Here hear, Dr. Sultan. I wish more people had your reasoning.

Posted by: mustang65 at March 11, 2006 8:00 AM

Robert! Robert!

You have got to post this. Here is Marina Mahathir, the daughter of the former President Mahathir of Malaysia, criticizing Sharia law in Malaysia!

http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2006/3/10/lifefocus/13565323&sec=lifefocus

No cheer for Muslim women

By MARINA MAHATHIR

In 1948, one of humankind’s most despicable ideas, apartheid, was made into law in South Africa where racial discrimination was institutionalised. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of “white-only” jobs. Although there were 19 million blacks and only 4.5 million whites in South Africa, the majority population were forced to be second-class citizens in their homeland, banished to reserves and needing passports to travel outside them, even within their own country. It was only in 1990 that apartheid began to crumble and South Africans of all colours were finally free to live as equals in every way.

With the end of that racist system, people may be forgiven for thinking that apartheid does not exist anymore. While few countries practise any formal systems of discrimination, nevertheless you can find many forms of discrimination everywhere. In many cases, it is women who are discriminated against. In our country, there is an insidious growing form of apartheid among Malaysian women, that between Muslim and non-Muslim women.

We are unique in that we actively legally discriminate against women who are arguably the majority in this country, Muslim women. Non-Muslim Malaysian women have benefited from more progressive laws over the years while the opposite has happened for Muslim women.

For instance, since the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, polygamy among non-Muslims was banned. Previously men could have as many wives as they wanted under customary laws. Men’s ability to unilaterally pronounce divorce on their wives was abolished and, in its place, divorce happens by mutual consent or upon petition by either spouse in an equal process where the grounds are intolerable adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion of not less than two years, and living separately for not less than two years. Compare that to the lot of Muslim women abandoned but not divorced by their husbands.

Other progressive reforms in the civil family law in the late 1990s were amendments to the Guardianship Act and the Distribution Act. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 was amended to provide for equal guardianship for both father and mother, rather than the previous provision where only the father was the primary guardian of the children. In contrast, the Islamic Family Law still provides for the father as the sole primary guardian of his children although the mother is now allowed to sign certain forms for her children under an administrative directive.

The Distribution Act 1958 was also amended to provide for equal inheritance for widows and widowers, and also granted children the right to inherit from their mothers as well as from their fathers. Under the newly proposed amendments to the Islamic Family Law, the use of gender-neutral language on the issue of matrimonial property is discriminatory on Muslim women when other provisions in the IFL are not gender-neutral. Muslim men may still contract polygamous marriages, may unilaterally divorce their wives for the most trivial of reasons and are entitled to double shares of inheritance.

These differences between the lot of Muslim women and non-Muslim women beg the question: do we have two categories of citizenship in Malaysia, whereby most female citizens have less rights than others? As non-Muslim women catch up with women in the rest of the world, Muslim women here are only going backwards. We should also note that only in Malaysia are Muslim women regressing; in every other Muslim country in the world, women have been gaining rights, not losing them.

Posted by: Mentat at March 11, 2006 8:17 AM

If she is not protected physically she will not last long. Anyone who dares speak out openly is at risk and especially so if that person is a Muslim.

The above statement says as much as she does....we all take it for granted that if you open your mouth you become a jihadic target. Surely that must sink in eventually?

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 8:35 AM

"Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose."
I think we often cast this a clash of modernity versus barbarism, but really, modernity has its flaws as well. I think it is a more permanent struggle over the question of what is a just society.
p.s.
Thanks, Mentat. I posted the article.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 11, 2006 8:44 AM

Ah...a great black-haired hope for Islam!
I sadly expect they will try to murder her. After all, violence is the only weapon they have against reason and decency.

Posted by: nhoop616 at March 11, 2006 8:59 AM

They will try to murder her, of course. But her message is out and they can't put that genie back in the bottle. And people are starting to see and talk about, just like with the cartoons, what the irrational and dangerous response is whenever a Muslim belief is criticised. And they are getting sick of it.

Let the backlash begin.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 11, 2006 9:08 AM

Mentat

Interesting article -

This is a test case for introducing Islamic law – for the Islamic peoples of Western nations.

