In some countries, such as in the UK, hating someone because of that person’s race or religion is considered a hate crime and you will get sent to jail for it.
Most countries, however, considered 'hate' is not a crime. So it is not legally wrong if you hate Chinese, Indians, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on, although some can argue that it is morally wrong.
But morally wrong does not make it a crime. It is not a crime and is legal for a married man to frequent a brothel as the legal wife is having her red day period, similarly it is morally wrong to sleep with, say, your sister-in-law, but you will not be sent to jail for that. Likewise, it is legal to marry a 9 year old girl and is also considered morally right to do so if a faith justifies it?
No one knows what it's like
To be the bad man To be the sad man
Behind blue eyes
And no one knows
What it's like to be hated
To be fated to telling only lies...
So we need to understand that while society may perceive you as a pariah or outcast for doing certain things, you will not lose your freedom for doing it. In most countries, we do not confine our hate to someone of another religion, or of another race. We also hate another person of a different political inclination or leaning. Politics, just like religion, is based on belief. You believe in a certain religious doctrine and you believe in a certain political ideology. So you follow that belief. However, if that belief contradicts my belief, then I have legal and moral right to hate you.
By nature humans cannot seem to tolerate and accept anyone or anybody who disagrees with their beliefs. Disbelievers or the term ‘Deviants’ are all those who believe something that I do not believe in. And since my beliefs are correct, that makes every other belief wrong, and therefore they are deviants.
In the old days, anyone who believed that the world is round and not flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, and not the other way around, were put to death. Anyone who had ‘extra’ knowledge, which means knowledge that I too do not possess, must be witches and were also put to death. The knowledge that I possess is the correct version of facts. Anything beyond that is the work of the devil and these devil-worshippers must die.
For example, to some people Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile because he married Aisha when she was still a six-year-old child and had not even got her period yet (while he was in his 50s). Furthermore, Islam says marriage is only legal between consenting adults and you are allowed only four wives while Muhammad had more than four, which also makes him a hypocrite for not following his own teachings??
To the believers, or so call 'holy men', there are only two ways — my way and the wrong way. In other words, my way is correct and anyone who contradicts my way is practicing the wrong way.
Gays want Christianity to legalise homosexuality
(Reuters) – Human rights lawyers and gay rights advocates urged the Vatican on Friday to issue a clear and unequivocal statement against the criminalisation of homosexuality.
The request was made at a Vatican meeting two days after the United Nations said Brunei was violating human rights by implementing Islamic laws that would allow death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality.
Brunei has defended its right to implement the laws.
About 50 lawyers and gay advocates, led by Baroness Helena Ann Kennedy, director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, met Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican secretary of state and gave him a study on criminalisation of homosexuality in the Caribbean.
“Obviously there are issues that are doctrinal but the point that we were making and which I think he (Parolin) accepted is that this is absolutely about the Church’s teaching about respecting human dignity,” she told reporters.
The Church teaches that, while homosexual tendencies are not sinful, homosexual acts are but it also says that the human dignity of homosexuals must be respected and defended.
“What we need is a very clear statement, from the Roman Catholic Church at least, that criminalisation is wrong,” said Leonardo Javier Raznovich, lead researcher of a Caribbean report, which they gave to Parolin.
In 2008, the Vatican called for decriminalisation of homosexuality but opposed a non-binding U.N. resolution on the issue because it believed that other parts of it equated same-sex unions with heterosexual marriage.
Catholic bishops around the world have had differing responses to laws to decriminalise homosexuality.
“The Church needs to have a clear policy where, if they believe in human rights, if they believe in the dignity of the human being, as they actively preach, they need to make sure that the Church throughout the world has the same response,” Raznovich said.
A Vatican statement said: “Parolin extended a brief greeting to those present, repeating the Catholic Church’s position in defence of the dignity of every human person and against every form of violence.”
Francis DeBernardo, executive director of the a U.S.-based Catholic LGBT rights group New Ways Ministry, said the Vatican meeting was “a great step forward for improving the relationship between LGBT people and the Catholic Church but more urgent statements and actions are needed”.
