At first, I had hope in Dr. Wafa Sultan and her stinging criticism of the Muslim World. I had hoped she would shed light on the darkness in which the Muslim World today is wallowing and help it out of this darkness by showing it the light of true Islam. I had hoped this international sensation would add to the debate raging within the Muslim World between the extremists who - with their murderous tactics - threaten to destroy the Muslim ummah and the reformers to wish to save it from utter destruction.

Unfortunately, however, I was wrong. As I listened to her speak about the crimes committed by Muslims throughout the centuries, I thought to myself, "Here we go again, another one of those." Her story is typical: a daughter of a devout grain trader from Syria, Dr. Sultan was raised a devout Muslim and remained one into her adulthood. That is until she witnessed the murder of her medical school professor in 1979 by Muslim gunmen shouting "God is great!"

"At that point," Dr. Sultan said, "I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

Her search for "another god" has led to her conclude that "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings."

Although I hoped she meant that the "clash" we are witnessing is between civilization and religious extremism, in listening to other statements made by the good doctor, I realized that the "Middle Age mentality," the "backwardness," the "primitive," the "barbaric" to which she was referring was Islam itself. Her response to a question about who started the Crusades left me near speechless:

"The Crusader wars about which the professor is talking � these wars came after the Islamic religious teachings, and as a response to these teachings. This is the law of action and reaction. The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other."

Are you kidding me? The Crusades were a response to Islamic teachings? Does not the good doctor remember that the Crusades started more than 400 years after Umar (R) first entered Jerusalem? And to what were the Crusaders - who slaughtered both Jews and Muslims until their blood was knee-high to the Crusaders' horses - exactly responding? What did the Muslims and Jews who were killed in Jerusalem in 1099 do to those European Knights?

The more I listened to what she had to say, the more I realized that she was simply the latest of a legion of critics who reflect upon the religion of Islam the sins of some of its followers. It is a tired, old tactic, but in today's age, people who do so are in no shortage of an audience. Dr. Sultan said: "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them." She also questioned why "a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?"

Good point and good question. Yet, does the good doctor not know that the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world also do not destroy churches, kill people, destroy embassies and burn flags? Does she not know that the majority of Muslims around the world reject the violent rhetoric and tactics of the extremist mutants? Does the good doctor not understand that Islam does not condone suicide terrorism, even if said suicide terrorist claims that Islam is his (or her) motivation? Apparently not.

Does the good doctor not realize that simply because some Muslims horribly twist the faith of Islam for evil ends, it does not follow that the whole faith of Islam is evil? Does the good doctor not realize that simply because some criminals murder in the name of Islam, it does not follow that Islam itself is criminal? Does the good doctor not realize that simply because barbarians have usurped Islam for their bloody barbarism, it does not follow that Islam itself is barbaric? Apparently not, and this makes me truly sad indeed.

Yet, whatever she had to say about Islam and Muslims, the reaction of some Muslims to her comments are nothing short of absurd, immoral, and patently ridiculous. According to the New York Times article, shortly after the Al Jazeera broadcast, clerics in Syria declared her an infidel. The article said that, "one [cleric] said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported."

The other guest on the Al Jazeera program, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because "she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, and the Koran." Since then, according to the New York Times, she has received numerous death threats. One message on her answering machine said, "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." An email was sent to her saying: "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."

Why? Why are some Muslims so threatened by her criticisms of Islam, however misplaced they are, that they are willing to threaten her - a fellow human being, a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister - with death? Certainly God is not threatened by her statements. So, why should we be?

Rather than silence her with the threat of death, why not engage her questions in an open, honest, and forthright debate? What if she has some valid points? Wouldn't the whole ummah be benefited by her insights, if there are any? No, these Muslims refuse to listen to what she has to say and would rather declare her an "infidel" and end the discussion. They are acting like the people of Abraham (pbuh), when they were confronted with the absurdity of their idol worship. Rather than admit that Abraham (pbuh) had a point, they responded by saying: "Burn him and give aid to your gods..." (21:68).

Now, I am neither equating Dr. Sultan with the Prophet Abraham (pbuh), and nor saying these Muslims clerics are defending idolatry. Far from it. Nevertheless, the violent reaction to Dr. Sultan's criticisms of modern-day Muslims only serves to solidify her apparent point: that Muslims have become a backward, barbaric people at odds with modernity and civilization.

