Dialogue: Daisy Khan, Islamic supremacist mega-mosque imam's wife, lies about and defames ex-Muslim heroine Wafa Sultan

I hear that from deeply confused Mahoundians and mental patients...

Given the similarities between the disorderly, incoherent and repetitive style in which Mein Qurampf was cooked up by the inbred bedouin savages that wrote it, and how mahoundians babble and scream away when they're trying to prove that their conspiracy theories are true, it can't just be a mere coincidence that their minds work like this...

Having watched proof of this on MEMRI clips and seen it in Mein Qurampf itself, this kind of stuff doesn't shock me any longer... But I still remember the first time I've ever come in contact with such nonsense, in a bout of verbal diarrhea where Charles Darwin and atheists were said to create terrorism that they'd later blame mahoundians for. Thrown in the middle of that nonsense were claims by the interviewee that he'd "defeated atheism", that "mahoundianism is the antidote to terrorism" and some pretty damn rich "explanations" about how distance from allah brought about the economic crisis that began in 2008...

And, if we're to believe what the PC/MC mahound-loving monkeys say about mahoundianism and mahoundians, we ought to take it all very respectfully and seriously. Doing otherwise would automatically turn us into culturally-insensitive imperialists, racists and "islamophobes." Yeah right.

...culturally-insensitive imperialist, racist and "islamophobe."

Next time I order business cards I will include that...

All good points. Thats why I referred to her as Doozy Daisy...She certainly is a doozy...

"Watch me:

Islam is a bad religion.

There. I did it."

Exactly. As bad as Fascism and Nazism. Not a "religion." A political ideology.

"From a nest of Muslim snakes, Daisy Khan has emerged as the premier pit-viper"

Oh, she's a Puff Adder. And a Black Mamba. Combined.

It's a religion. It's a political ideology. It's the Miss Muslim Manners Guide to Everything.

"It's a floor wax!" "It's a dessert topping!"

"Well OK but it was these self same poor uneducsted"

Ah bewick, you crack me up dude. HA!

duh swami - you wrote - "Doozy Daisy: 'Much of what she [sultan] says is deeply incoherent'.

'What in the world is that, she made that up...incoherent is incoherent, there is no 'deeply' about it...Word salad, echolalia...I hear that from deeply confused Mahoundians and mental patients, but not from Wafa Sultan...Daisy is implying that Wafa is mentally ill, and tormented by childhood memories...I though Wafa was the psychiatrist...Is Daisy qualified to make this diagnosis?"

You got it, duh swami. Daisy Khan is projecting, as Muslims seem to do with extraordinary frequency. We just saw it in Lebanon. Hezbollah probably assassinated Hariri; so Hassan Nasrallah sez - 'Israel did it!' (you should have seen the talkbacks to that particular Jerusalem Post story - an awful lot of Islamosavvy Infidels, Jewish and non-Jewish, had seen right through it and were laughing their asses off at Nasrallah's barefaced lying). Daisy Khan is a liar and incoherent - so what does Daisy do? - she accuses *Wafa Sultan* of being a liar, of being incoherent.

Well-said, KK. Wafa Sultan is a REAL lady.
Daisy Khan can make no such claim...

Oh, it's a religion all right. It's just that it's an *evil* religion - 'the religion of blood and war', as Churchill said in 'The Story of the Malakand Field Force'.

Religions aren't always nice. Look up how people used to worship Bacchus (see Euripides' 'Bacchae' and find out, too, how Orpheus died), and then look up the 'sacred' prostitutes who filled the temples of Aphrodite in the port city of Corinth (helloo, sailor!), and how men would worship Cybele the Earth Goddess...by castrating themselves.

Some of my Danish pre-christian ancestors worshipped a god called "Odin Glutter of the Crows"...google 'blood eagle' to find out about the ritual mutilation of victims on the battlefield. Uppsala in Sweden was once a centre of human sacrifice.

My Irish pagan ancestors used to perform human sacrifices. Ancient Celts used to worship their gods by - among other things - putting people in wicker baskets and burning them alive. Then there are those Inca human sacrifices whose mummified remains are still found on mountain tops.

And, of course, we all know about the Thuggee cult; and the Aztec practices of human sacrifice (ripping out hearts, or else, flaying alive), to gain victims for which, they made war on all their neighbours.

