years ago in Bosnia-Hercegovina where Muslims were butchered in cold blood while the West prevented them from acquiring weapons for self-defense. The aim was to reduce the Muslims numbers through genocide so that a Muslim-majority state would not emerge in the heart of Europe. Similar ethnic cleansing of Muslims is underway in India and Palestine. Yet, the leaders of both India and Israel were present at the UN conference convened by the Saudi monarch; and Peres even talked about tolerance.

It was the first time in 60 years that a Saudi monarch publicly appear-ed in the same room with an Israeli leader. The latter also addressed the gathering while King Abdullah sat and listened. The Saudi paper Al-Watan reported that Peres was instructed in advance not to shake hands with King Abdullah, either before or after his speech. The paper did not explain why but it is not difficult to guess; it would not have played well either in the kingdom or in the larger Muslim world where the Saudis have maintained a pretence that they do not deal with the Israelis. The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider Israel an illegitimate entity planted on the land of the Palestinian people through a campaign of terror. Besides, Peres is not a religious scholar. True, he is a shrewd politician but his expertise has benefited the Zionist State’s expansionist policies at the expense of the Palestinians.

So what was Peres doing at the gathering? Indeed, it could be asked: what were a tribe of Saudi princes doing at the conference although most had donned Western attire and were not dressed in their traditional robes? There was not a single religious scholar or imam from the kingdom, observed Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper of London. The composition of those attending the conference gave the game away. It was called primarily to confer legitimacy upon Israel by using the cover of religion. The Saudi monarch, who claims to be the custodian of Islam’s Two Holy Cities of Makkah and Madinah, could not possibly have appeared with an Israeli leader at a political gathering. It would have led to serious problems for him as well as his ruling family. One cannot help but contrast Abdullah’s meek surrender with the action of non-Muslim British students at Oxford University who condemned Peres as a war criminal when he spoke there on November 20.

While rulers in the Muslim world have surrendered to the Zionists and the imperialists in Washington, the Muslim masses reject such obeisance. They rightly view Israel as a usurper entity that is shedding the blood of innocent Palestinians. It also illegally occupies Islam’s first qibla, Masjid al-Aqsa, whose foundations are being undermined by Zionist excavations. This is their long-cherished dream; the Zionists want to build their third Temple on the site. The Muslim rulers have long given up on liberating Palestine or Masjid al-Aqsa. They never intended to do so but now they have even given up the pretence, hence the desperate attempts to create excuses to meet with Israeli leaders in order to break the taboo.

The Saudis have been pushing for a peace deal with Israel since 2002. King Abdullah put forward his peace proposal when he was the Crown Prince. He offered on behalf of all the Arab States to recognize Israel if it withdrew to the 1967 borders and allowed East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian State. In his address to the “interfaith” conference, Peres made reference to the Saudi peace plan and called it a historic moment. The BBC of London described the dinner hosted by King Abdullah where Peres was also present as a “historic moment.” Indeed, it was. Both Abdullah and Peres need each other. The Israelis are considered pariahs in the Middle East. Despite Egypt and Jordan signing peace treaties with Israel, the Muslim masses have not accepted the Zionist State. The Arab rulers also know that an assertive Islamic movement is beginning to challenge the Zionist State’s military might. If it succeeds in defeating the Israeli army, what chance would the amateurish armies of the Arab world have against it? No Arab army alone or a combination of them, has ever successfully confronted the Israeli army. Only Hizbullah has achieved that remarkable feat, not once but twice. Even the hapless Palestinians, virtually starved to death in the vast prison called Ghazzah, are defiant and refuse to surrender in the manner of the Western-backed Palestinian Authority or the spineless Arab rulers.

At the UN interfaith conference, Abdullah spoke in high moral tones, “Human beings were created as equals and partners on this planet; either they live together in peace and harmony, or they will inevitably be consumed by the flames of misunderstanding, malice and hatred.” True, but would his majesty not sound more convincing if he were to start with treating the millions of workers in his own kingdom from India and Pakistan or the Philippines with some dignity? Further, would it not make more sense if the Saudi preachers were told that they should desist from their takfiri practices (denouncing Muslims who disagree with their narrow interpretation of Islam as kafirs)?

Peace and harmony are appealing words and nobody would deny that they are desirable objectives but are peace and harmony in the world destroyed by religious differences or are they more diminished by things political? Zionism is not a religious but a political ideology — conceived by European Zionists who like most Europeans had no particular regard for religion — to address a very political problem that the Jewish population faced in Europe. Europe has had a long history of racism and intolerance; Jews bore the brunt of this intolerance although others have also suffered grievously. The Europeans solved their own problem by transferring it to the Middle East. They also achieved another objective: creating a colonial beachhead in the heart of the Muslim world so that there would be perpetual turmoil in the region, one they could exploit. The history of the last 60 years amply confirms this.

If the purpose truly was to achieve peace and harmony, then the fundamental problem of injustice must be addressed, especially in Palestine. Without providing justice to the Palestinians, any dialogue with the Zionists will only confer legitimacy on their illegal land grab. Abdullah himself admitted, “The roots of all global crises can be found in human denial of the eternal principle of justice.” Should he not concentrate his energies of redressing that injustice instead of sitting with the perpetrators of such injustice, whether the Zionist occupiers of Palestine or the soon-to-be exiting occupant of the White House in Washington?

Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Copyrights © 1436 AH
Sign In
 
Forgot Password?
 
Not a Member? Signup

Loading...