1) Recommended the establishment of "King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz International Center for Civilization Interaction" with the aim to disseminate the "culture of dialogue" [as re-defined in this post.][That is, "dialogue" becomes "Islamic dialogue", i.e., "sensitize" the audience and proselytize to them without listening to what they have to say (6/15/08)].
2) Urged the king to invite "distinguished and specialized figures in the field of dialogue within Muslim circles and followers of other faiths and recognized philosophies to probe the Islamic vision this conference has put forward so as to reach a practical formula for a fruitful global dialogue that contributes to solving the problems humanity now suffers." - which I interpret to mean, get all the brains they can together to figure out how to convert or get the entire planet to acquiesce to Islamic Rule as quickly as possible.
3) Asserted "that Islam has viable solutions to those crises [of civilization?], and that the Muslim nation, with the rich civilization it draws on, ought to contribute with others to facing these challenges. The other divine religions and philosophies share with Islam the basics of human ethics and values which they should together protect against injustice, aggression and disintegration of families."
Note that this appears to be an admission that non-Muslim "civilizations" have taken the lead in solving problems between cultures, and have demonstrated that they "share with Islam the basics of human ethics and values". Muslims, by contrast, have only paid lip service to these desirable ends: "the Muslim nation, with the rich civilization it draws on, ought to contribute -"
4) "[S]ignaled Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah society as an ideal example of the society of co-existence of different cultures under the leadership of the Prophet."
That is, the ideal society the conferees seek is not one of democracy, but the dictatorship of an armed minority of Muslims over everyone else - but without the leadership of a prophet directly guided by G-d. Charming.
5) Stated that the most important goal of dialogue is to introduce Islam.
6) Agreed that the purpose of "dialogue" is to "correct the erroneous slanders raised against Islam, and to address the challenges facing the world owing to distancing themselves from religion and its values. Accordingly the world of today fell in the grip of vice and injustice, terrorism and Human rights violation."
Here's the hard sell we're going to experience for the next few years, folks: it is the "erroneous slanders" of non-Muslims that cause injustice, terrorism, and human rights violations! The actual Muslim perpetrators of such deeds are not to be blamed!
Note that "slander" is defined as "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report". So an "erroneous slander" is a truthful statement. Non-Muslims are at fault for spreading the truth about Islam!
7) Decided that all of this propaganda is to be coordinated by a body created by the Muslim World League.
8) Suggested that tactically, dialogue "should focus on the common humanitarian and mutual interests, and should work to achieve peaceful coexistence, justice and social security among peoples of different civilizations -"
It's a page right out of the lefty-commie book, to garner support by appealing to the disaffected.
9) Presented a new tack: "dialogue with the followers of divine messages, philosophies and recognized intellectual approaches." Will that include Madonna and her new Kabbala school?
This effort will include "all political, research and academic and media fields, not only religious leaders" including "those with abusive attitudes to Islam".
10) Urged "compromise formulas to prevent a clash between civilizations". That sounds hopeful at first, until one recalls that "dialogue", as re-defined above, does not include listening to the other side. Therefore what can any "compromise formula" be other than one that implements Islamic Rule part-way, rather than in full?
11) "Stressed the need" for "information materials in various languages and disseminate them among non-Muslims to refute theories of conflict between civilizations and show the risks that might face humanity due to such thoughts" and to convene an international conference to promote the same. Existing international institutions (the U.N.) are to be encouraged to "carry out their duties and confront the culture of hatred between peoples, and to face the corrupt racial and hatred calls." The justification will be that "humans are equal in dignity and humanity" thus the U.N. must join "in rejection of racism and denunciation of odious claims of superiority."
Criticism of Islam is thus to be established as a thought crime with deadly, even genocidal, consequences, for everybody. The price of our remaining freedoms is to refrain from any criticism of Islam at all! The best violators can hope for, apparently, is prosecution by U.N. forces rather than "dialogue"-sanctioned murder. Note that "racism and odious claims of superiority" are crimes that, in context, only apply to those who criticize Islam and other religions outside the Muslim view of such things. So Jesus and Moses remain prophets, but ones who are superseded by Mohammed; any claim that religion stops before Mohammed is thus criminal.
12) "[U]rged Muslims in non-Islamic countries to conduct continued dialogue with the people of those countries, respect the host countries' rules, never neglect their Islamic religious duties, and show cooperation with the governments of Islamic countries and Islamic organizations."
Note that Muslims are NOT being urged to decide for themselves their loyalties based on their personal interpretations of the Koran - a Western concept. This is an appeal to Muslims in democratic countries to talk and interact with their fellow citizens, but ultimately to be loyal to Islamic governments and organizations, not the Koran.
Thus, if the function of Muslims in Western countries isn't to undermine their host societies, it may be to provide support to those who do - like the Iranian mullahs or Al-Qaeda. As discussed in the previous post, by accepting without qualm a man with an international arrest warrant for terrorism as one of their own, the conferees have implicitly re-established mass terror as a socially and politically acceptable tool for Islamic "governments and organizations".
