The Insider
On Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Republicus published the post "Western Intellectual vs. Islamist Shiek" (http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/western-intellectual-vs-islamist-shiek.html).
It consists of excerpts from the February 21, 2006, MEMRITV release of a clip featuring an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera TV.
During the interview, she debated Dr.Ibrahim Al-Khouli, who accused Sultan of being a "heretic" for attacking current aspects of Islamic society.
Republicus has excerpted pertinent passages from the posted excerpts and republished them here.
The exchange is very interesting and informative. It smashes some stereotypes while re-enforcing others.
Republicus does not expect--nor demand--any apologies for being called "ignorant," a "bigot," etc. from ignorant, conceited fools.
Rather, he is providing this for those who have been rationally following along and have not allowed liberal, PC mind-control and ego to morbidly compromise both their common sense and higher reasoning faculties.
Republicus, once again, presents Mrs. Wafa Sultan (italics by Republicus):
Wafa Sultan: 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.
What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
[...]
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?
Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
[...]
Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...
Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger."
When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war.
In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs.
What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves?
Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma; another time he calls them the "People of the Book"; and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath."
Who told you that they are 'People of the Book?'
They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books.
All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking.
What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
[…]
Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up? How and why does he blow himself up in a bus full of innocent passengers?
In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight.
Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources - I am referring to scientific sources - to play a role.
It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not [the terrorist] who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.
When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse "They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off" - regardless of this verse's interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed or its time - you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist...
posted by John | 8:12 PM
8 Comments:
Although I do not hold the same opinion for both of them, both Sanjay and Houstonmod sought to discredit and disqualify Republicus from any authority on this matter by asking "Have you ever read the Quran?" and "Have you ever lived in an Islamic country?"
To the first question, Republicus answers that "reading the Quran" (presumably meaning cover-to-cover) does not disqualify any assessment of it on those grounds alone.
What disqualifies any assessment of it is simply if it is a wrong assessment, or if the right assessment is just a "lucky guess" of sorts.
The assessment of Republicus is correct, and it is arrived at reasonably and with enough knowledge of the Quran to do so.
To quote Mrs. Sultan (italics Republicus'):
"In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, *which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.*
And:
"In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, *and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched.*
"He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight.
*Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric,* thread by thread, and did not allow other sources - I am referring to scientific sources - to play a role.
*It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not [the terrorist] who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, *as some ignorant people claim.*
Who are the "ignorant" ones here, according to Mrs. Sultan, Republicus, or those who have called him "ignorant?"
Is Mrs. Sultan--a trained psychologist--"ignorant" as well, a "bigot?"
Secondly, to actually experience a culture first hand, to live within it, for any spell, can certainly lead to a deeper understanding than one that is received from observing it from afar-- though not necessarily, and certainly not exclusively when it comes to revelatory understanding.
Nevertheless, let us grant comprehensive familiarity with the Quran and immersed habitation in the cultures shaped by it as the best qualifiers for final authority on the very subject.
Mrs. Sultan, Mr. Bargholz, and bin Laden all have these in common:
1) All three of them have comprehensively read the Quran.
2) All three of them have physically inhabited cultures shaped by it.
Republicus would wager that NONE of the slanderous detractors here can claim both of those credentials for authority--
--as set forth by the detractors themselves.
There is this difference between Mrs. Sultan, Mr. Bargholz, and bin Laden:
The first two have rejected the teachings in the Quran, which, again, as Mrs. Sultan attests, *are full--FULL--of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.*
Mr. Bargholz obviously seconds that.
As has Republicus.
The last--bin Laden-- has embraced the Quran as the Command of Allah.
Republicus will say to all who call him "ignorant" and "bigoted" because he came to the same assessment as all three:
You self-styled enlightened "experts" can likewise call Mrs. Sultan "ignorant" and "bigoted."
I suspect she would, in turn, ask you if you had ever read Allah's Quran and Mohammad's Haddith--the latter of which answers to the Muslim faithful PRECISELY WWMD (i.e. "What would Mohammad do?").
She would ask you if you knew that, by tradition, Mohammad himself was illiterate and could not read.
She would furthermore try to engage you in a discussion of the interaction of sharia, kitab, hadith, and qiyas and how they all underlie the final, expressed ijma, and how the call for jihad is indeed determined by popular ijma, which is given the infallibility that Roman Catholics give to the pope.
She would soon quickly realize that not only were you ignorant, but a dhimmi fool, and walk away.
INDEED, much of the argument here has been about what the nature of the consensual ijma is in the Muslim world.
That consensus is the call for jihad.
Those "moderates" who belittle it or ignore it are NOT "good" Muslims.
Those "good" Muslims who deny it are simply liars (a "playing dumb" that is sanctioned by the Quran, btw).
You self-styled enlightened "experts" can likewise call Mr. Bargholz "ignorant" and "bigoted."
Again, I have microwave popcorn standing by for the occassion. :)
And, finally:
You self-styled enlightened "experts" can likewise call bin Laden "ignorant" and "bigoted," and explain to him what the Quran REALLY says and means.
Again, he will talk Quranic circles and loops around your head until a noose is formed.
Where is everybody?
What, a boycott?
lol Right, but don't forget to go see the Da Vinci Code!
conversely, if you show a child love and attention, respect and compassion for others, they will make you proud.
this was a great post the first time i saw her interview. hopefully the exchange will not remain so timely.
i cannot imagine carrying a child to term, bring it up right and then turn it over to jihad. it boggles the mind.
Why?
Allah Commands it.
John said, "
Where is everybody?
What, a boycott?"
...just listening in...for a bit.
Isn't anyone going to jump all over Mrs. Sultan and call her names and try to assassinate her character?
She's saying the same thing I've been saying.
I guess they aren't...
Though I haven't agreed with you (in part) I have defended your right to express the opinion that you have...
I guess they can't attack her character.
On that line.. a friend of mine made the following statement: (I had to wait for his permission before posting it. We were discussing The Da Vinci Code.)
"One of the things I dislike most about the book (maybe movie too, but I
haven't seen it) is that it points out the central hypocrisy of modern
progressive tolerance. You're shouted down if you so much as *imply* that
any culture is worse than others *except* for Christianity and particularly
Catholicism. Thought experiment: imagine the Da Vinci Code with any other
malevolent, centuries-old group as evil villain. Muslims, Jews, Hindus,
Buddhists, you'd be crucified just for submitting such a novel for
publication. Friends would shun you, or worse, express their concern for
your suppressed hatred and bigotry. Even that wouldn't be so bad, though,
until you tied it all to one culture *and* one race. We have no revulsion
against creating a cabal of evil white Christian men to be our antagonists.
Yet the outcry if you substituted any other race or culture would be
deafening."
But someone of that culture is allowed to suggest such a thing...it is like the "brother" who refers to another "brother" as a "nigger". But if you are a white boy don't you dare.
It's hypocritcal.
It's liberal, fascist (yes, FASCIST) PC mind-control.
It promotes psychological denial and, worse, apologizes for, justifies, and enables real, underlying problems to persist.
And is hypocritical, racist, and sexist to its very core.
Post a Comment
<< Home