Wafa Sultan’s Recent Interview

16 Responses to “Wafa Sultan’s Recent Interview”

1. Andrew Brehm on March 13th, 2008 10:48 am

   She’s losing it. She is too angry.

   From a pragmatic viewpoint alone it is far better to calm down. The “Islamic” fundamentalists WANT to represent Islam, she gives them what they want.

   It is better to point out how they are NOT representing Islam. That hurts them.

2. hamidoush on March 13th, 2008 1:24 pm

   Andrew,
   You are a pseudo-debate strategist (you should be working for Hillary Clinton) and a bit naive to think that you can win a debate by keeping cool. Specially when dealing with these muslim apologists anti-americans islamo-centric nuts. What are you talking about my slumbering friend?, A presidential debate or the Oxford College debating team? This is crazy.

   ..”She gives them what they want..” What is this? These people have always had their way, they do not ascribe to reason thus to the norms of debate and constructive criticism you are accustomed to, or you should be accustom to. They lie to their teeths by making outrageous claims and they yell and curse. Their audiences (muslim masses)like that, by keeping cool it would be defeating. You are so naive in your little bubble of ethical conduct.

   Give them hell I said they deserve it, and they may like it too. Andrew, you are ignorant of the culture. You are too boyish nice to understand that. If Israel had taken your advice when dealing with these nut cakes, it would be in a sorry state.

   “..It is better to point out how they are NOT representing Islam. That hurts them….”

   BUT THEY ARE REPRESENTING ISLAM, you naive apologist. There is no point in making a false statement, Wafa’s claim are all true.

3. Andrew Brehm on March 13th, 2008 3:38 pm

   “Specially when dealing with these muslim apologists anti-americans islamo-centric nuts. What are you talking about my slumbering friend?”

   I am talking about successfully hurting fundamentalists while leaving the door wide open to moderates.

   I have had successes.

   “Their audiences (muslim masses)like that, by keeping cool it would be defeating. You are so naive in your little bubble of ethical conduct.”

   When Muslims see her attacking not the fundamentalists but all Islam, they have only two choices:

   1. Admit that Islam is wrong and that 1400 years were wasted following a stupid ideology.

   2. Defend Islam at all costs, even if it means defending those fundamentalists.

   Most Muslims tend to choose option 2.

   If, however, an educated debater attacks the fundamentalists by pointing out how they are not Islamic at all, a Muslim has a new choice:

   3. Insist that Islam is right, that the fundamentalists are wrong, and that atheistic critics of the fundamentalists are right about their criticism albeit misguided about their belief regarding G-d.

   “Andrew, you are ignorant of the culture. You are too boyish nice to understand that. If Israel had taken your advice when dealing with these nut cakes, it would be in a sorry state.”

   I don’t know how ignorant of the culture I am. I am sure there are at least some Arabs and Muslims who think that I have some understanding of middle-eastern and Muslim culture and beliefs.

   Either way, had Israel taken my advice, Israel would have dealt not with the PLO but with local clans. Israel has allowed Arab nationalists and “Muslim” fundamentalists to pretend to speak for all Palestinian Arabs. Israel should never have recognised the PLO as representing “Palestinians”.

   It will be easier to get Palestinian Arabs to oppose Hamas and the PLO if the world stops telling them that doing so means opposing “Palestine” (whatever it is or could be).

   “BUT THEY ARE REPRESENTING ISLAM, you naive apologist. There is no point in making a false statement, Wafa’s claim are all true.”

   It doesn’t even matter if they are representing Islam or not. They WANT to represent Islam and hence acknowledging that they do is giving in to one of their key demands. I don’t see myself as an “apologist” when I refuse to give in to the enemy.

   I happen not to believe that they represent Islam. Regardless of whether I am right or you, there is no point in acknowledging them as representing Islam.

   If Islam can be used as a weapon against the fundamentalists, I say we should use it. Everyone knows they are using it as a weapon against us.

4. hamidoush on March 13th, 2008 5:52 pm

   My friend Andrew,

   You are running in circles. You are using arguments that contradict each other. And you are plain wrong, I mean BIG TIME wrong when you say: “..3. Insist that Islam is right, that the fundamentalists are wrong..”

   What in the name sake are you saying? Are you trying to deceive the masses by saying Islam is right. What is right about this plagiarized religion? Hey..What is right about any other religions for that matter? It is all myths and delusion.

   You are using examples that do not make sense.

   Isreal should have talked to clan leaders instead of the PLO… What are you talking about? Who were these clan leaders? Arafat was their leader from the onset of their twisted armed struggle. I do not what they taught you in school about the history of the Middle East. Even if clan leaders were present and showed some sign of forging talks with the Jewish state they would have been dead. Remember, the PLO tried to take over Jordan and assassinate the late King Hussein. Do you know who Sadate was and what was his fate?

   Anyway I give up. Your line of suggestions regarding the options #1, #2,.. #34 is like a bulleted power point presentation when one is making deal with a financial client. The bla bla of well let’s see taken option #1 will leave us with two sub-actions to take bla bla….

   My delusional Andrew, you seem to live in a bubble of some supra-rational world as if the the laws of physics apply to human and polical affairs. Anyway, who ever you are and if you are real I mean you are what you mean to be and not someone else pen ideas, as of a troll, you are either still in high school or something is wrong with your approch to the real politics of the middle east.

5. Andrew Brehm on March 13th, 2008 6:14 pm

   “You are using arguments that contradict each other.”

   Do you have any examples of two such contradictory arguments?

   “And you are plain wrong, I mean BIG TIME wrong when you say: “..3. Insist that Islam is right, that the fundamentalists are wrong..”

   What in the name sake are you saying? Are you trying to deceive the masses by saying Islam is right. What is right about this plagiarized religion? Hey..What is right about any other religions for that matter? It is all myths and delusion.”

   I assume that those who believe in Islam do not share your opinion about Islam and hence cannot be convinced with the same arguments that might convince you.

   For example, while a secular westerner or Christian could be convinced with the “argument” that Islam is a myth and delusion, the same “argument” would simply not work with a Muslim. They don’t want to be told that they cling to myths and delusions, hence they will follow whomever does NOT tell them that.

   “Isreal should have talked to clan leaders instead of the PLO… What are you talking about? Who were these clan leaders?”

   Mohammed Ali Ja’abari might have been the right man in 1967.

   Or Abu Hader Ja’abari and Haj Abu Akram Abu Sneineh today.

   A similar strategy worked for the US in Al-Anbar in Iraq.

   I am beginning to think that you don’t really know that much about the middle east hence don’t understand what I am talking about.

   “you are either still in high school or something is wrong with your approach to the real politics of the middle east.”

   May I ask where you are from and how old you are?

   “. And you are plain wrong, I mean BIG TIME wrong when you say: “..3. Insist that Islam is right, that the fundamentalists are wrong..””

   And here I have to ask you to elaborate. Why is it wrong (BIG TIME wrong) to confront Muslims with that particular argument?

   Are you opposed to using arguments you don’t believe in on ideological grounds?

   You speak of not applying the laws of physics to people but you seem to insist that people’s feelings and culture must not be taken into account at all when communicating with them. Are you sure you are actually understanding what “not applying the laws of physics” means with regard to people?

6. hamidoush on March 13th, 2008 8:16 pm

   Andrew, I give up. I have no idea what you are talking about. This thread is yours.
   Keep at it you might one day convince people.

7. Roman Kalik on March 13th, 2008 9:02 pm

   Hamidoush, if you have no idea what Andrew is talking about then you have no idea what debate, logic, human nature, or an argument more complex than absolutist one-liners are. You fail to see the complexities of societies (any society, it would seem), conflicts, and most importantly - the human mind.

   Sad as this may be, this does not constitute a reason to dismiss Andrew’s arguments out of hand. Instead, please go and study a little, and then come back.

8. Andrew Brehm on March 13th, 2008 9:27 pm

   “I have no idea what you are talking about.”

   Yes. I noticed.

   It became apparent.

9. Sheema on March 14th, 2008 2:34 am

   “Andrew, you are ignorant of the culture. You are too boyish nice to understand that.”

   I may not agree with everything Andrew says, but hell he definitely understands Islam a whole lot better than most Muslims I know.

   Obviously Hamidoush isn’t worth debating with - he’s already made his (misinformed) mind up and isn’t interested in an alternative view.