13) Warned that the new "dialogue institutions" are "to give priority to issues of protection of values and ethics against the calls for demoralization on grounds of defending individual freedom and fighting terrorism, violence, extremism and blasphemy."
That is, special efforts will be made to prevent Western voices from being heard and Western values from being spread via the demoralization of those whose job it is to engage in "dialogue" (proselytization) abroad. These thoughts are to be wiped out. Agents of dialogue are to proceed on the grounds that the Conference has "refuted the suspicion that Islam and Muslims are responsible for terrorism, extremism and hatred" and not to think anything contrary to this.
14) Asserted that if poor peoples suffer from oppression, that is no excuse to liberate them on the grounds guarding their human rights.
Thus, dictators and totalitarians are to be given free reign over their subjects without any moral qualms. I wonder what the Iraqis will think of that?
Instead, financial aid will be provided to those who "bring up responsible generations who care for the world welfare according to the guidance of God." - that is, those who serve Islam or kowtow to Islamic Rule.
15) Concluded with a new mission: in addition to "dialogue", "to build together an international umbrella of ethics that confronts illegitimate social relationships, and addresses the risks endangering the family".
If you're gay or lesbian, you'd better watch out.
Thus, this Conference has outlined an approach proposing the total conquest of Western Civilization as we know it, including a veiled threat that weapons of mass destruction may be used if we don't cooperate. With the huge amount of petrodollars flowing into their coffers, Islam's rulers may believe they have the means to make these things happen.
Are you laughing out there, in San Francisco, Copenhagen, New York, or London? Remember: complaining about the Islamic approach to eliminating your lifestyle and freedoms is the very first thing that these Islamic proponents of "dialogue" propose to make a crime, and if this doesn't happen, you're going to suffer for it.
Counterpoint, 6/11/08, 9:30pm: "Sparky". an American Muslim living in Saudi Arabia, comments on this post at Crossroads Arabia.
Update, 6/14/08: Compare and contrast these guidelines with the Muslim-Jewish dialogue described in The Washington Post today and endorsed at John Burgess' blog. The Islamic Society of North America, which sponsored this dialogue, was also represented at the Conference and endorsed its results as "a paradigm shift". In their linked report ISNA also reports on the presence of an attendee, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has an Interpol warrant calling for his arrest, but blithely ignores this fact.
Welcome to readers from Dr. Sanity's weekly Carnival of the Insanities!
Writing at Jewcy, Ali Eteraz offers his own opinions of such conferences as "schizophrenic and confused" [H/T: Drima]. I still think the Mecca Conference is of a different and more menacing character.
Another conference, held in Kuala Lumpur a few days later, confirmed that the price of peace is for non-Muslims to hold their tongues (and pencils). Former long-time Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al Faisal, stated,
"I can never accept, in my personal view, that freedom of speech is morally right when it supersedes and offends my faith and my belief."
With this enshrinement of personal dignity over the possibility of criticism through any means other than force or compulsion, doesn't the Prince reduce Islam to the mere principle of "might makes right"?
And not just the Prince, either. In diplo-speak, the phrase "personal view" is special: according to Henry Kissinger, it means the diplomat is conveying a view widely held by government officialdom but one that can't be expressed officially. We are thus being told that, unofficially, it is the official view of the Saudi government that freedom of speech ends where criticism of Islam, or at least a person's faith in Islam, begins.
Writer Joshua Treviño adds:
To attack freedom of speech as a root cause of the conflict between the Western and Muslim worlds is to make two grave errors. First is the implicit contention that Muslims are psychologically and culturally inert, and purely reactive to Western stimuli.
This is plainly false: Muslims have the same capacity for moral choice, and the same independent existence, as all persons — even if their conference-going, globe-trotting leaders pretend otherwise.
Second is the baleful reality that if Muslims attempt to suppress free speech, then defenders of free speech will be forced to stand up for every stupid, cruel, and vicious rhetorical attack upon Muslims. By reacting to an abuse of liberty with an attack on liberty, Muslims against free speech elevate those abuses to exercises in principle.
A piece of "art" consisting of a crucifix floating in urine may be distasteful to us, but the fact we can tolerate it is a symbol of just how much we Westerners have achieved: we don't feel threatened by it, only disgusted. It is "morally right" only in the sense that it reminds us: we are human beings with the freedom to choose and decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Thus we know we can evaluate whether what we do and value as individuals is pleasing in G-d's eyes or not, though we may not always do so correctly, of course. It is a dignity that men like Turki al Faisal would rather we not have.
With links to Riazat Butt's Guardian articles (1, 2, 3) and last week's leader in The Economist I'll close this post as I look forward to the upcoming Saudi-sponsored Madrid Inter-Faith Dialogue.