Truth, it is said, does not fear investigation. The Qur'an itself calls upon its readers to ponder and reflect over the Sacred Text: "Do they, then, not ponder over this Qur'an? Or, are there locks upon their hearts?" (47:24). What is essential is that such questioning and pondering be sincere and in good faith. Are the commonly-held beliefs and practices of Muslims truly rooted in the Divine, or are they simply taboos and cultural norms wrapped in the cloak of Islam?

There are many practices that many Muslims deem to be "Islamic" which have no basis in Islam at all, such as the shame of so-called "honor killings." Yet, this would never be found out if no one was allowed to question such practices free from threat of death. Muslims have to learn how to debate and discuss critical aspects of their faith without resorting to threats and ex-communication. Otherwise, the problems that fester in the Muslim World will never be solved, and the entire world will suffer because of it.

Wafa Sultan is a pathetic opportunist and fraud. I saw the al-Jazeera videoclip of her put out my "MEMRI"(an Israeli disinformation front which (mis)translates selected articles from the Arab media). I noticed that the MEMRI clip edited out any responce by the opposition, so all we have a few minutes of Sultan essentially bloviating the failed neocon narrative. You'll notice Sultan is at a loss of words when Samuel Huntington's name is brough up. Reality bites.
Predictably the right wing septic sewer is ecstatic. Simply regurjitate recycled horse manure which finds currency amongst the most reactionary, uninformed, unintelligent and yes, criminal elements of the neocon malignancy. Facts need not apply. Its become the favored tactic of the usual suspects to roll out charlatans with Muslim names to lend credibility to anti-Muslim propaganda and misinformation(sort of like Ward Connerly of anti-affirmative action fame). Sultan, like Manji and co. isnt a Muslim but an athiest, just like As'ad AbuKhalil. Difference is AbuKhalil isnt an opportunistic liar, nor does he play to anyone else's tune which is why you wont see him on MSM or receiving accolades from disingenuous dirt.
Who does Wafa Sultan think she's fooling...

i saw the video clip as well.. she dogged muslims like crazy but then she stuck up for and praised jews like they were her children,, when the muslim asked her are you an atheist she said call me what you want im secular ,, so from what she was saying she may as well be a jew..the same zionist garbage that jews and their allies spew... i guess you cant teach an old dog new tricks...

Ridhwaan, I frankly have no interest in Sultan's religion or the lack of it. My beef with her, and those like her is the lack of honesty and misinformation they put out. Theres quite a cottage industry of people like her, communists, pan-arabists, Ba'athists and other wash outs from the cold war trying to reinvent themselves as some sort of "reformers." Which is why political tranvestites like the neocons adopt token sock puppets like these as "good Moslims and Ay-rabs." Just follow the trail. Sultan's shallow demagoguery was laughable, which is why probably MEMRI edited out the rebuttal.
The late Edward Said was a secular Arab Christian, and Norman Finkelstein is an open athiest, but the fact that they speak truth is what makes me respect them.

I guess you folks are not too pleased about Dr. Wafa's remarks, so I guess I'm in a minority here. I thought she was pretty courageous. How often do you see an Arab woman voice a critique of Islam right in the Islamic heartland, on mainstream Arabic-language TV? Not very often would be my guess.

Hesham Hassaballa says: "she [is] simply the latest of a legion of critics who reflect upon the religion of Islam the sins of some of its followers. It is a tired, old tactic." But isn't Hassaballa's rebuttal a "tired, old tactic," too?

He says: "Does the good doctor not realize that simply because some Muslims horribly twist the faith of Islam for evil ends, it does not follow that the whole faith of Islam is evil? Does the good doctor not realize that simply because some criminals murder in the name of Islam, it does not follow that Islam itself is criminal? Does the good doctor not realize that simply because barbarians have usurped Islam for their bloody barbarism, it does not follow that Islam itself is barbaric?"

Now, how many times have we heard this exact rationalization before? Millions of times. The more pertinent question, in my view, is that why is Islam, alone among all religions, so susceptible to being hijacked by bad people? You never hear people saying: "Oh, so-and-so committed these crimes in the name of Hinduism/Buddhism/Christianity/Judaism, but that doesn't mean that Hinduism/Buddhism/Christianity/Judaism is a bad religion." Why is it that Muslims alone seem to repeat this litany over and over again? Doesn't that seem to suggest that at least part of the fault must lie with Islam itself?

