Wafa Sultan's Interview on Israeli Radio
Recently Wafa Sultan, the West's great beige hope for Muslim reform was
interviewed on Arutz Sheva, Israeli National News Radio. She was interview by Rabbi Tovia Singer who is apparently a famous right-wing talk radio host in the Israeli media.
It's pretty amusing to listen to Singer's unctuous flattering of Wafa. Even more entertaining is listening to Wafa snatch the bait wholeheartedly. After a glowing introduction where Singer literally expresses his love for Wafa, she explains her role as the anointed one self-appointed to tear down the wall of ignorance blocking 'her people' off from modernity. She actually says "I've been asking myself who the savior is, and answering myself by saying 'It is me'". Even Singer seems taken aback at certain points by the self-righteous tone she seems to take on at points. At least you have to give her credit for having self-confidence. Then again one person confidence is another's delusions of grandeur ;-) She finally seems to wake up a bit from her self-aggrandizing reverie at the end of the interview when Singer tries to extract some pro-Israeli statements out of her, and appears to register that he might be using her to prop up his anti-Palestinian agenda. One can only give her credit for falling back on her proclaimed secular humanism by emphasizing how both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict need to recognize the humanity in each other.
She certainly seems committed to 'spreading her message' and willing to face the inevitable rejection, threats, and scorn that will come her way. She has already announced plans to publish a book called 'The Escaped Prisoner: When God is a Monster'. However, the fact that she gives her first 'western' interview to some far-right Israeli radio bloviator isn't the most promising sign for her chances of bringing on an 'Islamic enlightenment'. Not to mention her strong atheist message is unlikely to have much resonance among devout Muslims. Nonetheless, I'm sure we'll be hearing more about Wafa in the near future. She's certainly endeared herself to the anti-Islamist right (and much of the left for that matter) in the West. That will likely secure her healthy book sales, at least in the English language market ;-)
posted by Wise G at Tuesday, March 21, 2006
48 Comments:
So what if Wafa Sultan got pitched softballs and was treated with velvet gloves during the interview for Israeli radio?
The main point is that a very outspoken and fearless single voice has done more damage in one television interview to the reactionary male dominated Muslim dictatorships in the Middle East than a volley of nuclear tipped cruise missiles could ever hope to do.
Talk about, "Shock & Awe!"
Beware Arab men! Hell has no fury like a righteous woman on the war path.
that's if she was indeed righteous.
i have NO objection whatsoever to valid critism, but ignorance of facts and history , and total spread of propaganda does NOT equal righteous.
A good article. Wafa Sultan has a very big chip on her shoulder. Shw is not trying to help, just trying to make her fame and fortune.
Nice post. Ronald McDonald, I dont even think a right wing goofball like you believes that. The fact that neocon criminals have to cart out this charlatan to bloviate(pardon the pun)the failed neocon narrative is evidence of how desperate you lot are. Jamal, Waifa Sultan only has big fat dollar signs in her head.
Anybody interested in real courage should check out the work of Norman Finkelstein. The way he destroyed Alan "zionist plagerist" Dershwitz is the stuff of legend.
What are we commenting on here, guys? Whether Sultan is genuine or not? "She is not trying to help, just trying to make her fame and fortune" What is this? HELP WHAT? What is there to help anyway? Eradication of religious bigotry? or as Mr Maxtor seems to suggest, the unveiling of holocaust money making industry or the zionist holocaust ideological apparatus? Why bring Finkelstein's work here as a way of comparison? Comparing what to whom? Comparing courage? What is this "half-baked" stuff.
Finkelstein's work is highly appreciated and respected in the social sciences disciplines. His work is read and debated even among scientists who disagree with him (maybe not Ellie Weisel). Finkelstein's work is embedded in the comparative historical research methodology. It is not media hype. Sultan is no Finkelstein. Nonetheless we should be open to her claims and ideas. Let's wait for her book to appear and see if she can survive the fatwa calling for her death. But let's be optimists, there will be book burning rituals all over the Islamic world. You can bet on it.
There will be no "auto-dafe" for Finkelstein's books. Please, stop your rubbish comparison and stick with whether her claims are defensible or not.
Why bring Finkelstein's name and work in? Simple, he receives death threats, including efforts by those same extremists who support Sultan to prevent publication of his books. The comparison is quite valid. A hounded historian who is shut out of academia, yet a third rate polemiscist like Sultan gets play from the usual suspects for her "views."
Cut the crap.