10. Drima on March 14th, 2008 4:51 am

    What Sheema said.

    Looks like our friend Hamidoush, the Moroccan atheist, had some very bad experiences with some nasty Islamists and now has a grudge against the whole religion.

11. hamidoush on March 14th, 2008 3:30 pm

    @Roman,
    You do not understand Islam because you are not a muslim or (maybe you are a muslim and you are hidding it behind this speudo pen name, who knows?). You probably have read a lot about it and have some ideas of what it stands for, but do not come here and tell me what Wafa or for that matter any good behaving muslim should have acted in that debate. You are a sorry apologist and you are patronizing muslims on how to act. Maybe you should open a school for them to take a lesson from you twisted ethical debate norms. Or perhaps you shoud have gone yourself in place of Ms Sultan and face that nutcake in a debate and see how you will fare and how stupid you may have looked in the eyes of your fellow moderate muslims. Do not tell people what they should have done in a debate before you can yourself face it and smell its sweat and bad odors. Do not come here and sound all nice and well-behaved as an expert in debating and foreign policy. If you are an etiquette expert then that’s make it worse

    As for your friend Andrew, he is acting like a foreign policy expert on how people should have acted. He jumped from giving a snobish position on how Wafa should have acted in the debate, to a speudo low grade analysis of foreign policy outcome with the laughable “if only we keep telling poeple that are wrong, the public opinion will shift..because they will look bad, it will hurt them”. It sounds like reality TV which is far remove from reality itself. What a sorry and naive 8th grade schoolosh analysis. This problem with fundamentalism can be won by simply telling them that they wrong. It reminds me of that stupid slogan aimed at warning kids about the drug use: “Say no to drugs”. I always thought that saying no to drugs is given, why then stat this slogan. You see, this is infantilization process at work, because you think people are so stupid that they do not know how to say the very thing that they should be saying. The problem is that he is telling Ms Sultan what to say, if this is not patronizing I do not know what it is. It is always should should should… If we can back up or rewind the tape Yes we can solve a lots of problems.

    Both of you are so naive. You shallow analysis of how things SHOULD work if only we use this startegies #1 and #2, if not then we have this startegy. Andrew did not have any clues to understand what I have lay out about his boyish low grade speudo logical about the law of physics. He responds by rephrasing the issue as if he understands and I dont. What is why I said I give up.

    Ok then, where are these moderate muslisms? Where are they? why aren’t they debating these fundamentalists since you seem to think that Wafa has faulted, and you have the keys in your hands to win this nasty battle of ideologies. I suggest the two of you coach some of them if you find them in your neck of the wood, where ever you are. And we will see if the tide of this fundamentalism will wane a little. Instead you sit on your fat asses blogging about how to be less confrontational on TV in order to win public opinion. I think you should consider looking for careers in MTV foreign policy marketing segment perhaps your twisted ideas would be much appreciated.

    @Drima,
    Wrong, been an Atheist all my life, (product of mixed marriage in a warm home of die hard believers in the unbelief in the Gods, perhaps because of mixed religio/ethnic stuff). No bad experiences with islamists. Grudge against the whole religion? I do not even know if that is the case. I just do not think it is a good religion that’s all. It is man made mythology, plagiarized from earlier man made religious delusions and miracles. If you are a moderate muslim, and you think it can be salvaged, that is ok, I wish you the best of luck. I am not against religious people. They can pray and preach to their gods and demons whenever and wherever they want, but when their beliefs start to infringe on my individual rights and liberties guarantied by the laws, then I am ready for cursing and yelling, not debate. I have had my share of debates with these so called moderate before, not even the real nutcakes. And I was then, without really knowing it, using the strategies of the brillant experts of religion and foreign policy experts named Andrew and Roman. It led me nowhere, in fact it lead me to be blacklisted by the Saudi students secret police in one of the major campus in US, because I defended Salman Rushdie “Satanic Verses” a while back. Debates has become useless. I let you think about what are the best strategies to open the doors of moderation in Islam. It looks like your usual contributors and experts already know the ones that work. They should go there and try them themselves in a debate instead of giving a their adolescent low grade lesson or two to a well-known psychologist like Wafa Sultan.

    Off tangent for your entertainement readership, a story. The story starts in the 1850’s, there was a well known U.S army general called general Sheridan. He is well known to have fought against and subdued the Plains Indians of North America. Because of their raids and random attack on settlers, Sheridan was very upset about it. One of his many Indian scouts who were helping him track the worriors said to him: “me good Indian not bad Indian”. Sheridan turned to him and said his famous racist quote ever, responding:”The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” A year ago one Christian televangelist was heard saying: “An only good muslim is a converted muslim”. This preacher was of course dreaming to think that a Muslim will leave Islam to enter Christianity only to be silenced and made more reflective of Jesus dying for his sins and therefore less violent and peace loving. This of course is outright patronizing. Then I heard a Muslim say: “There no difference between a good or bad infidels, they should be killed” which can be put the Sheridan like saying: “The only good infidel is a dead infidel.”

    What to make of this? slam the doors on religious self-righteousness whatever form it has. There is no moderation in any religion, if you are moderate you are not ascribing to his dictates. Stop your delusional idea of reformation. Read the new testament, the Koran and the Torah and you see what some (and repeat SOME not all) of the saying are telling you. To kill, convert and put into special category (dhimmi in Islam) and finally after all the torture (verbal only) save the lost souls. Stop the religious madness. Madness cannot be reformed, it can be treated, but your treatment of this islamique madness is making people madder.

    Peace.

12. Andrew Brehm on March 14th, 2008 4:57 pm

    If you think that fundamentalists cannot be beaten by telling them that they are wrong, why are you opposed to changing that strategy???

13. Ron on March 14th, 2008 5:11 pm

    She may have over generalized a bit. However, you must start from the general to get to the specific. I would have liked for someone to cite a verse from the Holy Koran to refute her claims if they think she defamed Islam for 1400 years.

    I think the assumption or presumption that criticizing the early days of Islam is apostacy has really hampered Islamic thought.

    If someone criticizes the Prophet or the early days of Islam that does not shake my belief in Islam. I think everything should be open for reexamination without being labeled a bad muslim.

    Christians and Jews have been able to do that without fear for sometime.

    Why cannot muslims make fun of themselves and their religion? I think it is healthy instead of being so uptight and serious.

    Salaam

14. suzanne on March 15th, 2008 9:52 am

    Drima, the moderator was not acting as a moderator. He opposed himself towards Wafa. What do you get when you have to fight two people instead of one in a debate? A very hot debate with the now and then some ranting.

    This moderator should be fired. Not Wafa to be blamed.

15. suzanne on March 15th, 2008 10:15 am

    @Hamidoush, no need to rant against Andrew, Roman or Drima here. They are not fundamentalists You came into this debate by immediately ranting and degrading Andrew. You might not agree with him, but that is no excuse. He’s not one of them you have to rant against.

    Concerning the hot debate between hamidoush and andrew:
    i think you are both right. There should be both debates going on. The ranting one and the “andrew-one”. This will open the eyes of many. Keep on doing the good job

16. Roman Kalik on March 15th, 2008 6:11 pm

    You do not understand Islam because you are not a muslim or (maybe you are a muslim and you are hidding it behind this speudo pen name, who knows?)

    I don’t use pen names. This has been a policy of mine since my very first day online. The closest I go to an internet handle is “Roman_K”. I’m Jewish, Israeli, largely right-wing in my political opinions, religious overall, and I have never claimed to understand Islam.

    At most, I can claim to understand societies. The essential point here is that you don’t get the majority of a society on your side (if only to bother to listen to your arguments) if you attack one of the things both the extremists and the most liberal of Muslims agree on, simply by identifying themselves as Muslims.

    You probably have read a lot about it and have some ideas of what it stands for, but do not come here and tell me what Wafa or for that matter any good behaving muslim should have acted in that debate

    That wasn’t a debate, that was an argument and Wafa Sultan didn’t see a neutral mediator as the interviewer - but rather someone who was attacking her. She became defensive, she became angry - and she played right into their hands, simply by uttering something that would be taken (and used by propagandists as proof of) as an attack on Islam in its entirety.

    Within the limited context of that debate, it was a permissible and understandable slip. It’s ain’t gonna look good, though.