When compared to women in Western nations – women in Islamic nations are almost always at a disadvantage.

In this case – with a duel law system within Malaysia – one Islamic and one not – it is clear that the Islamic woman are at a serious disadvantage compared with those Malaysian women who are non-Islamic.

This should be used as an example of why we should never permit Islamic laws to be used in any Western nation. At the moment Islamic women benefit from the rights and freedoms, which Western laws provide - whether they take advantage of these or not. Introducing Islamic law on the other hand would mean that Islamic women would loose these rights and freedoms – within a Western nation.

I don’t see how we can justify that.

Posted by: Pass It On at March 11, 2006 9:21 AM

May the true God bless her.

Notice that she speaks as "a secular person." Is a righteous Islam possible, of a kind that would not fall into a grim darkness in a later generation?

There is reason to doubt, but here is a Web site of Sheikh Palazzi: http://www.amislam.com/

Posted by: StillBreathing at March 11, 2006 9:29 AM

StillBreathing(hehe so am I...obviously:))

If I recall it correctly Sheikh Palazzi lost a lot of credibility when he refused to allow an interview with Ali Sina of Faith Freedom.

Personally I doubt whether any islamic religious leader who professes moderation and yet is still alive to boast about it, cannot really be serious and that his pose is simply a sop for western dhimmi ears and another example of the eternal islamic disinformation for kaffirs.

To ignore the koranic sura which espouse violence is (by Sharia law) to apostasise...and everyone knows what that means.

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 9:52 AM

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

Did she actually say this? because I beg to disagree. Nothing the jihadis have done so far is a 'distortion'. That sounds like something an RoP-apologist would say. I suppose a positive voice from the mohammedian world is better than nothing.

Posted by: mistyhymen at March 11, 2006 9:54 AM

This mass fatwa of doom with the Riddah death penalty should have received more attention.

For too long we've been saying "they must be joking" or "they're crazy." They're not joking and it's learned behavior.

In an interview with the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram Al-Arabi, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, one of the most prominent clerics in Sunni Islam and among Islamist circles and a spiritual leader for the Muslim Brotherhood movement, discussed the view of modern religious law on carrying out the punishment for ridda, and permitted the murder of free Muslim intellectuals whose views differ from those of Islamist clerics.

Posted by: Beagle at March 11, 2006 9:55 AM

She needs to unite with like-minded reformers/ apostates who wish to preserve the essence of what "religion" of Islam can be saved from the violence and extremism and imperefections of its founding "porphet".

A FREE ISLAM! movement, under one banner, -to enlighten the average, anxious Muslim , as well as the supersitious minority of dangerous fanatics, about the metaphorical and poetic nature of all language, especially Arabic.

And how increases in human understanding in every other realm (-science, art, philosophy, pyschology, comparative religion, foundation mythologies, genetic history, paleobiology, etc.) has to also throw new light on all religious texts. Otherwise we are deying our intellgence its full scope. (As if we would ignore air travel as a species because it wasn't mentioned in the Torah/Bible/Rig-Veda/Popul Vuh/et as?)

We have to put aside the primitive.

Especially in "religion".

Things like "honor" killings, contempt for women, fear of free inquiry, fear of apostacy, fear of skeptical thought (about 'how we know' and 'what belief is'), fear of creative thought (representational art, music, etc.).

These simplistic views of "law" lead to terrorizing people. For ideas supposedly of compassion.

The disconnect is apparent to everyone but Muslims.

This is where the Islamic reformers needs to begin: ending the Islamo-literaist's interpretations of the Koran whereby it can then used for justifying ANY terroristic violence.

Teach YOUR CHILDREN, AND THESE EXTREMISTS, that the Koran is not 'a call to kill others', but 'to kill the hatreds in their own souls'.

They've mistaken a lyrical line for a battle line.

Compassion has to spread lovingly, or it is a lie.

FREE ISLAM! from its unconsciousness.

And fatal literalism.

And return it to the beauty and profundity of poetry.

The knot of dogma is also Gordian.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 11, 2006 10:05 AM

"She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence."

