The notion of interfaith dialogue originated in the early 20th century when, in 1932, France dispatched representatives to al-Azhar University with the view of uniting the religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. In 1933, the first interfaith conference was convened in Paris and attended by orientalists and missionaries from Europe, America, Turkey and others.

 

Subsequent conferences were organised in the following decades, rising to greater prominence in the 1990’s with the Arab-European Conference in 1993 in Jordan, the Khartoum Conference in 1994, and the Stockholm and Amman Conferences in 1995.

Aims & Objectives

Interfaith dialogue has many aims, the most important of which are as follows:

1. Devising and adopting new meanings and provisions for words such as disbelief, atheism, polytheism, belief, moderation, extremism, etc.

2. Identifying shared elements in the three religions, and placing emphasis on positive co-operation.

3. The establishment of a joint document on human rights to permit a peaceful co-existence.

4. A comprehensive review of history and education curricula, so they become free of incitement or hatred.

5. Revising and studying the following subjects with the view of forming unified concepts about them: justice, peace, women’s rights, human rights, democracy, morals, freedom, pluralism, etc.
Means & Styles

After the failure of the West in distancing the Muslims from their aqeedah (creed) via missionaries, orientalists, cultural and scientific works, the media, intellectuals and all manner of political deception, they resorted to government authorities in their countries and in the Muslim world to initiate a new phase in their struggle to undermine Islam.

They began to hold conferences and seminars, formed joint work teams and established centres of study. They deliberately used terms and expressions with undefined meanings to create deception and delusion. They mixed the concepts of science and culture to justify attacking those who adhered to Islam. They painted certain Capitalist concepts in glowing terms to the Muslims and promoted them by claiming they do no not contradict Islam, to such an extent that some Muslims considered them part of Islam, such as democracy, freedom, pluralism etc. They also invited, from time to time, those belonging to other beliefs, such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, to attend alongside the Muslims so as to blind the Muslims to the real objectives of interfaith dialogue.

The kuffar who initiated this dialogue are now endeavouring to widen the scope by targeting not just conference participants but all sections of society.

The True Viewpoint of the West towards Islam
On the surface, the principles of interfaith dialogue seem warm and inviting. What could possibly be wrong with the fostering of respect and mutual understanding? What could be wrong with developing an environment in which the adherents of all religions are allowed to freely practice their faith? What could be wrong with stressing the commonalities of world religions? Indeed, all religions are said to be seeking the servitude of God?

But the question arises as to whether the West’s grandiose claims of respect, tolerance and mutual understanding can be taken at face value? Is the West really prepared to accept Islam’s rightful place in society without reservation? Will the West unconditionally tolerate the Muslim’s firm conviction in the correctness and applicability of Islam?

If common elements between all religions are to be emphasised, then which aspects of Islam will be accepted and which will be rejected? More importantly, what criteria will be used to judge the desirability of the various tenets of Islam? Can the Muslims tolerate the dismembering of their Islam and accept only some accepts of their Deen, or accept certain aspects of their Deen detached from their aqeedah (creed)?

A few notable examples serve to illustrate the ugly truth.

1. We will only accept a secularised and distorted version of Islam

Peter Costello addressing the Sydney Institute on the 23rd February 2006:

“Our state is a secular state. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience. But there is not a separate stream of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society. The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature.”

2. All religions must be subservient to Australia’s democratic and secular institutions

Alexander Downer speaking at the Centre for Muslim States and Societies at the University of Western Australia on the 21st November, 2005:

“We reject the rhetoric of hatred and mistrust and look to promote mutual respect and understanding. This is what interfaith dialogue is all about.”

"We vigorously respect people's rights to maintain and express their cultures and beliefs, within a framework of a commitment to Australia.”

"We do expect everybody to have an overriding loyalty to Australia and to respect our basic structures and principals as contained in the constitution.”

3. Interfaith dialogue as a weapon in the ‘war on terror’

The following is an excerpt from the Australia-Indonesia Joint Media Statement, at the opening of the International Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation held in Indonesia in 2004, in the aftermath of the Bali bombings:

“Australia and Indonesia are determined to promote understanding and to foster harmony between faith communities across our region.”

“Today we face many challenges - one of them is how to empower the moderates within our societies and among countries in the region.”