Islam is simply a de facto human sacrifice religion, the only one still going strong in the modern world. What was done on September 11 2001 (and what was done at Beslan, also early in September a few years after that), was an act of ritual human sacrifice on the grand scale. It was *both* an act of war, by Muslims against non-Muslims, to increase and demonstrate the power of Islam, *and* (because allah is, in effect, a war demon, a blood god) an act of human sacrifice, with Infidels as the allah-designated victims. The Muslims doing the murdering intended that the blood of their murder-victims would provide their (the Muslims') ticket/s to paradise. I think 'honor' murders should be understood as a manifestation of this dynamic, as well: 'purifying' the family by sadistic ritual murder of nubile females.

Only at the moment, unlike other groups such as the Aztecs which did their thing right out in the open all the time, the Muslims do (or plot to do) their evil thing and at the same time put on a politely-smiling mask and lie and deny - the Ummah, considered as a gestalt, behaves *exactly* like the average psychopathic serial killer, the John Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer. The object being to evade detection and punishment (if dealing with powerful, suspicious outsiders) or else to seduce (if dealing with naive persons who have been identified as suitable potential victims).

Once again, we see in the comments signs that some Jihad Watch "civilians" are on a point farther out on the learning curve than one of their representatives, in this case Wafa Sultan. (Whether they refrain from adverting to this disparity out of respect & politeness to her, or whether they are strangely oblivious to it, is another matter.)

Courreges, for example, in his response to Josephine. The latter -- with an unhesitating elegance which seems to elude Spencer and many other of our representatives of the still inchoate anti-Islam movement -- wrote (in reaction to Daisy Khan's assertion that "you cannot remove 1400 years of evolution of a faith and just call it a bad religion"):

"Watch me:

Islam is a bad religion.

There. I did it."

And Courreges responded:

"Exactly. As bad as Fascism and Nazism.."

Now let's take a look at a couple of statements by Wafa Sultan deeper in her article than quoted in the Jihad Watch post:

"Islam is in dire need of an enlightenment to transport its doctrines from the middle-ages to modernity... Reformation to bring Islamic doctrine into a genuinely moderate position is desperately needed."

An analogy will help clarify the problem with Sultan's observations here -- and a fine analogy was provided by Courreges above. Let us perform an experiment, and substitute "Nazism" for "Islam" in Wafa Sultan's observations (along with a couple of minor tweaks):

"Nazism is in dire need of an enlightenment to transport its doctrines from the Hitler regime to modernity... Reformation to bring Nazi doctrine into a genuinely moderate position is desperately needed."

See the clarity this provides? Sultan's statements become instantly preposterous. Now, why can't she (and many others ostensibly on our side) see this, and why do they repeat these observations in one permutation or another, knowing what they know about Islam? Indeed, Nazism not only serves as a useful analogy in this regard, Islam is far worse than Nazism.

There seems to be a rather significant retardant factor afoot even within the still inchoate anti-Islam movement, inhibiting logical progress along the learning curve to the twin epiphany:

Islam is evil and dangerous,

and

All Muslims who enable Islam are evil and dangerous.

One problem remains with this twin epiphany: the wiggle room provided by the qualifying phrase in the second statement. It basically functions as a hole in the epiphany into which varying degrees of corrosive PC MC may seep in, depending on the person and the degree of PC MC still resident in his intellectual and affective system. One hopes that as the learning curve progresses and discussion ensues over the following decades, that hole will be effectively plugged up on a pragmatic level.

"..and there are millions and billions of Muslims that are good, honorable people."

That's true, and the reason is: They are not TRUE Muslims.

You don't know it's true: you are simply assuming that it must be true. Neither side of this issue knows whether, or not, there are "millions and millions of Muslims that are good" -- but the ones who are skeptical of that apodictic axiom have mountains of circumstantial evidence indicating otherwise.

Given that we are also talking about the potential for dire, horrific attacks on us in the decades ahead (and/or possibly day after tomorrow), it is unconscionably reckless to err on the side of giving Muslims the benefit of our generously Western doubt.

From duh swami...That site gave me the swamisuderbruder bug...
Stay away from it...

"Ancient Celts used to worship their gods by - among other things - putting people in wicker baskets and burning them alive."

Reminds me of a movie "The Wicker Man."

Thanks. I compare Islam to Nazism for the obvious reasons. Islam has a rabid pathological hatred of Jewish people, the first Jewish Holocaust occurred in the 7th century AD by Mohamet, the Koran and ahadith are filled with Jew-hating, Muslims fought on the side of Hitler in WW2, Muslims today would love to see Israel destroyed and all "Zionists" snuffed out of existence.

Remember a year ago in a town in Florida a protest of some sort? Muslims held up signs that read "Jews to the ovens" and "Hitler didn't finish the job," plus other repellent and evil slogans. Anyone recall what I'm talking about?

So Hesp what are the reasons you equate Islam and Nazism?

I agree with your general drift here, Hesperado. For me, Islam is a spiritual (religious) version of Nazism. To the extent I disagree with you about not treating all Muslims as one would Nazis, this is due to what I've brought up before and that is that while comparisons between Islam and Nazism are valid, they are not complete. A major reason for this is that Islam incorporated far more good religious elements into its warped system than Nazism ever did from valid political systems.

I know already you think that any Judaic, Zoroastrian and Christian concepts in Islam are superficial, but they are there nonetheless and this is one of the two main reasons why Islam has gotten a pass in a way that secular totalitarian ideologies have not. The other major reason is due PRECISELY to the fact that Islam is a real religion (though wicked) and not a substitute secular religion like Nazism, Marxism or Modern Leftism. Hence, and for these two reasons, it is only to be expected that a greater percentage of Muslims will not, repeat NOT, be evil than were fascists and Communists. You wish to simplify too much (ironic because you are a complicated thinker). It's more complex and muddled than you make it out to be, though I am in complete agreement with you that Islam is evil. But it is a masterly disguised form of evil, again PRECISELY because of the two reasons I've already mentioned. However, many, many Muslims are not evil though ALL Muslims are confused.

One last note for all who are interested. The first holocaust of the Jewish people, as far as I know, would be the obliteration of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) of the Jews by the Assyrians around 720 B.C. when Sargon II was ruler of the Assyrian Empire. This is what gave rise to the many stories and legends of the Ten Lost Tribes. Just for the record.

"...so what's the big deal about Muslims lying? Plenty. Their religion sanctions it" ...

Yeah, the qur'an instructs muslims to LIE! ...some 'holy' book, eh? Not!

Courreges,

I compare Islam to Nazism for the obvious reasons. Islam has a rabid pathological hatred of Jewish people...

So Hesp what are the reasons you equate Islam and Nazism?

Along with Jew-hatred and Judaeophobia, other similarities:

2) capability and desire to mobilize (and participate in) mass fanaticism

3) supremacism

4) expansionism

5) violence and terror as integral instruments #1-4.

(There are a few other similarities, as Andrew Bostom has noted in a few articles, some so striking in specificity one wonders whether early Nazis actually consciously used Islam as a model: example, the Blitzkrieg tactic resembles the razzia attacks which Muslims have been inflicting on their bloody borders all over the world for centuries.)

One clarification: I did not "equate" Islam and Nazism, but noted their similarity -- and I pointedly added that Islam is worse:

1) Islam is able to command a mass fanaticism that is far broader (spanning over 50 nations around the globe) and deeper (psychologically) than anything the German Nazis, the Italian & Spanish Fascists, or any of the Communists were able to do. The closest in this regard might be the Chinese Communists and the Japanese Imperialists, but even those, I maintain, do not hold a candle to Islam.

2) Islam has a venerable historical and rich cultural life, spanning 1400 years, while Nazism, Fascism and Communism were only recently cobbled-together ideologies lasting less than 40 years in the case of Nazism (with of course pathetically rag-tag and imp;otent "neo-Nazism" hanging on over the years after WW2) and some 60 for Communism.

3) Islam has a long historical record of remarkable military victories and major conquests, conquering a greater empire than Alexander the Great or the Romans, and demonstrating a capability to gain power over people to subjugate, enslave, oppress and terrorize them from the Atlantic to the Pacific. (Of course, that record waned dramatically after the end of the 17th century: but the point is, it is there, deeply informing the collective psyche of Muslims, capable of inspiring them far greater than the far shorter resume of the Nazis and Communism.)