Ain't that the truth. She's a psychologist who grasps basic psychodynamic principles. The Muslim world seems to be in dire need of more psychologists to bring them up to speed with the west. They don't seem to have any basic understanding of what introspection is, to start with. Maybe Muslim women will take the lead here in bringing them up to speed.

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 10:57 AM

Wonderfully said Profitsbeard even if I disagree with the probability of doing to.

The idea of sanitising the Koran has value in theory. Many of those I have talked to about it always accent its virtues as opposed to the vices which many of us see as drowning or masking any view of it.

My problem is that to almost all Muslims total submission(ie Islam) and openly editing the Koran are incompatible. As soon as you modify it it isn't Islam but some bastard subvariant. Over 1500 years this hurdle has never been crossed and now with the current wave of militancy the bar is probbaly as high as it ever was.

In addition, the subjugation, the intolerance and the measured hour by hour day and even the violence are actually seen as virtues by many muslims as a function of their childhood madrassa indoctrination. It would take 2-3 generations of open madrassaless life before such a step would be possible.

To present an impossible ideal as a yellow brick road to peace is fraught with danger (*cringes*).

Posted by: Zathras at March 11, 2006 11:00 AM

I hope Dr. Wafa Sultan is the genuine article!!!!When so called Muslim 'liberals' issue statements, one must wonder whether it's really true or genuine? If that is so, one has to question, why are they still followers of Mohamed?
One must be careful to take statements at their face value, when made by any Muslim (Takiya), the reason being that moderate Islam usually is bi-polar. Internally, they are a racist, theocratic and absolutist political people who (uses fiery rhetoric to) glorify terrorism privately and actively recruits to Islam's (fascist) cause. Externally, when interviewed or speaking to non muslins , they express themselves in the most anodyne (not likely to offend or arouse tensions) and uncontroversial terms and offer platitudes (old familiar tunes which we have heard so often). I only hope she means what she says and stands by it.

Posted by: faqi at March 11, 2006 11:07 AM

mistyhymen

You're absolutely right. I've watched the interview several times, and nowhere in it does she say Islam has been distorted by Jihadists/clerics/whomever.

That would been ridiculously inconsistent with her message that Islam is evil at core. This is precisely why she's getting death threats.

Obviously, the writer/editor tried to falsify her message to make it more palatable to the left.
If I were her, I would issue a correction. She must see how the media are in cahoots with the Islamists. She must see they need to be fought as hard as Islam.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 11, 2006 11:14 AM

A group in Germany has taken the Koran to court, arguing that certain passages (over 200) in the Koran are incompatible with the German Constitution, and that the Koran is a political rather the solely religious text.

Might Islam be reformed from without, if this effort is successful?

Posted by: treehugger at March 11, 2006 11:15 AM

Los Angeles Times Gets It Wrong

Surprise. Paragraph three of the article states that Dr. Sultan thought that the teachings of Mohammed had been "distorted." Not at all, Dr. Sulton clearly states that she is a "secular being" and that she does not believe in "supernatural" things. She, in fact, refers to the Crusades and says that they were a reaction to the aggression of Islam. Gosh I sure hope whe has a body guard.

I saw the tape and she was amazing, really amazing.

Posted by: Athena at March 11, 2006 11:15 AM

I doubt Wafa Sultan is a Muslim, just a proud
Arab human being who is horrified at what Islam
has done to her people and the rest of the world.

Who knows what the Arabs might have been able to
accomplish had they not adopted this vile cult!

Posted by: American at March 11, 2006 11:19 AM

This statement of hers seems to indicate that she is an apostate, rather than a "liberal" Muslim: "She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said."

But then this statement seems to contradict that slightly: "I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book.""

Perhaps she thinks of herself as "a non-practicing (cultural?) Muslim" or something. It isn't really clear.

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 11:26 AM

AnneCrockett

"I think we often cast this a clash of modernity versus barbarism, but really, modernity has its flaws as well."

Well now, I didn't think I would see a "tu quoque"--actually an "ego quoque"--argument here.

Of course modernity has its flaws. So what? How does that change what Sultan says, that modernity, however you define it, is still better for human beings than Islam. She's saying, to use your language, that Islam is an unjust society, and a deadly one at that.

It's sad to see how much cultural relativism has permeated the way we think. Any comparison, any scale, any thinking in degree and hyerarchy in culture and society is suspicious a priori, without examination and analysis.

Sultan unequivocally repudiates Islam. Just like Hirsi Ali. That's why her message is so powerful and threatening to Muslims.

Talking about "distortion":

Let's not dilute or distort her courageous stance like the NYT does. It would be an insult to her.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 11, 2006 11:34 AM

profitsbeard

"They've mistaken a lyrical line for a battle line."

With all due respect...are you smoking something funny? I don't recognize you anymore.

You surely must know you can't build a theology and an ethics and a regulatory code on "lyrical"--I think you mean "allegorical"--interpretations alone. It can't be done.

If you're saying the Quran should be read like a piece of literature, nothing else, that's fine with me. I did it and it read like Homer on hashish and LSD. But don't expect the Muslims to be ready to do so anytime soon. That would be the equivallent of tearing out their spine and brain--a punishment Mohammed apparently visited on his enemies.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 11, 2006 11:53 AM

"Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."...

How true Dr. Sultan. I am glad that she is courageous enough to speak the truth about her enlightened understanding of Islam. The fact that she is facing death threats and intimidation from the Muslim community is a powerful witness that coercion, intimidation, and manipulation are at the most inner core of Islam.

It is through knowledge that Muslims will come to really understand that Muhammad was not really a prophet nor a holy man who was divinely inspired to reveal the truth to humankind.

Releasing a group of people from the bondage of deceit and ignorance is a noble task that is well worth pursuing.

Brave voices like Dr. Sultan's are sorely needed in today's world to help Muslims come to grips with the honest truth about their religious faith.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 11, 2006 12:08 PM

"modernity has its flaws as well" wrote Anne Crocket.

Response:

1) what system does not have flaws?

2) the most damning flaw of Islam is that it inculcates an obsession with perfection, and denial of flaws

3) modernity (i.e., the modern West) is the best system in all world history, not because it is flawless, but because it wears its flaws well.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 11, 2006 12:39 PM

"one has to question, why are they still followers of Mohamed?"

The fact that Dr. Sultan continues to revere Mohammed and a supposedly flawless (or, at least, unobjectionable) original Islam -- this effectively sinks everything else she says.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 11, 2006 12:42 PM

Wafa Sultan states what is or should be obvious to all, but is the unheard-of truth to Muslims, and never said aloud. For this she deserves to be celebrated. And so to - let them not be overlooked -- should Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and others who have been saying things like this for many years.

There is one problem. If Wafa Sultan is not seen as the very great exception that she is, but rather as some kind of example of "what's happening" among thoroughly-modern Muslims, that would be a dangerous illusion.

She is the very great exception, and only a handful think like her. Policy cannot be made on the basis of the very great, and very rare, exceptions. One did not cease to conduct the Cold War because Andrey Sakharov or Andrey Amalrik swam into our ken. One did nto cease to fight Germany until 60% of its cities were destroyed, and complete capitulation demanded and received, just because of Sophie Scholl and the White Rose few dozens, or those who, like von Stauffenberg, tried to kill Hitler.

One should not have made policy in Iraq on the basis of quite unrepresentative, thoroughly secular and Westernized, and largely Shi'a, exiles from Saddam Hussein.

One should not let up for a minute and think that now "it's time to go easy on Muslims" and not take measures that some think rational, justified, indispensable, because of the existence of "all those Wafa Sultans." Wafa Sultan, not Wafa Sultans.

That should be kept firmly in mind.

Posted by: Hugh at March 11, 2006 12:52 PM

omvi

"I think we've found a winner for the next Anti-Dhimmi Award."

I'll second that and raise it: Dr. Sultan winner of the Noble Peace Prize.

Of course, for that to happen .. the West would first need to come out of denial and own our own values ... Then again, Wafa Sultan seems just the woman to help unfreeze the complex of denial that holds the West so firmly in it's grasp.

Posted by: Daisytoo at March 11, 2006 2:57 PM

The original article continues with:

"DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that — if it is published — it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."

"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."

The working title is, 'The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster'."

I hope her book is published in English, Arabic and many other languages. It sounds like she might rank up there with Ibn Warraq and other brave ex-Muslims.

Perhaps a video examination of real Islam with Dr. Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Hirsan Ali, and others who know Islam from within could be made.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 11, 2006 3:28 PM

Dr. Sultan is fantastically unapologetic. This gets media attention, and she gets the right kind of attention focussed on Islam. I hope she hires security.

I wish her well with her project. Perhaps her background in psychology will give her some additional insight into that "monstrous God" (i.e., Mohammad).

Posted by: Archimedes at March 11, 2006 3:44 PM

For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats

It's the Luddites vs. the communications revolution of the past 40 years.

I have noticed that it's part of human nature to regress when faced with a shock. You actually see people physically step back when they are told a loved one died, their house has burned down, etc, etc. People seem to revert to some child-like state under such conditions, crying, lashing out, etc. It happens to us all when we face a trauma.

The Moslem world is facing a trauma and the culprits are the science and communications technology-revolution of the second half of the 20th century that allows thought to cross any border, thought that often challenges (even lampoons) their political and religious dogmas.

If their culture is to regain balance, they must step foward and take rational control of their emotions and solve the challenge posed to their culture by the communications revolution-and stop acting like big babies.

Though I am no psychologist, I think Waffa Sultan might see a good deal of insight in my remarks. The Moslem world is in a state of what psychologists call "regression."

Posted by: Frank at March 11, 2006 4:16 PM

Daisytoo

"I'll second that and raise it: Dr. Sultan winner of the Noble Peace Prize. "

I wouldn't wish that award on anyone I respect in the fields of literature and "peace." The Peace award is utterly meritless, sheer political jockeying. The literature award has become increasingly like the Peace award. It's all about radical and fashionable politics.

I hate self-congratulatory, indulgent awards anyway. To the genuine, passionate soul they spell conformity and the death of the mind.

I hope Ms. Sultan is not going to be coopted by the culture of vacuous, celebrity merit, by the orthodoxy of peaceful multicultural coexistence.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 11, 2006 4:57 PM

Frank: "Though I am no psychologist,..."

Perhaps not, but you obviously stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.:-)

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 5:24 PM

Caroline,

In the print version of the paper, this article is on the front page, and the headline is: "Muslim's Blunt Criticism of Islam Draws Threats and Some Hope."

Immediately, something didn't sound right. I had vaguely remembered thinking Dr. Sultan proclaimed herself an apostate. I went back to the Memri transcript (http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050) and saw this:

"I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being."

In the Times, they have this paragraph:

"She said she no longer practices Islam. 'I am a secular human being,' she said."

Note the subtle decision to paraphrase rather than quote, and the subtle distortion from not being a Muslim to no longer practicing Islam.

Could it be that The New Duranty Times couldn't bring themselves to describe her as she describes herself--as an apostate, an ex-Muslim.

Could it be that the New Duranty Times knew her story was newsworthy but couldn't bring themselves to introduce the phrase "ex-Muslim" or "apostate" to describe her--to identify this Arab woman they're clearly praising as anything but a "Muslim"?

Indeed, none of her quotes in the article refute her apostate self-identification, and I think her reference to "our" people is most certainly a reference to Arabs.

If she herself says she is not a Muslim, it is libel for the NY Times to say otherwise.

Does anyone else think this is an important issue?

Makes me want to write the Times a letter to make the point.

Posted by: kamala at March 11, 2006 6:01 PM

ovidius_naso-

I'm tryin to give the secularists a little "plausible sounding" ammunition to help defuse some jihadists.

Any militants they can sidetrack with appeals to reform the better.

I see little sign of any groups or leaders within Islam holding enough sway to change the thought of many Muslims worldwide. Not about modernizing their view of the Koran. But, if these former-Muslims, secularists, apostates, etc. want to give it a shot, they could help defuse terrorism as we fight the more overt war.

If you give people in this "faith" an escape route, it may lead to spiritual apostates, who utterly renounce violence.

I just want to see the moderates in action.

Just once.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 11, 2006 6:32 PM

kamala: "Note the subtle decision to paraphrase rather than quote"

Now that you so astutely point it out, yes I do.