“Faith and community leaders have an important role to play in denying extremists any religious or moral legitimacy and in building trust between communities. The Interfaith Dialogue will provide a platform for them to give important messages to their communities on mutual understanding, tolerance and peaceful co-existence.”

4. Respect is conditional upon the abandonment of Islam

In response to the outcry over the case of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan convert to Christianity, in March this year, Pope Benedict had the following words of advice:

“I am certain, Mr President, that the dropping of the case against Mr Rahman would bestow great honour upon the Afghan people and would raise a chorus of admiration in the international community.”

Cardinal Sodano, of the Vatican, continued the campaign insisting the dropping the charges “would then contribute in a most significant way to our common mission to foster mutual understanding and respect among the world’s different religions and cultures.”

5. Religious figures will continue to assert the primacy of their religious beliefs

Phillip Jensen, the Anglican Dean of Sydney, commented at his 2003 Commencement Service:

“Christ is not one of many options, to placed among all the gods of this world. The message of this Cathedral pulpit must be repentance, must be to give up our other gods, to give up our false ideas, to give up our non-Christian cultural baggage, our non-Christian tribal allegiances.”

“Christ is either right or wrong. He cannot be relativised as right for some people but wrong for others. The Qur'an denies that Jesus died. The Bible declares he died and his death is central to his whole life and message … If one view is right, the others must be wrong. We must stop the stupidity of stretching social tolerance into religious or philosophical relativism.”

In case the message failed to penetrate, Jensen re-iterated these sentiments in his 2006 Good Friday sermon:

“Now that Islam has become more common in our society, you need to know the difference between Christianity and Islam”

“For the Koran, and therefore Islam, denies that Christ dies.”

“Either both are wrong or one is right and the other is wrong …But both of them cannot be right.”

6. Freedom to distort, condemn and propagandise

George Pell, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, while preaching to a US audience in October 2004 about the emptiness created by secular democracy, and the need to find acceptable alternatives (‘democratic personalism’), delivered the following blunt warning:

“From outside Western culture, of course, come other possibilities, in particular that of Islam. It is still very early in the piece, of course, but the small but growing conversion of native Westerners within Western societies carries the suggestion that Islam may provide in the twenty-first century the focus and attraction which communism provided in the twentieth, both for those who are alienated or embittered on the one hand, and for those who seek order or justice on the other.”

So will George sit back and leave the matter to God? He continues:

“So alternatives are required ... The past century provided examples enough of how the emptiness within secular democracy can be filled with darkness by political substitutes for religion.”

Just to be sure there is no mistaking Pell’s views on Islam, he kindly demonstrates to the rest of us his unique view of tolerance, respect and mutual understanding.

Again, in a speech delivered to a US audience in February 2006 titled ‘Islam and Western Democracies’, Pell articulates in no uncertain terms his views on key Islamic considerations:

Outlining the source of agitation …

“In the aftermath of the [9/11] attack one thing was perplexing. Many commentators and apparently the governments of the “Coalition of the Willing” were claiming that Islam was essentially peaceful, and that the terrorist attacks were an aberration. On the other hand one or two people I met, who had lived in Pakistan and suffered there, claimed to me that the Koran legitimised the killings of non-Muslims.”

The basic question …

“Can Islam and the Western democracies live together peacefully? What of Islamic minorities in Western countries? Views on this question range from näive optimism to bleakest pessimism.”

On the question of God …

“I accept with reservations the claim that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship one god and there is only one true God available to be worshipped! That they worship the same god has been disputed, not only by Catholics stressing the triune nature of God, but also by some evangelical Christians and by some Muslims”

Questions surrounding the authenticity of the Quran …

“Of course, none of this has prevented the Koran from being subjected to the sort of textual analysis that the Bible and the sacred texts of other religions have undergone for over a century, although by comparison the discipline is in its infancy. Errors of fact, inconsistencies, anachronisms and other defects in the Koran are not unknown to scholars, but it is difficult for Muslims to discuss these matters openly.”

What about the invocations to violence …

“In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages.”

"…in coming to an appreciation of the true meaning of jihad, for example, it is important to bear in mind what the scholars tell us about the difference between the suras (or chapters) of the Koran written during Muhammad’s thirteen years in Mecca, and those that were written after he had based himself at Medina. Irenic interpretations of the Koran typically draw heavily on the suras written in Mecca, when Muhammad was without military power and still hoped to win people, including Christians and Jews, to his revelation through preaching and religious activity. After emigrating to Medina, Muhammad formed an alliance with two Yemeni tribes and the spread of Islam through conquest and coercion began. One calculation is that Muhammad engaged in 78 battles, only one of which, the Battle of the Ditch, was defensive. The suras from the Medina period reflect this decisive change and are often held to abrogate suras from the Meccan period.”

Muslim & non-Muslim relations …

“The history of relations between Muslims on the one hand and Christians and Jews on the other does not always offer reasons for optimism in the way that some people easily assume. The claims of Muslim tolerance of Christian and Jewish minorities are largely mythical, as the history of Islamic conquest and domination in the Middle East, the Iberian peninsula and the Balkans makes abundantly clear.”

Changing Islam to accommodate the principals of modernity …

“The history of Islam’s detrimental impact on economic and cultural development at certain times and in certain places returns us to the nature of Islam itself. What is the capacity for theological development within Islam?”

Radical v moderate …

“Radicalism, whether of religious or non-religious inspiration, has always had a way of filling emptiness. But if we are going to help the moderate forces within Islam defeat the extreme variants it has thrown up, we need to take seriously the personal consequences of religious faith. We also need to understand the secular sources of emptiness and despair and how to meet them, so that people will choose life over death.”

War on terror …

“The war against terrorism is only one aspect of the challenge. Perhaps more important is the struggle in the Islamic world between moderate forces and extremists, especially when we set this against the enormous demographic shifts likely to occur across the world, the relative changes in population-size of the West, the Islamic and Asian worlds and the growth of Islam in a childless Europe.”

Required changes …

“Every great nation and religion has shadows and indeed crimes in their histories. This is certainly true of Catholicism and all Christian denominations. We should not airbrush these out of history, but confront them and then explain our present attitude to them.”

“These are also legitimate requests for our Islamic partners in dialogue. Do they believe that the peaceful suras of the Koran are abrogated by the verses of the sword? Is the programme of military expansion (100 years after Muhammad’s death Muslim armies reached Spain and India) to be resumed when possible?”

“Do they believe that democratic majorities of Muslims in Europe would impose Sharia law? Can we discuss Islamic history and even the hermeneutical problems around the origins of the Koran without threats of violence?”

True friends (do as they are told) …

“Both Muslims and Christians are helped by accurately identifying what are core and enduring doctrines, by identifying what issues can be discussed together usefully, by identifying those who are genuine friends, seekers after truth and cooperation and separating them from those who only appear to be friends.”

The above references demonstrate the ugly reality of the West’s view of Islam. On the one hand, the West lauds the high values of respect, tolerance and mutual understanding, and then on the other hand, continues to demonise and slander Islam.

As the politicians and religious figures make abundantly clear, interfaith dialogue is not about fostering respect or developing mutual understanding, but is in fact concerned with the development of a secularised and distorted version of Islam - a version of Islam that can comfortably exist within and subservient to the confines of the West’s Capitalist framework - a version of Islam that in its final form is entirely alien to the pristine and unblemished Islam revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Islamic view of Dawah

Islam was revealed from Allah (swt) to the Prophet Muhammad (saw) to guide and lead humanity in a specific direction based upon a specific viewpoint. The purpose of Islam is not just to guide mankind, but to construct this guidance upon the aqeedah (creed) of Islam.

When Allah (swt) says in Surah Ibrahim:

“A.L.R. Verily We have revealed this book (Quran) to you so you may guide mankind from the darkness into the light” [Ibrahim 14: 1]

it is understood that such guidance is informed by the Islamic view of guidance and the Islamic view of darkness and light, which in itself is built upon the Quran and Sunnah. The necessity of such an outlook is such that the principles by which we seek to lead humanity must not only conform to Islam, but must be derived from Islam. This is an essential outlook since actions are judged according to their intention, and if the intention is other than seeking the pleasure of Allah (swt), then the action is rendered futile.

The fulfilment of this basic guiding purpose of Islam necessitates an alteration in existing conditions, a change in established thoughts and sentiments, alterations to personal behaviours and a re-organisation of societal orders.

When the Prophet Muhammad (saw) approached the people of Quraysh, he (saw) was not requesting the acceptance of Islam as an adjunct to established norms and practices, but in fact was requesting the abandonment of the existing beliefs and practices and the construction of a new mode of life built upon the Islamic belief system and guided by the clear dictates of Islam.

An example of this is the saying of Allah (swt) in Surah Al-Imran:

“Say: O followers of the Book! Let us come to an equitable proposition between us and you, that we shall not serve any but Allah, and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims” [Al-Imran 3: 64]

The invitation in this verse is an invitation to accept a specific viewpoint – i.e., a view that Islam explicitly defines, namely the worship of none but Allah (swt). The message is clear in its instruction such that the people of Quraysh could not accept this invitation without the abandonment of their existing belief in and practice of polytheism.

It is particularly important to appreciate that this verse expressly rejects the establishment of a compromised viewpoint in respect of beliefs. The ‘equitable proposition’ in this verse is the Islamic belief, not a belief developed by negotiation and compromise according to some external criteria. The recognition of the unity of Allah (swt) necessitates the total submission to Him (swt).

Similarly, the emphasis in this verse upon the exclusive worship of a single deity is such that the belief in Allah (swt) should form the basis for all thinking. This is a fundamental belief upon which all other beliefs are constructed. It was not sufficient for the Prophet Muhammad (saw) to simply address specific aspects of Makkan life, since behaviours are a product of beliefs, and all beliefs are derived from a fundamental belief. Attending to the branches of a tree is futile if primary consideration is not afforded to the roots.

So the invitation of Islam is to proscribe to the basic belief system of Islam to the exclusion of all else. The line between belief and disbelief is a demarcation strongly emphasised in Islam.

Allah (swt) says in Surah Yunus:

“What else is there after truth except falsehood” [Yunus 10: 32]

Meaning that when it comes to matters of belief, there is no middle position in Islam. It is either belief or disbelief. Darkness or Light. Heaven or Hell.

Allah (swt) emphasises this again in Surah Al-Imran, when He (swt) warns of the importance of accepting Islam exclusively:

“Whoever desires a Deen other than Islam, never shall it be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.” [Imran 3: 85]

The fallacy of interfaith dialogue

The dangers of interfaith dialogue are many and varied. But each threat is equal when measured in terms of the danger posed to the correct understanding, and subsequent implementation, of Islam.

1. Reducing Islam to the level of Christianity and Judaism

Interfaith dialogue is built on the premise that all religions are equal. Whether the measure is the degree of authenticity, claim to truth, realm of applicability or monopoly of values, no single religion is considered to enjoy any degree of superiority.

The problem with this view is two-fold:

a. Reducing Islam to the level of Christianity or Judaism (or any other religion for that matter) can only be achieved through the secularisation of Islam. On an aqeedah (creed) level, the Muslims would be required to alter their fundamental beliefs and accept that Allah (swt) can only interfere in the personal affairs of life, not the societal concerns. Practically, the implication of such a view is that Allah (swt) can only dictate in matters of personal worship, morals etc, but can play no role in matters of politics, the economy, military, judiciary, foreign policy etc.

The problem with such a view is that it contradicts the most fundamental belief of a Muslim, namely that sovereignty lies with the Creator of man, not man himself. Allah (swt) says in Surah al-A'raaf:

“Surely, His is the creation and commandment. ” [al-A'raaf 7: 54]

And again in Surah Al-Ma’idah:

“Whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers” [al-Ma'idah 5: 44]

Similarly, the secularisation of Islam is explicitly refuted in the Quran as Allah (swt) emphasises the comprehensive nature of the Islamic revelation. Islam must interfere in every aspect of human life, not just the morals or personal worships of man. Allah (swt) says in Surah An-Nahl:

“And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'ân) as an exposition of everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who have submitted themselves (to Allâh as Muslims).” [an-Nahl 16: 89]

b. Enunciating the equality of all religions is tantamount to the acceptance of all religions as manifest truths, or at the very least, having equal claim to truth. Placing Islam on par with Christianity or Judaism is directly in contradiction to the exclusivity of Islam in the view of Allah (swt). He (swt) says in Surah Al-Ma'idah:

“This day I have perfected your Deen for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen” [Al-Ma'idah 5: 3]

This verse, and many more like it, reminds us that only through Islam can we seek the pleasure of our Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Seeking common understanding rather than conversion

One of the purposes of interfaith dialogue is to seek a greater understanding between the adherents of all religious faiths. While it is always commendable when members of any society seek to transcend ignorance or bias through understanding, understanding should not be mistaken for acceptance.