The Buggery Act (Anal sex, Oral sex or sex with an animal Act)...
In 1553, under the Buggery Act, same-sex activity was banned and punishable with the death penalty. The death penalty was abolished in 1861 although buggery was still a crime — buggery meaning anal sex, oral sex or sex with an animal.
About 400 years later in 1967, gay sexual activity was decriminalised in England and Wales under the Sexual Offences Act, as long as it is consensual, in private, and involves adults over 21. In 1981 it became legal in Scotland and in 1982 in Northern Ireland. About 30 years before that convicted gays were chemically castrated or else they would be sent to jail and thousands suffered this fate.
Hence the United Kingdom treated the gay community even worse than we in the east did. And it was only very recently that they became ‘civilised’. And now they are going to tell us that we are still uncivilised and are living in the past, which is a load of bull considering how they treated their gay community before this.
History of Sodomy / Buggery Laws
Henry VIII (1491-1547), the most handsome man in all of Christendom, tried for some years to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. A spectacular and violent struggle between the English monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church thus ensued, culminating in Henry VIII being excommunicated by the Pope in 1530. In 1531, Henry VIII became the supreme head of the Church of England. And in 1533, he married Anne Boleyn — never mind that he would have her beheaded three years later.
1533 was an interesting year, though, because it was then also that Henry saw to the passing of England's Buggery Act, amid all the political and religious intrigue. Up to 1533, there were no parliamentary laws outlawing homosexuality, except for what was contained in a few medieval commentaries on English common law, such as this one: "Those who have dealings with Jews or Jewesses, those who commit bestiality, and sodomists, are to be buried alive after legal proof that they were taken in the act, and public conviction."
Under Henry VIII, what was once the domain of ecclesiastical punishment became a parliamentary matter. Sodomy, or buggery as it was referred to then, became a capital offence. In fact, Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury, became the first person to be executed under the law in 1540, although it is interesting to note that Sir Walter was in fact implicated in an insurrection against the king.
BREAKING THE LAW!!!
So much for the golden future
I can't even start I've had every promise broken, there's anger in my heart
You don't know what it's like, you don't have a clue If you did you'd find yourselves doing the same thing too...
Breaking the law, breaking the law!!!
Thus began in England the use of legislation outlawing same-sex relations as a tool of political persecution. The irony is that Henry VIII's Buggery Act was supposed to be temporary legislation, but was given permanent force by Elizabeth I's second Parliament in 1563.
Pope Francis says homosexual tendencies are ‘not a sin’
Inés San Martín
Apr 1, 2019
ROME_BUREAU_CHIEF
ROME — Pope Francis has said that homosexual tendencies “are not a sin,” while encouraging parents who begin “seeing rare things” in their children to “please, consult, and go to a professional,” because “it could be that he [or she] is not homosexual.”
Asked about his famous soundbite “Who am I to judge?”, the pope said, “Tendencies are not sin. If you have a tendency to anger, it’s not a sin. Now, if you are angry and hurt people, the sin is there.”
“Sin is acting, of thought, word and deed, with freedom,” Francis said.
Asked by Spanish journalist Jordi Evole if he thinks it’s a “rarity” for parents to have a homosexual child, the pope answered that “in theory, no.”
“But I’m talking about a person who is developing, and parents start to see strange things … Please consult, and go to a professional, and there you will see what it is and may not be homosexual, that is due to something else,” he said.
Francis also said that in his opinion, it’s usually challenging for a family to have a homosexual child, as they can be “scandalized by something they don’t understand, something out of the ordinary … I’m not making a judgement of value, I’m doing a phenomenological analysis,” he said.
Does God Approves Gay Marriages?
In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah from Genesis tells us that God wanted to test the people of Lot’s community so He sent two angels disguised as very ‘jambu’ men to that community (if you do not know what jambu means then go ask your Malay friends). And Lot took these two jambu as his guests for the night.
