Monday, August 16, 2010

How About It, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques?

Out of a desire to heal the rift between Muslims and Jews (one exemplified by ongoing Muslim rejection of Jewish sovereignty over Israel) I'm raising funds (though I'm not willing to divulge their provenance) to build a Jewish "interfaith" center/synagogue in Medina, Saudi Arabia. Medina, as I'm sure you know, used to be a largely Jewish city. It became, you should pardon the expression, Judenrein, when Islam's founder asked the Jews to accept him as "the seal of the prophets," and the Jews, who thought he was bonkers, told him to take a hike. Rather than walk it off, the seal chose to behead the men and enslave the women and kids. Currently, Jews and their cooties are strictly verboten in Medina and environs (which includes all of Wahhabiland). But if King Abdullah is as truly into "interfaith" understanding as he claims to be, surely he will allow the one exception of my Jewish "interfaith" center/synagogue and allow it to rise (it's only 13 storeys high) in what was formerly a Jewish hub.

Update: One of the custodian's mouthpieces, Arab News, is all for the "healing" that a Ground Zero mosque would bring, and has some thoughts on how to get recalcitrant "Islamophobes" to buy it that might be accomplished:
People do need to stop blaming Muslims for what happened. 9/11 was the action of a few men; they are the ones who should be judged and punished. The damage was caused by religious zealots who have no mandate from Islam or from the 1.5 billion Muslims to commit such a barbaric crime, acting without conscience or remorse. It is violent extremism that needs to be opposed, and that’s in all types of religions and ideologies. Unfortunately there are people who think mosques are breeding grounds for terrorism. No matter what Muslims do or say and how much they condemn terrorism, they are still all guilty in the eyes of many. The anti-mosque people were probably anti-Muslim before 9/11.
If this is a genuine attempt by well-meaning Muslims to put distance between themselves and the fanatics (and every religion has some) is that not a good thing? Perhaps if the initiative were presented as one of atonement, the disputes would subside more quickly.
So as I understand it it's wrong of kafirs to "blame" Muslims for 9/11 (and--what?--pretend it was the work of, say, Jews?), and yet to get the sucker built it's okay to position it as an edifice of "atonement"? What's there to "atone" for if Muslims aren't to blame? Or is the editorial underscoring what kafirs should but may not already know--that handing us a line (a.k.a. taqiyyah) is permissible if it serves the cause of the faith?

No comments: