Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah

(AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)

News & Opinion
Thursday, November 13, 2008

Saudi Arabia pushes tolerance

The United Nations started a two-day "interfaith dialogue" on religious tolerance Wednesday, said Blake Hounshell in Foreign Policy online. The host: "Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy where religious freedom does not exist." Come on, that's like "John McEnroe holding a seminar on good sportsmanship."

It's actually a "bold, courageous, and potentially far-reaching" step by Saudi King Abdullah, said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the International Herald Tribune, and the "criticism of his initiative from some corners of the Islamic world" should mollify his skeptics in the West. The king is siding with the "modern narrative" of Islam that values engaging with the non-Muslim world, and that should be encouraged.

It's significant that he can't hold the meeting in his own repressive kingdom, said Donald Argue and Leonard Leo in The Christian Science Monitor, where "the message of respect for freedom of religion and belief is most needed." But his goal isn't spreading tolerance, anyway—it's enlisting support for "a global law to punish blasphemy." Pray for failure.

Give King Abdullah a break, said Lebanon's The Daily Star in an editorial. He's taken huge strides, at least for Saudi Arabia, since assuming the throne in 2005. His legitimacy rests largely on the intolerant Wahhabi school of Islam, and for him to push religious tolerance at all is a big deal.

And hey, the conference "broke new ground" when King Abdullah and other Arab leaders stayed seated while Israeli President Shimon Peres spoke, said Betsy Pisik in The Washington Times. It helps that "they liked what he said," but you take historic shows of tolerance where you can get them.

Comment on this article

Post Comment

Recent comments | 3 total

Well, Saudi Arabia's got one dog in the tolerance fight; there's a bit of intolerance exhibited toward Muslims in some parts of the world. We shall see how much they want to extend tolerance toward other religions (holding Christian religious services in Saudi Arabia, for example) but there are reasons for this kind of support. Or, as the CSM writers state, it could be much more of a preventing blasphemy offensive to Islam under the guise of tolerance.

I understand your point in giving King Abdullah a break, but, I am also afraid of giving legitimacy to ideas of punishing blasphemy. Western nations already live with fear of Islamic retaliations and Christian outrage such as the recent fire bombing of a publisher's home in London, the Danish cartoon fiasco as well as the Danish paper's refusal to print Jesus cartoons for fear of offense, The Emmy's censoring Kathy Griffin for blasphemy, the supposed War on Christmas (Why is it wrong to say Happy Holidays? it's still November) and so much more. As Salman Rushdie wisely said, “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” I truly hope the Saudi's are serious about their commitment to religious tolerance and human rights and am encouraged by many aspects of the UN meetings taking place. Limiting the most essential of freedoms is just one idea we cannot allow to proceed.

People of any religion who are secure in their beliefs should have a hard time being offended by anything. If someone really believes that their religion is the absolute truth, then they probably also believe that anyone that doesn't follow their religion or blasphemes against it will pay some sort of price in the afterlife, just as all true believers are given some sort of reward. Shouldn't that be enough? Why do these people think that God is so weak and helpless that he can't take care of business without their intervention? "'Vengeance is mine' sayeth the Lord" is the quote that I always hear from the religious texts that some people claim to follow, so those people should be secure in their beliefs and let others do as they choose. If you want to try to spread your belief in a non-violent and unobtrusive way, then that is fine, but there should be no intolerance or human retribution for blasphemy.

Weekly Quiz

This former White House press secretary described President Bush as alarmingly incurious, and said the Bush administration had “shaded the truth” to sell the American people on the Iraq war.

Take Quiz