The acceptance or rejection of a doctrine is dependent upon the correctness of the idea not the understanding of the idea. Understanding an individual’s belief does not preclude a judgement over the belief. On the contrary, through understanding we seek to develop informed opinions. The acceptance and submission to one belief system logically requires the rejection of those ideas that are deemed contradictory. Interfaith dialogue has the express purpose of silencing informed criticism. In most cases, of course, the silencing is only of the Muslim voice.

Whilst Islam expressly rejects any compulsion in religion, it does insist on informed debate. The fact that Islam is concerned about the fate of all humanity necessitates the warning and advice to those who reject the guidance of Allah (swt). This advice is no trivial concern as the success in this life and the next depends upon the choices we make today.

Allah (swt) delivers a stern warning to those who reject His (swt) guidance when He (swt) states in Surah Al-Imran:

“Whoever desires a Deen other than Islam, never shall it be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.” [Al-Imran 3: 85]

The message in this verse is as clear as it is shivering. Those who reject Allah’s (swt) guidance are delivered the sternest of warnings. It is true that in this world you have the right to accept or reject the Allah’s (swt) guidance, but should you choose the latter, than be clear about the consequences of this choice.

3. Accepting all religions to fit within the Capitalist framework

Perhaps the most compelling argument against interfaith dialogue is that the discourse surrounding Islam and other religions is being constructed within the margins of the Capitalist secular framework.

If the purpose of interfaith dialogue is to develop a common set of principles from amongst apparently conflicting views, then what is the criterion by which such principles are formulated? The fact is that such principles are not developed at all, but all religions are moulded to accord to existing Capitalist principles.

Notions such as justice, peace, freedom, human rights, women’s rights, religion, morals, democracy, pluralism etc are defined in accordance with Capitalist principles, and it is according to these principles that all religions are expected to function. It is for this reason that the struggle against interfaith dialogue is not a struggle against Christianity, Judaism or any other religion, but is in fact a struggle against Capitalism.

The primary struggle of Islam today is not religious but political. The Muslim world is under siege not by Christianity or Judaism, but by the forced application of western Capitalism. The dangers of interfaith dialogue are such that, if the notion became entrenched within the Ummah, would cripple the Ummah’s ability to resume its own political destiny.

This is for two reasons. The first is that interfaith dialogue distorts our correct understanding of Islam, i.e. as a complete way of life offering comprehensive solutions to all problems of life. The second is that interfaith dialogue misdirects the sentiments of the Ummah away from the primary source of its despair – i.e. Capitalism. It is for these reasons that interfaith dialogue needs to be rejected as a means of engagement.

Where to now?

The struggle between Islam and kufr (disbelief) is a struggle that will continue until the Day of Judgement. It is important to remember, however, that this struggle is grounded in institutions and power structures, not mums and dads. Those at the forefront of this struggle from the Western perspective are those that have vested interests in perpetuating the destruction so venomously inflicted upon the Muslim world.

It is not uprising then that various commentators have, from time to time, spewed such hateful rhetoric against Islam and the Muslims. In fact, Allah (swt) informed us over 1400 years ago the true intentions of those who fight Islam. He (swt) says in Surah Al-Imran:

“Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is much worse” [Al-Imran 3: 118]

What is surprising, though, are words of kindness and respect by those who have already declared war on Allah (swt), His Messenger and the Ummah of Islam. This could only occur under one of two conditions – either the Muslims abandoning their Deen or the enemies of Islam embracing Islam. Allah (swt) warns us of this fact when He (swt) declares in Surah Al-Baqarah:

 

“And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back on your Deen, if indeed they could” [Al-Baqarah 2: 217]

So when select groups of politicians, religious figures and intellectuals start lecturing the Muslims about the virtues of interfaith dialogue, be sure these words need to be absorbed with a significant degree of scepticism. It is ironic that a politician can preach the virtues of peaceful co-existence whilst instructing armies to destroy entire counties, and it is equally hypocritical to lecture about respect and tolerance whilst disseminating vile baseless propaganda.

The reality of interfaith dialogue should serve to highlight the necessity of its rejection. The implications for the community are as dangerous as they are far reaching. So next time you come across such an invitation, how about you emphasise the following:

1. There can be no mixing between truth and falsehood. The Islamic call derives its strength from its powerful and uncompromising form, and the community must be extremely vigilant against any attempt to weaken this call.