Say what you like about her, she's eloquent. And while I deeply disagree with what she says, I respect her right to say it. I think it's unfortunate that such a barbaric act had two consquences- depriving a man of his life, and causing a young woman to leave her faith.

Firozi,

To be fair, from personal experience i would say that this does happen in Christianity. Every time i recall the sectarian violence in Lebanon, Nigeria or Ireland, every time Robertson or Santorum are on the tube, or i remember the fine sentiments of Gen. Boykin, i chant Hassaballa's formula loudly and repeatedly to myself.

I would also agree though with the sentiment that what she did takes some courage, and while the roots of her objections come from personal trauma as Nakia indicates, she's hardly unique in that respect, and in her case it's understandable.

The fact that she has been and will be used as a tool of biased media players says the predictable things about the untrustworthiness of those players, which has to be kept in mind, but it says far less about her herself.

>>I thought she was pretty courageous. How often do you see an Arab woman voice a critique of Islam right in the Islamic heartland, on mainstream Arabic-language TV? Not very often would be my guess.<<

Theres nothing remotely courageous about regurjitating orientalistic nonsense on a satellite connection. No Muslim worth his or her salt would bloviate such neocon nonsense. More importantly, Sutan's tirade was based on lies which makes her no less of an opportunistic then the next psuedo-Muslim sock puppet. Courageous? Hardly. Confirmity to regressive, retarded and ahistorical narratives? You bet.

>>The more pertinent question, in my view, is that why is Islam, alone among all religions, so susceptible to being hijacked by bad people?<<

Islam isnt "susceptible" to being hijacked, infact the entire premise of the question is false and misleading. I dont think anyone with an understanding of history and politics would think of it that way.


>>Say what you like about her, she's eloquent. <<

Eloquent? (which she isnt really, if you understand Arabic). I guess to the uneducated, unintelligent and shallow its easy to confuse eloquence with demagoguery.
Bottom line is whether the truth is being spoken or not. If not, that makes a person a liar, and I have zero tolerance for such charlatans.

>>Theres nothing remotely courageous about regurjitating orientalistic nonsense on a satellite connection. <<

Come off it. Nothing? Remotely? You're honestly saying you think it was completely unpredictable that some yahoos would take it upon themselves to understand al-Khoulis remonstrance as a fatwa against her life (which it wasn't)? It doesn't take streets filled with Bloodthirsty Moslem Mobs(TM) to make life difficult and scary for an individual. It takes only a handful of nutjobs, and they're out there. What she says you may view as lies, but give her a little more credit for saying what she thinks, right or wrong. She will be misused; that's not her doing.

>>No Muslim worth his or her salt would bloviate such neocon nonsense.<<

It's not neocon nonsense (i.e. the Islamic World need only be exposed to the system of western enlightenment democracy and market capitalism in order to cease its antagonism and enjoy the fruits of modernity.)

It's paleocon nonsense (i.e. Islam itself generates a culture which is incompatible with modern thought and directly causes ademocratic behaviors and retrograde philosophies so Muslims must somehow reject their own ontology if they are to have any hope for the future.)

Thank her for the favor - now you know what disillusioned atheists think of their old religion.

>>Confirmity to regressive, retarded and ahistorical narratives? You bet.>>
So what makes it OK when you do it, DrM?
>>Islam isnt "susceptible" to being hijacked, infact the entire premise of the question is false and misleading. I dont think anyone with an understanding of history and politics would think of it that way. >>
Any person, place, thing or idea is subject to misuse in its name. Christianity was used to justify mass murder and other horrendous crimes, the idea of democracy has been used to establish imperial control, and any number of things have been abused. The name of Islam has been used to justify things many would not consider even remotely Islamic.
Yes, Wafa Sultan's suffering under some serious delusions- don't add your own, DrM, we've got enough to handle.

>> is the lack of honesty and misinformation they put out.

Yeah, I forgot that you're the fountain of honesty and ethics in our age...

