The Futility of Interfaith Dialogue

I have always thought of the Orwellian sounding practice of "Interfaith Dialogue" to be nothing more than a snow job on the dangerously naïve and ignorant. Those I know that attend such seminars report that this description pretty well hits the mark. So it's interesting to see Mark Alexander ( Dawning Of A New Dark Age ) arriving at the same conclusion. It's also interesting to note that at a recent Affinity Interfaith evening at the Riverside Theatre Parramatta question time was cancelled due to the presence of some pesky people who have habit of asking the tough questions. So much for dialogue. ".Have you ever wondered about this thing called 'interfaith dialogue ' - the dialogue so beloved by our weak politicians and clergy?... to serve any purpose, there must be a possibility of finding some middle ground. A compromise must be found. If it is not possible to find a compromise, then engaging in dialogue becomes not only futile, but meaningless, too.. In Islam, we have a faith which is diametrically opposed to everything Christianity says is true." The Futility of Interfaith Dialogue by Mark Alexander ".Interfaith dialogue' is a mechanism thought up by the weak and ineffectual in a desperate attempt to find a solution to the growing chasm in Western society, a chasm between the ever-growing Muslim population and the rest... Our politicians, because they have lacked the foresight to see the inevitable outcome of their lax immigration laws, because they have lacked the courage to enact sensible laws to stem the growing problem of immigration in this country, and because they have failed to lead, they have got us all into a fine mess."

Have you ever wondered about this thing called 'interfaith dialogue' - the dialogue so beloved by our weak politicians and clergy? Well, wonder no longer. Please let me elucidate...

For dialogue with an enemy - and make no mistake about it, Islam is the enemy of the liberal and democratic West - to serve any purpose, there must be a possibility of finding some middle ground. A compromise must be found. If it is not possible to find a compromise, then engaging in dialogue becomes not only futile, but meaningless, too. Engaging in such a dialogue with Islam, a so-called 'interfaith dialogue', is precisely that: futile and meaningless.

You might well ask how I can say this with such certainty. Well, the answer is really quite simple to comprehend...

In Islam, we have a faith which is diametrically opposed to everything Christianity says is true. The tenets of both faiths couldn't be more different. Christians are taught that God had a Son, born of the Virgin Mary, who came down to earth and died for their sins, quasi to redeem them, to save them. Hence, Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour, their Redeemer. He died on the cross to save their souls. Further, to Christians, God is loving and forgiving, merciful and compbuttionate indeed.

Muslims are taught, by contrast, that God never begat a son; indeed, in Islam it is sacrilege to believe so. The whole concept of the Trinity, so essential to the belief system of a Christian, is considered to be shirk , or polytheism to any practising Muslim.

Furthermore, Jesus in Islam, although revered as a major prophet, is nothing more than this. He is not considered to be the Godhead. Muslims have an unshakeable belief that God is unique and one - tawhid - and cannot conceive of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Christians, in their eyes, are considered to be guilty of polytheism for believing in the Trinity! The abstract concept of there being three bodies in one - actually just like the human body - is beyond their understanding and comprehension.

So, to believe that Jesus is man's Saviour and Redeemer is totally and utterly alien to Muslims. As far as they are concerned, indeed as far as they are convinced, Jesus was not crucified at all. They believe that a look-alike was crucified in his stead!

For a devout and practising Christian, there can be no compromising on these issues; likewise, for a devout and practising Muslim, there can also be no compromising on them, either.

So would someone like to explain to me what all this 'interfaith dialogue' is about? For what compromise is there to be? Perhaps I'm missing something; but I don't think so.

You see, the differences between Islam and Christianity are so clear in even the basic understanding of the concept of God in the two religions. The name for God in Islam is Allah. Allah is also the name for God for Christian Arabs. But the Christians' understanding of God (and the Christian Arabs' understanding of Allah) is very different from the Muslims understanding of Him. For anyone seriously to believe that these two deities are the same, he would have to be seriously deluded. To a Muslim, Allah is to be feared; to a Christian, He is the kind and understanding and merciful Father.

The fact of the matter is clear: 'Interfaith dialogue' is a mechanism thought up by the weak and ineffectual in a desperate attempt to find a solution to the growing chasm in Western society, a chasm between the ever-growing Muslim population and the rest. (Do we ever hear calls for 'interfaith dialogue' from Muslims?) But it is merely a Band Aid. It will never solve the problems that have been shored up for us over the past few decades, never solve the problems of increasing tensions which will inevitably ensue.

Truth is: Our politicians, because they have lacked the foresight to see the inevitable outcome of their lax immigration laws, because they have lacked the courage to enact sensible laws to stem the growing problem of immigration in this country, and because they have failed to lead, they have got us all into a fine mess. Believe me: The storm clouds are gathering on the horizon. It's only a matter time now before we will witness their devastation.