    Do not come here and sound all nice and well-behaved as an expert in debating and foreign policy. If you are an etiquette expert then that’s make it worse

    Me? Nice? I see you didn’t get the underlying insult in my previous comment. I’ll try harder next time. I’m not a fan of stupidity - and nor do I view etiquette as a goal in itself.

    As for your friend Andrew, he is acting like a foreign policy expert on how people should have acted. He jumped from giving a snobish position on how Wafa should have acted in the debate, to a speudo low grade analysis of foreign policy outcome with the laughable “if only we keep telling poeple that are wrong, the public opinion will shift..because they will look bad, it will hurt them”. It sounds like reality TV which is far remove from reality itself. What a sorry and naive 8th grade schoolosh analysis. This problem with fundamentalism can be won by simply telling them that they wrong. It reminds me of that stupid slogan aimed at warning kids about the drug use: “Say no to drugs”. I always thought that saying no to drugs is given, why then stat this slogan. You see, this is infantilization process at work, because you think people are so stupid that they do not know how to say the very thing that they should be saying. The problem is that he is telling Ms Sultan what to say, if this is not patronizing I do not know what it is. It is always should should should… If we can back up or rewind the tape Yes we can solve a lots of problems.

    You prove yet again that you failed to grasp the point here. Andrew was saying that you don’t attack fundamentalists by treating them as the prime representatives of Islam - if you do that, you essentially give them that very power.

    You fight fundamentalists by doing your very best to make them irrelevant, and supporting those people who would make them irrelevant within the Muslim community.

    You don’t fight fundamentalists by making arguments along the lines of “Islam is Evil”. This will simply make sure that Muslims rally around the fundamentalists, as the fundamentalists will then have “proof” of their claims on how the Infidel is Evil.

    You may believe that Islam is bad. Newsflash - Over a billion Muslims worldwide don’t see themselves as evil. If your answer is to rant at them about how stupid and nutty they all are, then don’t be surprised if they stop listening.

    I have had my share of debates with these so called moderate before, not even the real nutcakes. And I was then, without really knowing it, using the strategies of the brillant experts of religion and foreign policy experts named Andrew and Roman. It led me nowhere, in fact it lead me to be blacklisted by the Saudi students secret police in one of the major campus in US, because I defended Salman Rushdie “Satanic Verses” a while back. Debates has become useless. I let you think about what are the best strategies to open the doors of moderation in Islam. It looks like your usual contributors and experts already know the ones that work. They should go there and try them themselves in a debate instead of giving a their adolescent low grade lesson or two to a well-known psychologist like Wafa Sultan.

    I have had many debates - many of them with Arabs and Muslims. Many of them were angry, others weren’t. Your point?

    Oh, and I hate to break this to you, but Saudis aren’t exactly the most moderate people around. Saudi Arabia today is pretty much the focal point of Islamic fundamentalism, and from there it spreads far and wide. You can find Saudi preachers, libraries, and mosques just about anywhere - even in Russia.

    My guess is that you weren’t debating with moderates. You were debating with hardheaded idiots, and those who said idiots have managed to unite around them.

    What to make of this? slam the doors on religious self-righteousness whatever form it has. There is no moderation in any religion, if you are moderate you are not ascribing to his dictates. Stop your delusional idea of reformation. Read the new testament, the Koran and the Torah and you see what some (and repeat SOME not all) of the saying are telling you. To kill, convert and put into special category (dhimmi in Islam) and finally after all the torture (verbal only) save the lost souls. Stop the religious madness. Madness cannot be reformed, it can be treated, but your treatment of this islamique madness is making people madder.

    You cannot reform those who are mad, but you can certainly focus on debating with, and supporting, those who aren’t mad within the faith. My biggest problem with your claim is that you treat religion as static, the religious communities as static, and your answer to fighting the fundamentalists is to attack the religion *as a single entity*.

    If you attack it as a single entity, then you will unite this group as a single entity. And thus the fundamentalists end up winning.

    If you say that “All Muslims are fundamentalists.” then you give the fundamentalists victory on a silver platter - you validate them. You tell them that their Islam is True Islam, and that thus you silence dissenting views even further without even seeing it, because for you those views don’t even exist.

    And in believing that such views do not exist, you reduce Islam to a simplistic picture. This is exactly what I had in mind when I said that you fail to see the complexity of society.

Leave a Reply