The men in Lot’s community then went berserk. They wanted Lot to surrender these two jambu to the wild crowd so that they can gang rape them. Lot refused and instead offered his two virgin daughters as replacements. They can gang rape his two virgin daughters if they leave the two angels disguised as jambu alone. But the crowd refused Lot’s two virgin daughters. They still wanted the two sexy men.
So God told Lot to take his family and leave that community because He was going to destroy the entire community. Lot and his family were told to leave and not look back. Unfortunately, Lot’s wife did not follow God’s wishes and looked back so she was turned into a pillar of salt.
Lot and his family were spared because they were all righteous people even though Lot had offered his two virgin daughters to be gang raped by the horde of sex-crazed people. Offering your two virgin daughters to be gang raped does not make you unrighteous.
After they had escaped, Lot’s two virgin daughters got him drunk and then had sex with him. Then they became pregnant. But God did not destroy them because they were righteous although they had sex with their own father and got pregnant. Only if you have gay sex will God destroy you.
Morality and immorality are very subjective matters. If we talk about legality or illegality it is very straightforward. What does the letter of the law say? But when we talk about morality and immorality, a lot of points of view and opinions will come into play.
And morality/immorality is never constant. It changes depending on time, place and situations. Hence what may be immoral at some point of time in a certain place and under certain situations may become moral later, and vice versa.
Let us take war as one example. Traitors (or even cowards) during a war can be killed on the spot. For example, if the commander says advance or attack and you retreat or run away in fear, the commander can shoot you dead there and then. That is the rule of the battlefield during times of war.
In fact, there have been occasions when the commander stays at the rear with his pistol ready and any soldier who turns instead of advancing will get a bullet in his head. No trial, just a bullet in the head on the battlefield.
Spies are also shot on sight (you have no time to arrest them during the heat of battle when things are so chaotic). And enemy soldiers dressed in your uniform are assumed to be spies so if you are caught wearing the enemy’s uniform you can get shot immediately even if you are not really a spy.
There is nothing illegal about this and you will not be charged for any war crime. In fact, it is not only considered legal but is moral as well. Shot on sight, a bullet in the head. That is the rule and it is absolutely kosher.
But when the IS (or ISIS or ISIL) executes traitors on the battlefield, the west is outraged. Maybe the classification of traitor needs to be defined but to the IS any Iraqi or Syrian who goes against the will of the people is considered a traitor and hence can be executed.
So that is the catch phrase here — the will of the people. And if you go against the will of the people then you are a traitor and since you are a traitor then you must be executed. This is what the west does as well. They execute traitors. They did this in WWI. They did this in WWII. They did this in Vietnam. They did this all over the world for thousands of years. When the west does it there is no problem. But when the IS does it there is outrage. So the west (and China as well) puts a bullet in your head while the IS cuts off your head. But the west, too, has been cutting off heads in many European countries for hundreds of years. They even cut off the heads of Kings and Queens in England and France. So what is the problem?
Are you saying that killing someone by cutting off his/her head is cruel? Are you saying that the firing squad, hanging, the electric chair, the gas chamber, lethal injection, etc., are more humane? At least when they cut of your head death is immediate and you do not suffer before you die. (That is why the French invented the guillotine).
So, is ‘legal’ or ‘constitutional’ killing considered moral? Or is killing immoral even when legally done? If killing is legal then why worry about how that person is killed? Why is one way of killing moral and another way immoral when the objective is to end life anyway? Since existence is based on creation, that is if life is god's creation, could man ends or destroy the life of a Creator?
Is it legal and moral way to do in the name of humanitarian?
Take the case of Islam as one example. A person born to Muslim parents is automatically Muslim. Legally that person would be considered a Muslim. But is that moral? Did this person choose to be born a Muslim? Why must this person because of accident of birth be forced to be a Muslim?
It is like a person who is born to slave parents would also automatically become a slave. Why must this person suffer slavery just because he or she happened to be born to slave parents? This may be legal but is it moral? Yes, it is moral because it is legal. There is nothing morally wrong for a person to become a slave because his or her parents are slaves. In fact, even the church allows this.