I am not sure what you are talking about. Finkelstein has published many books that I would not name. I will let you check them out from your local library, if you want to read them. Also, he is not shut out of academia, he is a professor of political sciences at New York University. Do you mean to say that he is not given enough recognition? He is well known in the Jewish and Holocaust studies for debuking many myths about "holocaust research". He is not questioning or denying the holocaust itself. He debunks what some have written about it (i.e., like Goldhaggen's book Hitler's hentchmen). Also he is well known jewish dissident, active in Palestinian autonomy.
Sultan's comments were about Islam.
I do not see any connection between him and Sultan. I only infer from what you are trully trying to say that there is a "conspiracy" whether it be a zionist one, far-right or the new world order. I am ready to cry, poor Finkelstein is left out and Sultan is given all the attention.
That's unfair. The usual ranting.
Who says life is a not a beach? Did I cut the crap?
By the way have you read his books? or are you just trying to show that they are somehow
Actually Sammish, I have read Finkelstein's books and heard plenty of his speeches. He has been fired before for his work(including death threats) due to pressure from the same people who are lauding Sultan. His latest book was published after numerous problems not the least of which were efforts by serial zionist propaganists like Alan Dershawitz. The fact that a scholar like Finkelstein has to go through all this while a third rate polemiscist passively has the red carpet rolled out for her is the point.
The point that those who sponsor and promote flea bitten myths and paradigms are "experts." Life may be beach but I'll be more then happy to kick sand in her face for her lies and misrepresentations.
All this because of a highly edited MEMRI clip.
Mr. Maxter. I think we are not in total disagreement when it comes to Finkelstein's work. I read most of his books. That's not the point that should be put forth in order to persuade or debate another person. We should not debate that Finkelstein is better or worthy than Sultan. That is not the point. That's why I do not see any connection between them.
You are trying to suggest a conspiracy behind the fleeting and rubbish fame of a "third grade acadamic" Sultan by suggesting that Finkelstein is better if only he was heard or was given a chance. Also, you are going after Sultan's character as if you know her or read about her personal life. Finkelstein may be a better and genuine scientist, but both are not writing or speaking about the SAME SUBJECT. Only if they wrote or (have spoken) about the same subject, can we be able to discern any genuine difference in their expertise, knowledge and power of their claims.
The main issue that we should be discussing is WHETHER SULTAN's CLAIMS ABOUT ISLAM ARE DEFENSIBLE. Does she has a case? You already have decided that she is a third grade media hype. Why disagree with her about her claims by saying that she is a nutcake in the hands of some "invisible hand".
Do you agree with her about the devastating effect of the Wahabi Islamic teachings on children? Do you disagree with her about the Jews protrayed as monkeys and pigs in the Koran? Do you disagree with the distinction with the dichotomy: US (muslims) and THEM (Infidels) found in the Koran and that we should fight them until we succeed in routing them to the straight path of Islam?
I can go on and on regarding many subjects such as the status of women and political ideology of struggle.
I think by dismissing her on the basis of some conspiratorial agenda is simplistic, does not lead to anything new and quite franckly is defensive and evasive to the whole issue. Certainly when we are fed propaganda, some of it is not true. But have you asked yourself that her claims (about Islam) are untrue?
Recall that her claims could be personal and only her own, but they also can be taken out of context by some people and use them for their agenda. That could happen, I am not denying that. Memri is not sending all these clips that you find questionable to people trying to discredit Islam. It is what transpired on TV for all of us to see and hear. Remember that Nietzche's work was hijacked by the Nazis to advanced their politcal cause and vision. But that does not mean we should reject Nietzche or his work. His work is essential for understanding the morality of politics.
They will be always apoligists for Islam and you maybe one. I am an ex-muslim now atheist, I was brought up in a secular household. I might have beleive in Islam a little, now I am totally free of it and without any regret. Apoligists exist in all religious faiths, they are the ones who consider themselves "moderate".
They will defend their faiths even if you show them things that are unbelievably bad, like the "monkeys and pigs" depiction of the Jewish people in the Koran. One apoligist in this blog suggested that the whole thing was intended for all bad people who do not heed Allah's words, although it was the jews who were depicted in the Sura. I think it is sorry excuse.
We know exactly from historal documents written by well known Arab historians from the 7th to 13th century that the Prophete Mohamed had many problems with the Jews of Arabia, because they did not accept his prophetic message. What could be more functional and befitting to critize a group by depicting them as subhumans. By the way it was Allah who turn them into monkeys and pigs in this story and He said so in a verse revelation to Mohammed. And what ever Mohamed said, there is no way it is not true.