"Could it be that the New Duranty Times knew her story was newsworthy but couldn't bring themselves to introduce the phrase "ex-Muslim" or "apostate" to describe her-"

Yes. very interesting.

"I think her reference to "our" people is most certainly a reference to Arabs."

That would make more sense than my inference that she considers herself a "cultural" Muslim.

"Does anyone else think this is an important issue?"

Well I do in the sense that I can see the investment that the NDT would have in presenting her as a progressive "Muslim" rather than flat-out acknowledging that only a Muslim apostate could come to the conclusions she does. Because that wouldn't reflect very well on their agenda to convince the rest of us that Islam is no problem, because "behold the moderate", would it? But then, on the other hand, I can see why she herself might create some of this obfuscation re her actual status as a Muslim because of the very real threats (as if she doesn't already face them with her comments) of officially coming out as an apostate. There is an ambiguity there, for sure. Whether the ambiguity conveyed in the article is due to the NDT agenda as opposed to self-preservation factors on the part of Ms Sultan, though, isn't at all clear.

Posted by: Caroline at March 11, 2006 6:53 PM

I have no qualms about the inherent betterness of the West. However, I do think that if you say whatever is modern is good then you are in the untenable position of saying "whatever is, is right." That is why "modern-ness" is a poor yardstick to use. It does not hold up to even a moment's thought. Truth suddenly becomes as mutable as hemlines moving up and down from year to year.
If you tell people their religion is just not modern enough, many of them will just smugly look heavenward and say sanctimoniously, "I'm proud to be out of touch."

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 11, 2006 7:05 PM

ovidius_naso,

And I stand corrected! I'm with you re: the Nobel Prize .. even though what I wrote holds no evidence of same :) I did intend to convey the idea that for that prize to become meaningful .. the West would need to come out of massive denial and own/reward our own values.

Next time I drink too much coffee I'll refrain from posting.

Posted by: Daisytoo at March 11, 2006 7:23 PM

What an incredible lady! I'm hoping that she will be protected by her extreme courage. She is such a celebrity now that it would be counter-productive for the Muslims to kill her. Well, actually it wouldn't, since they are primarily concerned with keeping their own in line. Still, I hope that she escapes, as Rushdie has so far. Now Rushdie got help from the UK government. It seems ours has been too callous to notice so far.

Hugh, you're on target with your remarks, but I think you should have expended more of your eloquence on this incredible woman before making your point.

Posted by: Benjamin at March 11, 2006 7:55 PM

Caroline,

For what it's worth, I just sent a polite yet blunt letter to Byron Calame, Public Editor of the New York Times. I suggested that unless there are other primary sources (e.g., Sultan herself) that identify her as a "Muslim," the article as-is is libelous.

I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: kamala at March 11, 2006 8:30 PM

The complete dismissal of Wafa Sultan's viewpoint by clerics and religious muslims should be considered carefully by naive westerners who may expect a "reformation" (toward tolerant or secular views) from within islam.

Any real tendency toward "reformation" within islam, in this century, has been toward a more hate-filled, "muslim-brotherhood-what-would-mohammed-do?" view. The few who might be considered by most JW/DW readers to be reformers, were/are given the takfir treatment, branded as apostates or heretics, and killed, or threatened with death to shut them up. That is, of course, if they are even taken seriously by any of their fellow muslims. See: Mahmoud Taha, Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali...

Btw, whatever happened to Khalid Duran? He was a fan of Taha. Taha was hanged in Sudan in 1985. Guess why?

Any real reformation must come from within. But between the self-"cleansing" (takfir, anyone?) nature of the ideology of islam, and unfortunately, instant global communications (which now make it more difficult for a reformer to fly under-the-radar, while developing a following), a tolerant reformation seems less likely than 20 or 50 years ago.

Hugh advocates a disengagement of the west from islamic countries, so that islam has no crutch, no one to blame, but itself, and is seen as responsible for these pathetic states of the OIC, filled with poverty, disease, hatred, and islam.

The more I think about it, the disengagement approach is wishful thinking. Western countries are becoming more entangled, rather than less entangled, with islam, year by year.