>>You're honestly saying you think it was completely unpredictable that some yahoos would take it upon themselves to understand al-Khoulis remonstrance as a fatwa against her life (which it wasn't)? It doesn't take streets filled with Bloodthirsty Moslem Mobs(TM) to make life difficult and scary for an individual. It takes only a handful of nutjobs, and they're out there.<<

No, you come of it. These people know what they're doing, and they often use the generic death threats as a badge of honor to lent credibility to their rubbish. The modus operanti of paper tigers in action. Indeed it does take a handful of nutjobs, ie liars to maximize misunderstanding and capitalize on scoring points with the crowd promoting the nihilistic "clash of civilizations." She's old enough and smart enough to know who she's pandering too.

>>It's not neocon nonsense.
It's paleocon nonsense<<

Ah...but its nonsense nevertheless. Then again, you are counting on MEMRI to translate Arabic for you, which in itself is a serious handcap. Her rant is indistinguisable from the vomitous bile put out by the right wing punditocrisy. I'm not buying it.

>>Thank her for the favor - now you know what disillusioned atheists think of their old religion.<<

Oh please, I've been around to know what non-practising Muslims and athiests know and think. In the majority of cases they tend to be people who are materialistic and totally uninterested in faith matters. If thats what they want, so be it. IF they're going to go on TV and talk trash, they''ll be called on it.

>>So what makes it OK when you do it, DrM? <<

Nice try, but unlike you my dear neo-marxist minimalist, I dont make up my own religion as I go along. But know knows.....you get enough caffe lattes from Starbucks in me and maybe we can all become functional murtads and munifiqs together.

>>The name of Islam has been used to justify things many would not consider even remotely Islamic. <<

Very true, whether its right wing extremists or lefty loonies like yourselves promoting pro-regressive Moslims.

>>Yeah, I forgot that you're the fountain of honesty and ethics in our age...<<

That you did, gomer. For a guy who folows Goerge"God told me to attack Iraq"Bush you're surely one to talk about ethics and honesty. Reminds of that kfc commercial from the early 90s...the one with MC Hammer dancing for a piece of chicken.

>> These people know what they're doing, and they often use the generic death threats as a badge of honor to lent credibility to their rubbish. .. Indeed it does take a handful of nutjobs, ie liars to maximize misunderstanding and capitalize on scoring points with the crowd promoting the nihilistic "clash of civilizations." She's old enough and smart enough to know who she's pandering too.<<

There are two distinct things going on here: one is this woman's history and issues with islam, and the other is the use of her opinion to make geopolitical hay. If you're telling me that you think that the whole thing is somehow prearranged, that al jazeera was somehow duped into being a patsy for right wing propaganda and that Sultan calculated that holding forth in an arabic broadcast domain was the best way to get herself in good with the Coulter crowd, i'm sorry but that's edging into tinfoil hat territory.

Look at who she is: she saw a religiously motivated killing happen at close range as a young woman. That qualifies as a negative experience with her religion, i would say. There are truckfuls of people of all faiths who went through much less and came out of it with a grudge against their former religion; there's nothing unbelievable about that story. My guess is she said what she said because she believes it. She's scarred. The title of the book she's writing says it all: When God is a Monster. She's not "right wing", she's a reactionary.

Just address her points if you disagree with her, because it's not hard in this case (you already partially did so in an exchange with ClassicalLiberal on the Deeyah thread). Taking the fact that MEMRI & Fox had a field day with this clip (duh) and turning it into a she's-bought-and-paid-for conspiracy theory just indicates that you don't want to even have the conversation. Which is Hassaballa's point.

<<Nice try, but unlike you my dear neo-marxist minimalist, I dont make up my own religion as I go along.<<

I don't see that holding the cards close to one's chest is evidence of "making things up".

>>But who knows.....you get enough caffe lattes from Starbucks in me<<

Lay off. I like lattes.

>>That you did, gomer.

Thus, you *are* representing yourself as such? What a leap of faith that is.

>>Reminds of that kfc commercial from the early 90s...the one with MC Hammer dancing for a piece of chicken.

Oh, come on; you're still thinking that you're black, too... I also didn't realize that you were fluent in Arabic enough to understand the rapid fire talk on al-Jazeera. You must have one big brain on those burden-loaded shoulders of yours; something must be miswired between the brain and the mouth.

>>>>The name of Islam has been used to justify things many would not consider even remotely Islamic. <<

>>Very true, whether its right wing extremists or lefty loonies like yourselves promoting pro-regressive Moslims.<<

Or, it must be said, honor killings, female genital mutilation, 9/11, 7/7, vanGogh, etc. Unless for some strange reason you now wish to argue that those things actually are islamically legitimate, her point holds.