Anyway, my point is we should debate her claims about Islam (which interest me) more than what she advanced about terrorism. However, I do not understand why Muslims are fighting among themselves in Iraq, Gaza and elsewhere if it was not was for their deep seated beliefs that anyone who does not beleive their ways is a fair target. Go figure. I am not sure if Finkelstein would say anyting good about the sorry state of Muslim nations. He is certainly against Zionism, but far less supportive of religious bigrotry whether it is jewish, islamic or christian.
Best,
Hey guys,
Thanks for tipping me off to Norman Finkelstein's work, I wasn't familiar with it. Recently came across a very interesting debate between Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister. He really picks apart a lot of the received wisdom in the West about the Oslo accords.
As part of her spiel Wafa unfavorably compares Muslims to Jews. If she were solely interested in rapprochement and peace between Jews and Muslims, I would wholeheartedly support what she's saying. However, what is implied in the tone of her argument, and it's something definitely picked up on by 'western' observers, is that Islam is entirely the root cause of the Israel/Palestine clash, and the Muslims are the primary instigators. I don't think this is a fair assesment, and it's one of the many examples of her one-sided arguments which may be effective rhetoric but are lacking in depth. In that sense, I can appreciate Dr.Maxtor's reaction against her anti-Islamic proselytizing. I understand the need to defend one's 'community' and traditions in an environment which is at times openly hostile (let's not pretend that there isn't a significant portion of the West that despises Islam and Muslims). If you don't correct what you believe are misconceptions about your 'people' then who is?
At the same time, I agree with Sammish that she is trying to point out some very real problems with contemporary Islam. In particular, the most rigid versions of Wahhabism with their literal interpretations and extreme intolerance towards members of other sects and faiths. In my opinion radical Wahhabism, which has been spread throughout the Muslim world largely because of the oil wealth of the gulf states, is the primary source of This might sound like scapegoating, but if you consider the enormous wealth that has been poured into the spread of Wahhabi-style Islam, and the growth of political Islam following the oil crisis, I think the case for Wahhabism being the cause of much of the present woes is clear. Unyeilding literal interpretations of the Quran and hadith, and completely preventing Muslims from critically evaluating the truth behind various tenets of their faith is the main problem.
Interesting points Akeel, but Sammish is being evasive and deliberetly off topic. Let me offer a clarification, there is a verse that speaks of the Children of Israel of a specific town that violated the Sabbath through trickery. See 2:65. God turned them into apes. Also see 5:59-60 when God turned a people into apes and pigs for their transgression. Sammish has simply decontexualized this and uses it as some sort of proof that Muslims have it out for Jews, which is quite pathetic and ahistorical. The decline in Muslim-Jewish relations are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and zionist terrorism, not theological differences.
And ofcourse no such comment can be complete without passing the buck on to those big bad wahabis. This is the nonsense wafa sultan supporters peddle. I have my own theological differences with the certain Salafis(not "wahabis" which seems to be the popular term) but that hardly means I'm going to hop onboard this judeochristo-fascist neocon bandwagon which has it out for all Muslims, not merely "wahabis."
My point is clear, Finkelstein speaks the truth and get hell in return, Sultan lies and exagerates her ass off and gets the red carpet rolled out for her. This same crowd refers to Rachel Corrie as "St.Pancake." Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out whats going on here. The stench is recognizable.
Me evasive and off topic? I am puzzled. Isn't this blog page about Wafa Sultan? Or should it be about about the Arab-Israeli conflict as some would like it to be, just to evade the point about what Sultan's said?
Let's see: " Finkelstein speaks the TRUTH..." as suggested by Mr. Maxter. WHOw!! TRUTH!! that's one word that a lots of people seem to know what it is, let alone what it really mean. Which truth? Truth about Islam or religions in general? If Mr. Maxter can show me where are the hidden books that Dr. Finkelstein have written about or (spoken the "truth" about Islam) I am open to read and compare his stuff with that of Sultan.
Of course I know Mr. Maxter is referring to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, because Finkelstein is not a theologian or an expert in history of religions. And I happen to agree with him on many points about the conflict in the Middle-east. Who is Mr. Maxter fooling?
In that case there is nothing to debate. I am debating Islam, its tenets, purpose, ideology, and effects on societies. I am not debating the Middle-east conflict. If Maxter wants to combine Wafa's claim about Islam with that of the Middle-East conflict, that's the worse misplaced idea and spurious thinking I have ever heard. Like the saying goes: "If you cannot convince them, confuse them."