Only in one regard could (and indeed do) some argue otherwise: in the sense that there are simply so many multitudes of Muslims, and those multitudes are so diverse and spread out over the globe, it is argued that innumerable numbers of them cannot possibly be beholden to the galvanizing fanaticism of normative Islam, and so my factors 1-3 would be accordingly diminished by the hypothesis of all these "lax" or "ignorant" Muslims who must exist out there.

The West needs to really understand its enemies. I have personal experience of being conned (and burnt)just because I took people at their words. I'm pretty sure that they will easily pass lie detector tests. I do believe however truth prevails and our Democracy will prevail, in the end. It does require "eternal vigilance." As the time goes on, Daisy Khan, her husband and the likes will continue to expose themselves as lying is their second nature and comes as naturally as breathing. Be prepared to see them turn ugly like a wicked witch, when their facade falls.

As you point out, Daisy's representative (oops, I mean interviewer) skirts journalistic responsibilities by not asking his subject to elaborate upon any of the provocations oozing from her media-practiced mouth. In this kid-glove treatment of Muslims as practiced by much of the media (not just this one de-facto acolyte), we see the willing suspension of disbelief that is anathema to free journalism.

The question is, why?

As many have pointed out, the major, left-leaning (oxymoron) media ignore, bury, or distort big stories that would properly feature the anti-islamization movement. Is this merely the uniform bias of reporters? Editorial prescription and proscription? Commercial interests? Governmental "suggestion"?

Western Liberal Media on the Collision of Secular and Islamic Cultures = Colossal Collusion & Connivance

Charges of treason would not be out of place in some instances. I worry deeply that inroads are being made by forces for evil.

I choke to witness the strewing of rose petals in the paths of malevolents!

Twisted borrowings by Islam, Hesperado, from Christianity and other religions certainly is the case (the example of Jesus you provided is a good one), but even twisted appropriations can appeal to non-believers if they are ignorant of all the twists, which most are. I've had more than one person tell me that Muslims honor Jesus too (parroting what Muslims themselves say) and this was enough for these people. In short, superficial and twisted borrowings by Islam can impress the uninformed in large numbers and thus give Islam a huge advantage, which it still has to this day. You and I know too much about Islam to be fooled here, but most don't possess the knowledge that we do (though more are gaining it with each passing year) and thus my basic premise remains which is that the incorporation of Judaic, Christian and Zoroastrian (e.g., first to develop the concept of the Messiah, which is called Saoshyant) tenets, HOWEVER TWISTED, still can be used for Islam's benefit. Big time.

I'm surprised that you can't see that an evil ideology doesn't necessarily make everyone who is a believer in that ideology evil. Take the KKK for example. It's an evil organization but I don't think that the housewife who is a KKK member or her children who are decked out in little KKK outfits (tragic to be sure) are evil. Hell, I don't thnk every grown man in the KKK is evil, "merely" a confused, ignorant and limited human being. The recently deceased Senator Robert Byrd of West Virgina was a KKK member for many years. Now, I've never been a fan of his but even in his KKK days I wouldn't have referred to him as evil. Screwed up perhaps. Damn ignorant. Distastefully politically oppotunistic, but not wicked. Ditto for many who embrace Marxism, fascist organizations and other totalitarian like systems (including Islam of course). Some in these would be evil but not all, though all would be confused human beings. A couple other examples here should suffice. In the ante-bellum South you had many white slave owners. Now, some were evil men but most were not even though the institution of slavery was wicked. Take Jefferson Davis for example (or George Washington). Do you think he was an evil man because he participated in and tried to preserve an institution which was itself evil? And how about good ole' Gus Hall? You know, the American rube who was head for years of the tiny Communist Party in the United States and ran for President I don't know how many times. I don't see Hall as evil, just a buffoon. Well, you get my drift.

As for my hypothesis, it comes from reflection, knowledge and experience. I have actually met Muslims who have been very gracious in discourse with me. Two took care of my wife when she had cancer and they were as kind to her as anyone could be. No way I could describe such people as wicked or evil. Still confused though. And what they believe in remains malevolent. Take care.

Wellington,

"...even twisted appropriations can appeal to non-believers if they are ignorant of all the twists, which most are."