>>>>It's not neocon nonsense.
It's paleocon nonsense<<

>>Ah...but its nonsense nevertheless.

Yes, but the distinction matters. It matters because it's evidence that this really is a personal rant we're hearing and not a US foreign policy-driven rant. It's safe to say that it's in no one's strategic interest to undertake a project to tell muslims in the mideast that they shouldn't be muslims anymore because it's bad for them. That would be... overreaching, to put it ridiculously mildly. Further demonization of muslims stateside would seem to be quite redundant - Dubai comes to mind. And in any case none of it would be worth the backlash. This is one atheist's sad story i think. And every one is a wound for those who believe.

>>There are two distinct things going on here: one is this woman's history and issues with islam, and the other is the use of her opinion to make geopolitical hay. If you're telling me that you think that the whole thing is somehow prearranged, that al jazeera was somehow duped into being a patsy for right wing propaganda and that Sultan calculated that holding forth in an arabic broadcast domain was the best way to get herself in good with the Coulter crowd, i'm sorry but that's edging into tinfoil hat territory.<<

Indeed there are two different things going on. I never said it was some sort of conspiracy, its actually quite out in the open. I've read some of her other interviews and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see who she's pandering to. This is not some naive young air-head, but a middle aged professional psychologist who understands the role of mass media in the digital age.

>>Look at who she is: she saw a religiously motivated killing happen at close range as a young woman. That qualifies as a negative experience with her religion, i would say. There are truckfuls of people of all faiths who went through much less and came out of it with a grudge against their former religion; there's nothing unbelievable about that story. My guess is she said what she said because she believes it. She's scarred. The title of the book she's writing says it all: When God is a Monster. She's not "right wing", she's a reactionary.<<

I dont buy the poor scarred woman act from 30 years ago. We've all had our brushes with the reaper at one time or another. A friend of mine drowned after consuming too much alcohol, he fell into Lake Michigan. I was also inches away from getting hit by a drunk driver last year. Using Sultan's "logic" anybody who drinks is a potential murderer and should be demonized as a criminal. Not the best example, but reactionary stupidity and minimalism is not how a mature deals with such issues. People find closure and move on. Instead we have this neurotic twit extrapolating her supposed experience on 1.6 billion Muslims. Unacceptable.

>>come on; you're still thinking that you're black, too... <<

Nope gomer, never pretended to be black or claimed to be as such. Dont have to be black to figure out who the Uncle Toms and Uncle Chads are.

>>I also didn't realize that you were fluent in Arabic enough to understand the rapid fire talk on al-Jazeera.<<

Well now you know. You ought to learn it...who knows....it might make you a better person. Maybe.

>>You must have one big brain on those burden-loaded shoulders of yours; something must be miswired between the brain and the mouth.<<

Alhamdulilah everythings fine. You, however may want to get that chronic "foot in mouth" condition checked out.

DrM, you've got indigestion from all the shoe leather you've eaten. And if you knew anything about language, or were even fluent in English, you'd realize what nonsense you're talking. But maybe the Saudi funding pays for all the Maalox you'll ever need.

Ooh, quite a satisfying hornets' nest has been stirred up, I see. Several people, Dr.M in particular, seem to think Dr. Sultan has a "pandering" agenda. Um, but aren't there better ways of making a comfortable living -- especially if you're trained as a doctor -- than getting yourself into the cross-sights of some crazed religious fanatic who saw you on Al-Jazeera and decided to come after you with a gun? Some others say that hers is not a case of ideological pandering but merely "the sad story of an atheist." Why is it "sad"? Why can't one be a liberal humanist and proud of it rather than being thought of as some kind of a failure?

Beyond all the motive-ascribing, I would like to check in with people here about the factual veracity of some of the points brought up by Dr. Sultan. She says, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people." Is this true? Do people know of any Jewish retribution campaigns against Germans?

Referring to an incident closer to my part of the world, Dr. Sultan says, "The Muslims turned three ancient statues of Buddha into rubble, but we have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a mosque, kill a Muslim or destroy an embassy of a Muslim country.î Is this true? Does anybody know of any heinous anti-Muslim acts carried out in Thailand, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Japan or Taiwan following the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas? I'd be interested to know.

Thank y'all in anticipation of your gracious responses.