I think Mr. Maxter of the TRUTH, is totally committed to tell us about the Middle-East conflict, regardless of whom we are debating, or which subject are we treating. I might be suprised to know that I might even agree with his views of Zionism, Israeli occupation, militarism and population transfer and destruction. But to confound the real issues we are debating, it is simply not going to fly by me.
Again it is the all about the ever evasive tautological arguments of conspiratorial theories. As Mr. Maxter firmly says: ". the stench is recognizable.." "..Sultan exagerates her ass off.."
I am not sure if such comments are meaningfull. Maxter of Thruth does even explain or discuss or presents facts where Sultan exagerates her ass off. Brushing off real debate for the sake of saying there something lurking out there, behind the scenes scheming and plotting. If this is not evasive and off topic (as he himself seems to think of me) I do not know what else to say.
There is an Arabic saying in a form of a question that might explain Maxter belief of Sultan's:
"What would the cunning and hungry fox say when he cannot reach a bundle of succulent grapes too high for him to reach in the grapevine?"
"They are unripe and bitter".
Yes, Mr. Maxter I (with many others) am just hopping of this board of judeochristo facist neocon bandwagon. We are simply not able to see your thruth. You are beyong our grasp. With your line of evasive "half-baked" argumentative power and figurative anology of stench and ass off and cut the crap, it will take us many years to come to grip with your bright insights.
Yawn. What debate are you blabbing about my confused friend? Tell me again who started carping about the "wahabis" and decontexualizing verses from the Holy Qu'ran regarding Jews. My reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict was in response to your erroneous argument that Muslim have it out for Jews based on theological differences.
Debate? Are you kidding me? You call this debate? It was simply an act of demagoguery on Sultan's part. Dont play dumb and claim you dont understand the analogy. Neither Finkelstein nor Sultan is a theologian, both are athiests yet one speaks the truth while the other makes fallacies based on broad sweeping generalizations popular in the western imagination. One is articulate, the other is not. Sorry bud, I've read "the Arab mind" and I know exactly where these people are coming from and what they're about.
If it looks, walks and talks like a neocon charlatan, it most probably is one. You want debate? Then get some real opinions and scholars on the subject instead of carting around mendacious borderline opportunistic hacks and bimbos trying to cash in on anti-Islamic hysteria.
Evasive again and angry. Going after people, calling them names for the simple reason of agreeing with Sultan's claims, and with Finkelstein's too. It is amazingly obscurantist. Calling someone a neocon because he/she happens to agree with Sultan. I am not sure who is making sweeping generalizations.
It is all about religion, not the Middle-East conflict. As long as one does not challenge how religion can be used as an ideology nothing matter. But to raise any questions about it that's a no no and if it is then it must be part of a large diabolical conspiracy.
"When one person suffers from delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion it is called religion."
by Robert M. Persig
In response to above comment "she is trying to point out some very real problems with contemporary Islam". She says in an LA Times article March 13 that Islam is "fatally flawed". Further, she uses snippets from the Qur'an to supposedly prove her argument. That is what the terrorists do, too--use snippets from the Qur'an to try to justify their criminal deeds.
It is the way one presents his or her views that makes it worthy of objective debate or turns it into a pure insulting and misleading work - only good for burning bridges of trust, compassion and understanding. Dr. Wafa Sultan is not worthy of acclaim by these standards.
I can come up with plenty of nice epithets for Sultan and rapid islamophobes like you Sammish, but that would be a needless waste of my time. I've made my points and refuted yours, run along now........
Good points Christie.
I don't think Sammish is a 'rabid islamophobe'. He's an athiest, so he opposes all religious belief but he seems pretty reasonable to me. I think the important thing is that Wafa's criticism isn't going to have much positive impact on the people that really need some 'enlightenment', whether is be Muslim fundamentalists or haters of Islam.
What points have you made? You are trully a deluded and ignorant person. You have not made one point that is trully worthy of even considering. Saying that Sultan is "out to trash Islam and is part of this neocon grouping.." is not making the point at all. What sort of point is that? You simply making statements about the characters of people because they happen to challenge "some" of the tenets of your religious beliefs that are they used as ideology.
Sure, all of the muslims and their apologists would say this is disrespectful and should stop. You would like them to be silenced or perhaps you would like to dictate what should be challenged in Islam and what should not be. Obviously you and all Muslims apologists would not like any questions to be raised at all.
What you do with your "half-baked" diatribes against those who disagree with your beliefs, is coming up with very nice "up-scaled" sterotypical name calling. That's all what you are good at, and nothing more. And you call that "making your points" and refuting arguments. Who are you fooling?