Energy independence is the number one, immediate, necessity, for disentanglement. I'm voting for the US presidential candidate with the best, at least satisfactory, plan.

Come on Dem's. The Republican's are dropping the ball, aside from rhetoric. Seize the day. Make it so.

Posted by: del at March 11, 2006 9:18 PM

ENOUGH!!!

ENOUGH OF THIS LIMINAL, AMORPHOUS BULLSHIT!!!

ISLAM HAS GOT TO GO, EN BLOC!!!

-- In vino veritas.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 11, 2006 9:21 PM

l just posted earlier about a women l heard on the radio, and now l read this article, and l am so impressed with this very brave smart lady! it is a trickle, but with more like her, and ability for her to get the word out, its ISLAM that allows these monsters to go on killing and killing!

Posted by: Lulu at March 11, 2006 10:23 PM

Daisytoo:

Don't refrain. Please. This place wouldn't be the same without your coffee highs--and Dr. Pepper's wine-drenched enthusiasm, and my own gin-and-tonic ramblings, only kept in check by two pairs of fabulous whiskers. I owe whatever sanity I have to them.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 11, 2006 11:57 PM

Ibn Warraq is someone who has been speaking out and writing about the dangers. See his podcast Why I am not a Muslim on Pointofenquiry.

Posted by: atanu at March 12, 2006 12:21 AM

From the article

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.
[................]
She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.

Ali Sina is on record as saying that the Islam of Osama, Zawahiri, Hamas, et al. is the true Islam, and that those who claim that Islam is not a vile religion are only engaging in self deception.

While Dr Wafa Sultan has done the right thing by exiting Islam, why is she claiming that the teachings of Mohammed and the Quran have been distorted? That does not educate infidels (outside these fora) about the true nature of Islam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 12, 2006 1:55 AM

Infidel Pride,

Many who have read this article think it's not Wafa who claims any distortion but instead the NY Times sanitizing her views--and similarly labeling her (still) a Muslim despite her statements to the contrary.

Posted by: kamala at March 12, 2006 1:58 AM

Totally agree with Kamala. The NYT writer needs some lessons on listening comprehension. If you watch the clip, Wafa Sultan never says that the article claims she said about the distortions of Islam. In fact, she categorically claims that Islam is to blame.

Posted by: atanu at March 12, 2006 4:53 AM

Re: Holiday Inn Express

That is one place to learn things about people, Caroline....

Posted by: Frank at March 12, 2006 8:25 AM

kamala

thanx

If she herself says she is not a Muslim, it is libel for the NY Times to say otherwise.

Does anyone else think this is an important issue?

YES
I was having doubts until this was pointed out

Posted by: shiva at March 12, 2006 12:58 PM

Perhaps a letter campaign to the New York Times might get some reversal or correction.

Byron Calame, the Public Editor, is probably a good place to start, since he supposedly is independent and is focused on factual errors.

According to the Web site,

"As the readers' representative, Mr. Calame responds to complaints and comments from the public and monitors the paper's journalistic practices."

See http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/calame-bio.html

He is at public@nytimes.com and they claim to read every single email.

Posted by: kamala at March 12, 2006 1:53 PM

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

This is a blatant lie on the part of the New Duranty Times. Nowhere in that interview - or in the newer one, FWIW - does she say that "the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran" have been "distorted".

This is contemptible behaviour on the part of a newspaper.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 12, 2006 3:03 PM

Seems hard to tell if it's a blatant lie by the "New York/Duranty Times". Everything I've read of the interview seems to be only excerpts from it.

Posted by: eduardo odraude at March 13, 2006 12:50 AM

One wonders if she really thought through in advance the huge risks of making the statements she made to Al-Jazeera. Or did she on more spontaneous outraged impulse reveal her true thoughts to the world? Without 24 hr. security for her whole family -- an expensive proposition few could afford -- can she realistically hope she and her family will survive long enough so that she can finish the book she is writing about when "God is a Monster"? It's not as if she is Ibn Warraq or Ali Sina, someone living incognito with an unknown address. I hope the FBI is paying attention to the death threats against her and providing security -- even though the agency has its hands full with much else.

Posted by: eduardo odraude at March 13, 2006 1:06 AM