Comments on: Saudi Arabia to convene interfaith summit

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:26:29 +0000

Actually the Wikipedia entries on Saudi Arabia and Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab are pretty comprehensive for their length and there's lots of other information out there. Remember that Saudi Arabia as we know it only came into existence in 1932. The Saud family worked on unifying the peninsula all that time, with ups and downs in their struggle. And in the Muslim world it is always a positive thing to have a respected cleric on your side. Wahhab's beliefs are viewed by his followers as simply trying to return Islam to its true roots. But isn't that what every fundamentalist creed says? The question becomes whether or not what we currently see as the faults of modern Wahabbism (A word its followers don't even use.) really runs back to its founder or can be laid at influences on it of more recent vintage.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:57:37 +0000

Ahhh – okay. Interesting! Hmm. I really no pretty much nothing about that era or history – you probably don't have the time, but do you have a source you like as a primer on that? What I'd like to know is why they felt they had to make the deal in the first place – what was at stake?

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:53:18 +0000

Jill,

No, the deal was really centuries (not decades as I mistakenly wrote before) ago in 1744, when the Saud family allied itself with the founder of Wahhabism. Generation after generation the Sauds have kept that alliance alive at all costs no matter what that strict, intolerant sect of Islam did.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:39:37 +0000

CStanley, that's fair – I have read a bit about that. The current Pope is a bit enigmatic to me, he's got some pretty staunch positions and then there's this kind of thing. I'm intrigued a heck of lot more than Iran's Holocaust thing.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:37:32 +0000

You know – as far as I knew growing up, everyone I knew was atheist. That is to say, so many of us went to religious school of one brand or another, but we never “talked” about God or believing in God. i imagine that non-believers in God or people who call themselves atheist fall along a continuum just like anyone.

I confess – I don't know what “emo” is!

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:35:12 +0000

Interesting – I would agree with your perspective here, Jim. But can you just clarify – who was the deal with? The rest of the world, to engage globally for economic reasons, yes?

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:29:58 +0000

To whatever degree that this initiative might bear fruit (I'm a skeptic like some others here), I think some credit has to be given to Pope Benedict- he began discussions about this idea when he met with Abdullah in Nov 07:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0...

Just as you cite the pressure that has been put on SA by the blogosphere, Jill, I think there's also been a judicious use of pressure by Pope Benedict, to challenge all of the other world religious leaders to reconcile and work toward peace.

By: Slamfu

Slamfu — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:50:38 +0000

“I know I only really began to learn about atheism when I was about a year into blogging – which was in 2006!!”

The only thing you need to know about us atheists is that we are not all god hating emo goth kids. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that by googling and hitting any msg boards. Emo goth kids are the only ones that run them. The rest of us sit quietly contenplating our impending eternal damnation. Just kidding. Mostly, we drink a lot. But rarely does an actual atheist ever talk about it any more than normal folks sit down to have legitimate talks about the Easter Bunny. If you follow.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:18:54 +0000

I can understand that, Jill. If there's anything I don't have any faith in it's the veracity of our current administration or any of their friends.

There are those in that part of the world that think they can take part in the world economy and benefit by it without any other form of contact. They don't want to be “polluted” by the evil West. It won't happen. Too much of modern economics requires communications infrastructure that can't be limited to the business at hand. But some people realize that. They see where trying to keep to beliefs like Wahabbism and other beliefs that can only be described as hyper-fundamentalist will keep them behind the rest of the world in a time when the challenges faced by their countries can't be solved if they hew too strictly to the old ways. Unfortunately for the Saudi royal family they made a deal with the devil decades ago and now they have to try and disengage from it if they don't want their country torn apart.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:10:08 +0000

Totally agree, Jim, totally - with everything you say here. But again, I think that it's coming from this country because, in part, of the Internet and the ability for people to make their frustrations known more outside their own country than inside. That might be giving blogs etc, more credit than they deserve, but the news stories over the last year or two about the dissatisfaction in Saudi Arabia has been intense. And, it really makes them look very backwards.

Take Egypt for example - they have really slidden backwards from where Sadat had taken them. And the country's stature, economically in particular, is really suffering.

I suspect Abdubllah is very aware of the role that being a player in a global economy requires, even if he has the oil etc.

Of course, we'll have to wait and see. But, as weird as this sound, I almost trust his sincerity more than I do Bush - really.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:07:21 +0000

I completely agree with that comment about atheism but I do think some of it goes to just how ignorant, on purpose this man and his countrypeople are. I know I only really began to learn about atheism when I was about a year into blogging – which was in 2006!! I'm almost embarrassed to admit that. It wasn't out of shunning or anything, it just was never relevant to me in an in my face way. (Thanks for mentioning that you are an atheist, btw!)

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:05:29 +0000

Paul – I giggled at that last sentence and the first thought I had, was, “Oh yeah! if it's in the Settlements!” For the record: I am and have always been against the settlements, vehemently.

Thanks for commenting.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:31:31 +0000

I have to admit that I wonder about the sincerity of the offer given that the Saudis still finance madrassahs that teach the opposite philosophy. Wahabbism isn't known for getting along with other Muslims much less Christians or Jews. Can a government so closely tied to such an intolerant school of faith that they don't even allow any other religion but their own to be practiced within their borders be an honest broker for interfaith relations? And yes, I agree with Slamfu about the atheism comment.

By: Slamfu

Slamfu — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:21:08 +0000

Sorry Jill I was just speechless that it was Saudi Arabia trying to get this going. I think its a great step in the right direction and I hope it works out really well. Does anyone here know who will be attending and how we can support it? I won't be going but its a great idea. Even though as an atheist, the comment on how to deal with us as a problem sorta made me cringe.

By: PaulSilver

PaulSilver — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:48:38 +0000

I imagine that any rationalization to bring people together increases the opportunities for mutual understanding and respect. A convention is one option but an ongoing activity of mutual collaboration would be even better. Perhaps an International Habitat for Humanity?

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:04:22 +0000

Hmm – do people prefer to comment when it's all hate and violence, but not when it's about an effort to get together and figure out why we don't get along and whether we ever can?

Come on readers – what do you THINK?