Look, let's cut the rubbish stuff. You simply do not want to hear anything that "might" question some ideas of your religion. You simply resist any examination of your religion. I beleive that what is far worse to you (and the Muslim apologists) is when someone go public (using the media or used by the media) about the questionning of some of beliefs.
That's worse because deep down you fear that people might start to "think" about some ideas they have understood and taken for granted. It is the fear rooted in the uncertainity of your own beliefs and the fear of other people learning about the debunking of some religious myths. That's what make you resort to name calling and conspiracy theories.
Perhaps the real issue that Muslim apologists have against Sultan is her interview she did with the Israeli radio host. The overt stuck up mind of Mr. Maxter on the Israeli-Arab confict seems to point to that. I have read in some strange blogs people discussing whether Sultan's Arabic accent is Syrian or not. Pages after pages questioning if she is really an Arab or non-Arab speaking person for the sole purpose of getting at some shaky evidence of her "genuineness". I will bet some will even find a remenant of some pseudo-semitic language linking her with some proto-Jewish language. Just the thought will make Mr. Maxter very happy indeed.
Scapegoating is only best weapon for those who cannot deal with a person who does not speak in the same wavelength, because you cannot DEAL with her. She is an irritant.
Some other idotic reasons were presented like "I am all for freedom of speech, but that's too far, she is not helping at all". What is she supposed to do with her freedom of speech say "Islam is a peaceful religion". A lots of people are saying this. Sultan is suggesting that it is not all that peaceful of a religion, here are the reasons. I myself trully beleive that Tibetan Buddism is more peaceful than Islam.
There is one person who suggests that it is not what she said but her tone of voice. I give up.
Wafa Sultan is only one speck of sand in the whole history of dissent in Islam. You are trully ignorant of the rich tradition in Islamic civilizations regarding the historical and political discourses against some tenets of Islamic faith but mostly its socio-political apparatus . The works of great Arab and non-Arab philosophers, scientists, poets and writers who were murdered, jailed, burned or died in exile. Names like Abul'aala El-Ma'ari, Al Ghazali, Ibn Bajja, Abdul Qadir Jilani, Ibn Jobayr, Ibn Sina (Averroes), Al Suhrawardi to name only few. These individuals preceeded Sultan by centuries. They stood their ground by writing and talking against religious tyranny, bigotry, subjugation, intimidation and ignorance.
Maxter's wants us to believe that these operated in different context. Now we are more civilized and should use restraints. I urge him to go read El Ma'ari. His ideas and writings about Islam make Sultan look like nothing.
But who is kidding whom here? I cannot even imagine someone like you looking at such critical analyses, much less rumishing through the pages. It is these writings that you want to burn, if not burning, keep them shelved forever because they do not do us a service.
Mr Shah,
Your response to Maxter was timely. I was writing my long piece when you posted it. There are so many of us ex-muslims who feel an affinity with Sultan for her bold stance at speaking about what she believes is important to her.
I totally agree with you about the minimal effect she is having with the diehard religious and even the moderates. She is not going to succeed in "enlightening" people, but that was not the purpose. She cannot succeed in this type media format. It is in the schools and halls academia that such purpose could have a chance.
I beleive that her experiences are personal. She changed her views about Islam because of her experiences not because she heard someone like her on TV longtime ago. In fact, to think that she is trying to change people mind is simplistic. It can take poeple many years to trully change views. In my case, my family atmosphere helped a little, but it was the libraries at an American State University that did it. I could not believe the wealth of the books of some of the apostates I named above. The historian El-Tabari really did in his book "the history of kings and prophetes". It took me a long time to digest all the information. There was no denial stage on my part. It was read, read, read, then think, and see what would happen. The conclusion was obvious to me and the end result was rewarding.
Oh give it rest sammish. I swear, goons like you are more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, this is why I despise fake debates. I have no interest in you or your religion, or lack of. Dont bite off more then you can chew, stick to the topic at hand.
Not surprisingly athiest fundamentalists are no less dishonest then their relgious fundamentalist counterparts, and you're an example of that with your insipid long winded posts having little to do with Sultan's fallacies. Infact you took a page right out of her book with your own false decontexualized look at Jews in the Holy Qu'ran. Theres no need to burn books when we have clueless cretins like you who will probably never read them. It doesnt take any "courage" to hop aboard the fashionable confirmist neocon hate bandwagon. I've probaby forgotten more books then you'll ever read, so dont pretend to be some sort of academic lecturing me about criticism. If I want secular criticism I'll read Santanya, Finkelstein, Tariq Ali, and Edward Said thank you very much.
All it took to pull your strings was a highly edited propaganda clip put out by MEMRI. Only a rabid Islamophobe or a ignorant moron, athiest or otherwise would take rubbish like this and run with it. The level of intellectual dishonesty, ignorance and mendacity you display is staggering.
Nice blog here. Good discussion. I did not know all this stuff. Average American brain speaking here. Let me inject something to this war between Maxter and Sammish.
Maxter: You do not say much beside your usual ranting. We know you hate Sultan. That's ok for an opinion. I did not even know she exists.
Let me inject a question since you keep saying that Sammish "decontextualize" the issue about jews in the Koran.
How do you see this issue of the jews in the Koran. Since we know the explanation of Sammish, what is yours? and the official Islamic interpretation of the depiction of jews.
Please "De-decontextualize" this issue for us please. I want to know. Thanks
Johnny, dont put words in mouth, I dont hate Sultan, but her lies, shallow analysis and third rate generalizations. I've already answered sammish attempt to distract us from Sultan's lies. Its up there, look it up, read it, and if you dont get it, reread it again.
Ok, you do not hate Syltan and you do not like her lies, but you did not respond to my question. Your answers to Sammish about Syltan's lies do not deal with my question, which is: how do you view the portrayal of jews in the Koran?
You think she is lying about the protrayal, then tell us about these twisted lies. What are her "lies" that seem so off base to you? You need to explain to this lost Christian who is trying to understand a little about Islam.
Johnny, you're not listening or reading, I did answer your question. Go look it up, because I wont repost it for you, its there. Also read the full transcript of the interview.
End of story. Unless ofcourse you're some neocon hack....
MrMaxter. You are evading my simple question. I am no "necon" or "neolib" or "neofit" or neo from the matrix or "neoanything". Just an average person trying to understand things. You are patronizing and condescending. Perhaps because you really do not have a case against Sammish. If you are trying to make a case against Sultan or defend Islam for that matter, you are a bad and a sorry case for that. Leave it for people who can make discuss things and make their case. You are doing more harm by turning people off, and presenting a bad image of Islam or whatever you are trying to point at. You are full of bull.
Please,leave this blog alone and let us learn from others and do not respond because I am not going to read you rambling over nothing and patronizing people by putting them into caterogies of neocons and islamophobs, because I myslef I am not and I repeat I AM NOT.
Sammish, your shallow analysis sickens me and Dr. Maxtor, as a Muslim you should know Bush is our friend. I'm a neocon Muslim, well aware of my surroundings. You morons wouldn't know what was inside a book even if I opened it up for you. Bush is purposely irresponsibly spending large amounts of money on the US military and home security to destroy the US economy. He’s in Iraq to help us build weapons. You morons don’t see anything. I wish you guys were critical thinkers like myself. I wish I had the rights to vote in US elections, so I could re-elect George Bush, the Muslim advocate, who’s real name is Mohammed Aleem. Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are all Muslim supporters. But you shallow thinkers would never recognize that. Do you think the World Trade Center attacks were successful simply due to Muslim masterminds? You guys are morons; this was done with the help of Muslim supporters such as Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld. The Muslims have the upper hand, but you bigots don’t see that! Long live Bush and long live Islam. I’m sure you idiots would never understand the meaning behind that.
Mr. Maxter, your secretly working for some anti Islam group. It is clear in the statements you use that you are anything but a conservative muslim. Conservative muslims don't say:
"neocon blogosphere"
"sycophantic"
"dim witted dullards"
"Almanac"
"Sex & the City"-we don't talk about this show or recognize it due to it's lack of values
Morons Like You are not true muslim conservatives unlike Mohammed Aleem (George Bush)
Mohammed Aleem
OBL
Do you see any similarities? Both are devout conservative Muslims. But you wouldn't recognize that you shallow thinker.
Nice try Johnny, and no I'm not being evasive, go read my answer up top. You are correct that I'm being condescending and patronizing, I tend to do that to dishonest cretins who cherry pick misinformation. Going off on tangents and deliberetly latching onto every third rate charlatan is an old tactic. Get some real opinions, and I might just take you and sammish seriously enough not to dismiss you for your shallow uneducated carping.
If you cant handle straight and hard talk, I suggest you run off with your tail between your legs. Better yet, read a history book, its a far better investment then firing up your PS2. If you were interested in any "discussion" you would be reading the full unedited transcript of the Al-Jazeera program instead of watching MEMRI now wouldnt you? Now if you arent just another lazy islamophobe, read the full transcript.
You are correct Haaris, I have been humbled and now realize the error of my ways.
