Implications of the Interfaith Conference

The interfaith conference held last week at the United Nations marked a bold step for Saudi Arabia in general and King Abdullah in particular.

This sequel, of you will, to the interfaith conference held earlier this year in Madrid solidifies the world view that religion is not a justification for terrorism and the killing of innocents and that tolerance of various religions is the key to global peace.

The conference had a few unexpected surprises and its share of historic moments. Israeli Prime Minister Simon Perez made positive comments regarding the intent of King Abdullah's efforts to bring about international dialogue of religious issues. He also spoke encouragingly about the Saudi-initiated 2002 Arab peace plan that would bring peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors in exchange to Israel returning to its pre-1967 borders.

No one expects a quick resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but for the first time in decades we may see some sort of breakthrough that could eventually lead to peace.


While Saudi religious authorities have fully endorsed the interfaith conference, it's unfortunate that conservatives in some Islamic circles are critical that the Israelis were invited to the conference in the first place.

The Saudi government pointed out that the conference was held by the United Nations and, therefore, had made the invitations. But that is beside the point. Just how does one conduct an interfaith conference without inviting all religious representatives, much less a religious segment considered by Muslims to be the People of the Book. Simply put, there is no room for political agendas at such an event.

Despite the general positive reaction to the conference, there are troubling noises from some Western groups: One is the persistent question of when Saudi Arabia will permit other religions to publicly worship in the Kingdom. The other issue is the speculation that Saudi Arabia wants to have anti-blasphemy laws passed to make it a criminal offense to ridicule or mock religions.

It's been my feeling all along, and I have stated this before, that most Saudis liken the Land of the Two Holy Mosques to the Vatican. We don't expect to place a mosque inside the Vatican, so why must we consider placing a church in Jeddah or Riyadh.

But having said that, Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal noted that it's up to Muslims to decide whether such public worship will be permitted.

"The Kingdom is the cradle of Islam and a country where millions of Muslims come every year to perform the Haj and the King is the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. Thus, the Kingdom is responsible for (reflecting) the desire and will of the Ummah worldwide," Prince Saud said last week.

He added that, "If you bring people together so that they understand that they have the same ethics, they have the same values, this will open the hearts and minds of people for further progress. But to say from the beginning you have to transform yourself into something which you aren't now or nothing else can be achieved is, I think, carrying the argument too far."

The other issue is the hysterical tone some Western media have taken by suggesting there is a Saudi conspiracy to demand the implementation of anti-blasphemy laws. Never mind that there has been little discussion among Saudi authorities to demand such laws. But it's not a bad idea.
Given the disaster following the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the hate directed at Muslims from conservative bloggers, perhaps an anti-blasphemy law would be appropriate.

The paranoia among the Western media would have the world believe this is an effort by Muslims to stifle any criticism of Muslim. But they forget that is would be a law to protect all religions.

The reality, though, is that Western nations would never stand for such a law because freedom of speech is so ingrained in the democratic ideal. Implementation of such a law on an international level would never get off the ground given the power of these Western countries.
But there can be a compromise.

Canada, while embracing freedom of speech and all that it holds dear in a democracy, also has stiff hate speech laws that punishes people who gratuitously mock, ridicule and threaten with violence ethnic or religious groups. It has worked well for decades. Although I should point out that it is only recently, in the aftermath of 9/11, that Canada's hate speech laws have come under criticism as too restrictive, especially when it applies to criticism of Islam.

Yet those laws have worked. Perhaps we should examine them to implement on a larger scale.