I wasn't addressing the problem of gullible non-Muslims, but the problem of the hypothesis of the "good Muslims" who are putatively supposed to be persisting in defending their Islam out of honorably humane reasons which -- so I thought your argument went -- were being nourished by their Islam, if only through the accident of Islam having supposedly "incorporated" good elements into its system, and perhaps also buttressed by their supposed ignorance of the evil and dangerous elements of their Islam.

"I'm surprised that you can't see that an evil ideology doesn't necessarily make everyone who is a believer in that ideology evil."

I've already distinguished before in our exchanges surrounding this particular issue the important distinction between evil and dangerous. Followers in Satanic cults may be deemed "evil" but unless of course they start abducting children for Satanic rituals, they are not dangerous per se. Closely related to this there is the issue of degrees of danger: some individuals and groups are dangerous, but less so than others. Thus, KKK members may be said to present a danger, but of a degree astronomically lower than the danger presented by Muslims (thus each respective group necessitating distinct and appropriately apportioned counter-measures by our societies protecting ourselves from them).

"Take the KKK for example. It's an evil organization but I don't think that the housewife who is a KKK member or her children who are decked out in little KKK outfits (tragic to be sure) are evil."

This specific discussion, then, is not relevant to the danger presented by Muslims, given

a) the nature of the threat the dangerous Muslims present

b) taqiyya (rendering our ability to discern the difference between the dangerous Muslim and the harmless Muslim impossible on certain levels)

c) the complex facilitating interaction between ostensible jihadists and ordinary seemingly un-jihadist Muslims

d) the even possibly accidental but nevertheless concrete facilitation which the putatively harmless Muslims provide by merely existing in, and continuing to immigrate into, the West in large numbers.

As for this tangential discussion about evil and responsibility, you asked:

"Take Jefferson Davis for example (or George Washington). Do you think he was an evil man because he participated in and tried to preserve an institution which was itself evil? And how about good ole' Gus Hall? You know, the American rube who was head for years of the tiny Communist Party in the United States and ran for President I don't know how many times. I don't see Hall as evil, just a buffoon. Well, you get my drift."

I don't see how a person who actively supports an evil institution cannot be said to be evil. The only way to absolve such a person is to prove that they are sufficiently ignorant of the evil policies and/or activities of the evil system they support. Gus Hall could not possibly have been that ignorant. Nor does it absolve a person of responsibility if they are starry-eyed and might sincerely believe they are doing good. Again, as with Courreges above, an analogy should focus clarity onto this issue. Consider an organization that believes in raping and murdering little girls, and not only teaches its members that this is good, but also has some members actively doing this with real little girls. How could one possibly argue that any individual who continues to support such an organization can squeak away from being rightly branded as evil himself? The only way, again, to absolve such a person, would be if one could prove that person was genuinely ignorant of the evil of the organization he otherwise supports.

But as I said, this issue of ethical responsibility for evil is tangential to the more exigent issue of the danger which Muslims pose for our societies.

"As for my hypothesis, it comes from reflection, knowledge and experience. I have actually met Muslims who have been very gracious in discourse with me. Two took care of my wife when she had cancer and they were as kind to her as anyone could be. No way I could describe such people as wicked or evil. Still confused though. And what they believe in remains malevolent."

I don't care if a Muslim acted nice as the day is long and even risked his own life to save my child's life: I would still prejudicially cavity-search him at the airport; among other rational measures calculated to protect our societies.

What your last comment boils down to, Hesperado, is that any someone who belongs to an evil organization should be treated as possibly evil but certainly dangerous. I don't have a real beef with this analysis, though I would contend that there are a whole series of tests, not foolproof but approaching so, which could be utilized to insure that members of a wicked organization don't get away with anything illegal or inimical to the interests of free societies (of course, this would mean finally getting rid of PC/MC nonsense).

I would begin with a strict observance of the law in Western nations, which would, as examples, severely punish honor killings and FGM and expand such law to incorporate concepts of reciprocity (a la Benedict XVI), thus disallowing (on whatever technical grounds) any more building of mosques until churches and synagogues arise in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands. I'd also end Muslim immigration to the West until the Muslim world grows up. And if that is never (and it might be), then no more Muslim immigration to our portion of the dar-al-harb forever, i.e., treat Muslims like Marxists or Nazis. After all, Western law is not a suicide pact and it should flex its legal muscle far more than it has to date.