You're too cocky for your own good Dr. Maxtor. You're tunnel vision towards the world is exactly what's wrong with a lot of sects practicing Islam. Unfortunately imams have used Islam to fulfill their political agendas, providing their poor ignorant followers with misinformation. It's unfortunately the truth about many Imams. Example of misinformation-Elijah Mohammed did it-Malcolm X went to Mecca and found out things contrary to Elijah's teachings. The same thing has been going on with Imam's providing misinformation about Ahmadis.
You are full of it Haaris. What sort of misinformation are you talking about? Stop using and playing victimization issue.Is there not an perennial state of misinformation among all different muslim religious persuations? Ismailis, Ahmadis, Tijanis, Wahabis, Khalidis, Alids, Othmanis, Ikhawanis, Idrissis the list goes on and on. Who among all the groups stand immune from spreading lies and deceits Hey?
Your tunnel vision is as narrow and dumb witted as that of Maxter. You are stupid and shallow self-rightous Mohamadans morons.
Where did I say in my statement that other religous groups don't share this characteristic. As a Muslim I was simply stating the problem with Islam, my own religion. Before commenting on other groups, I'd rather comment on my own. Before stating that other religious groups should change their behaviours, I will address the issue of my own first. I'm not gonna go on about the Spanish Inquisition or other unfortunate events in history where religious groups spread their beliefs in unethical ways because Mr. Maxtor isn't part of that religious group. He is part of Islam, and as a Muslim I have a responsibility to address a fellow muslim if I feel he/she is misrepresenting Islam. Sorry if it seemed I had a biast towards a certain group. I didn't intend for that to happen. Please clarify with me before you make judgements and accusations.
Stop your fake self-congradulatory empathy to others. It is fake and deceptive specially comng from you two Mohamadans loud mouths. How dare you speak of Elijah, or even Malcomb. Your sand bagged Islam is not your urban Black 50's and 60's initiated anti-racist activist Islam. Your self criticism is pitiful and self-boosting for your egotistical narrow gray matter. Maxter is a Mohamadan Hey? and you go on to show your infantile, dismal and pitiful duty to correct him with your charlantanistic analysis and dismal criticism. Tap your back on the way it will do you good too. It is fake and Maxter is there licking your boots. Perhaps a castigation worthy of your small Fakir knowledge with a whip or stoning will do him good. The way you two Sand-Head Mohamadans treated John and others in this blog make you trully daggers carrying assassins under the guise of secular westernized plagiarizers with your magic carpet lies and self-agrandizing and self-righteous turbanized brains. You are trully fake. And if you are trully trully trully fake (like Maxter anti-islamic group) You are then trully a memory to your kind.
You sound rather racist. Ignorance recieves no replies. And I don't recall even responding to anything John said. Sorry, maybe you should read before you post. Thanks for coming out though.
Sorry, that last anonymous post was mine in case there's any confusion, I forgot to add my name.
Ah Haaris come now, its a little late to troll isnt it? I dont think you're old enough to drive, let alone a coherent though. As for the rest of anony-cretins who just cant their neocon bimbo failing the stink test.....thats just too bad.
Read the full transcript and weep boys.
You really should re-evaluate yourself Dr. Maxtor. You claim to be muslim, however you debate with insults. Don't muslims model theirselves after the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? It doesn't appear as though you are. Furthermore, the annonymous poster appears as though he's a blog troll, so I don't think anyone should reply to him.
Mr. Maxtor, you seem to be infactuated with utilizing your language as some form of "bullying". I suggest you drop the egotistical language as it only further suggests your lack of confidence in the real world. Don’t use the internet as a confidence builder. It’s rather sad and unattractive.
Do the personal insults ever stop Dr. Maxtor?
I beleive the posts went from bad to worse. It is no surprise to me, but it is sad. I myself have tried to contribute some ideas earlier, but it did not lead to anything but contempt and name calling despite me trying to contructively avoid confrontation. I knew that my own views are not going to be accepted by all who care about debating Wafa's claims. But what was I expecting anyway? I am new to this blog thing. I was told just recently that it is not serious and that it is only an avenue for ranting and "rapping" or saying anything. Well, I learned my lesson.
Thus if it is the case, then I beleive that some people are now getting doses of their own medicine. The whole thing is not constructive and a waste of time a la Jerry Sringer. Mr. Shah should at least moderate the posts when it comes to any issue that may flare up controversies like religious beliefs or sensitive political issues. That's my opinion.
Sammish, I agree this thread has deteriorated. Way too much 'trolling' and name calling here. I don't really believe in deleting comments unless they're really counterproductive. While I definitely would prefer an intelligent and informed conversation, people have the right to say what they like as long as it's not spam, pure hate-mongering, or just totally inane. That's the beauty of most internet forums- anyone can express just about any opinion- unfortunately that's also the downside ;-) By the way, thanks for your previous comments. You got a very interesting discussion going for a while on this thread.
By the way did you see my post to the full transcript of Wafa Sultan's Al Jazeera appearance. I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts are on the debate between Wafa Sultan and Ibrahim Al-Khouli. Hopefully I'll get a chance to post something more detailed about the contents of the full manuscript myself.
"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for the people we despise, then we do not believe in it all."
Noam Chomsky
Actually reality challenged anony-trolls, if you spent time reading the full transcript of the show instead of picking a fight with me you might learn something.
My language and style are the least of your troubles. Read it and weep.
The same "anonymous" as of four or five posts above.
Hey Mr.Maxter the Baxtor. What the in the hell are you rambling about the full transcript to anyway? Is it your sort of highly priced pseudo-intellectual fetish? You are so full of hot desert air. The full transcript is nothing more than randition of two people rambling over some stupid religion that is no more than plagiarized sayings from the bible spiced up with some angry warnings of doom a la desert storm and sexually gratifiying pleasures for the believers a la one thousand and one nights.
Your honorable esteemed iconic imam Khouly guy is as dismal low grade schoolish religious scholar as your bimbo lady. You call that an eye opener debate (transcipt)? And you give credit to that charlatan for facing up to that self-promoting lady whom you like to hate? What is this about your weeping crap analogy anyway? Was there a revelation that the imam Khouly has descended upon you one night
when you were dreaming of 40 virgins and among them was the full figured bimbo lady at 13 years of age. I call that full transcript fetish. If you think that by reading the full transcript one would really get the real "thing" about the ex-muslim lady that you yourself are in full grasp, then I suggest you wake up from your 7th grade boyish low grade intellectual masturbation. You call yourself a reader of social criticism, it is so amusing that I am begining to think that some of the comments made against you above are "false" as of "fake". Due to your high level of self-esteem and anger (hiddent love) against the neocon lady, I think you have a sexual fetish for the bimbo lady. You should heed the advice given to you by Noreejehan. Why can't you let it rest? You do not need to prove yourself with anything, or anymore to anyone. The personality you display (by either being true to yourself or fake) has already been revealed to all. Your high expectations of yourself will lead you nowhere if not perhaps into your fantasy land in muslim paradise where the bimbo lady will have the whip for you to enjoy. It will be painful but highly pleasurable that you will weep with joy. As to your suggestion to read the full transcript (and weep anal-ogy)is merely a ploy to divert attention to your sexual obsession with the bimbo lady. By the way I really think she is self-promoting bimbo. As for your charlatan Khouly whom you seem to put in high esteem is as bimboesque and pompous as all the self-righteous imams who pass in Eljazeera to provide guidance to lost muslim souls and warnings of death and doom to the infidels.
Come on now, it is not necessary to use such language against the imams and for that matter Maxter. This needs to stop.
I must say that Mr. Maxtor seems to be always in the driver seat of this thread, he cannot keep his mouth shut. Why does he respond to last anonymous post anyway? The last one was just a saying by Noam Chomski, which I put there myself, because I thought it would be nice to have a discussion instead of name calling. I am now wondering if Maxter is not Mr. Shah's accomplice to make poeple hit this thread. Regardless, no one is going to add anything productive. So Maxter and the last "Anonymous" will go at it until the end of time. I am out and sorry for putting Chomski's quote.
I agree with the Chomsky quote. I've been saying that Wafa Sultan has the right to hold whatever opinion she wants about Islam. 'Apostates', 'heretics' and 'reformers' in the Islamic world should be free to hold their views without fear of violence and persecution. On the other hand, people should have the freedom to criticise here views as well.
Personally, I believe if there is one thing that is desperately needed in the Muslim world it's freedom of religion, and correspondingly the freedom to question and discuss religious belief. If this is fostered than I think 'the rest' will follow. Muslims will have to closely examine their own religious beliefs before any meaningful 'secularization' occurs in their societies.
Thank you!
[url=http://swrzlagq.com/osxk/iohv.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://tqcgdewk.com/bvui/xkra.html]Cool site[/url]
Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit
Nice site!
http://swrzlagq.com/osxk/iohv.html | http://feqlffrp.com/gtxi/vkop.html
Post a Comment
<< Home