Council of Islamic Ideology declares women’s existence anti-Islamic
Khabaristan Today, 15 March 2014
Islamabad – Sharia Correspondent: The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) concluded their 192nd meeting on Thursday with the ruling that women are un-Islamic and that their mere existence contradicted Sharia and the will of Allah. As the meeting concluded CII Chairman Maulana Muhammad Khan Shirani noted that women by existing defied the laws of nature, and to protect Islam and the Sharia women should be forced to stop existing as soon as possible. The announcement comes a couple of days after CII’s 191st meeting where they dubbed laws related to minimum marriage age to be un-Islamic.
After declaring women to be un-Islamic, Shirani explained that there were actually two kinds of women – haraam and makrooh. “We can divide all women in the world into two distinct categories: those who are haraam and those who are makrooh. Now the difference between haraam and makrooh is that the former is categorically forbidden while the latter is really really disliked,” Shirani said.
He further went on to explain how the women around the world can ensure that they get promoted to being makrooh, from just being downright haraam. “Any woman that exercises her will is haraam, absolutely haraam, and is conspiring against Islam and the Ummah, whereas those women who are totally subservient can reach the status of being makrooh. Such is the generosity of our ideology and such is the endeavour of Muslim men like us who are the true torchbearers of gender equality,” the CII chairman added.
Officials told Khabaristan Today that the council members deliberated over various historic references related to women and concluded that each woman is a source of fitna and a perpetual enemy of Islam. They also decided that by restricting them to their subordinate, bordering on slave status, the momineen and the mujahideen can ensure that Islam continues to be the religion of peace, prosperity and gender equality.
Responding to a question one of the officials said that international standards of gender equality should not be used if they contradict Islam or the constitution of Pakistan that had incorporated Islam and had given sovereignty to Allah. “We don’t believe in western ideals, and nothing that contradicts Islam should ever be paid heed. In any case by giving women the higher status of being makrooh, it’s us Muslims who have paved the way for true, Sharia compliant feminism,” the official said.
The CII meeting also advised the government that to protect Islam women’s right to breathe should also be taken away from them. “Whether a woman is allowed to breathe or not be left up to her husband or male guardian, and no woman under any circumstance whatsoever should be allowed to decide whether she can breathe or not,” Shirani said.
Frontpage Interviews guest today is Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American psychologist and internationally known critic of militant Islam.
FP: Wafa Sultan, welcome to Frontpage Interview. It is an honor and privilege to speak with you.
Sultan: I greatly appreciate the opportunity you grant me to voice my thoughts and concerns. The West must take notice of those of us who are willing to take the risk and speak up against Islamic infused hateful ideology.
FP: That's what we are here for my friend.
Let's start with your background. What has been your intellectual and spiritual journey? Who and what influenced you in your youth?
Sultan: I was born and raised in Syria as a Muslim and lived there for the first three decades of my life. It took me many years, profound life experiences and an open mind to evolve into the person I am today. My first turning point took place in 1979 when I was a medical student at the University of Aleppo in Syria, and witnessed the murder of my beloved professor by members of the Islamic brotherhood. They sprayed his body with bullets in front of my eyes while screaming, “Allah Akbar!” (Allah is great.) This experience severely traumatized me and left an indelible emotional scar on me. Since then I began questioning my religion and culture.
My second major turning point was Sep 11th. At the very first day following this hideous catastrophe, I screamed as loud as I could, “Wake up America! Islam is here”, and since then I continue to voice that message. In fact, I view every single day in the US as a turning point.
FP: I am very sorry about your beloved professor and to pry into this painful area, but do you know the reason why these murderers decided to take his life? Also, had you been a faithful Muslim until that time? Did the murder make you start thinking about Islam and your faith in a different way? Can you give us a few words on the nature of trauma that you experienced as a person, in the sense of how it changed you and affected who you would become?
Sultan: Those killers have been raised and brainwashed to treat brutally whoever they perceive to be their enemy. Prior to that incident, the Islamic brotherhood were leading a bloody campaign against the Syrian government and resolved to kill whoever belongs to the Syrian president’s religious Islamic sect as an intimidation tactic. My beloved professor was an academic figure who had nothing to do with politics, but he happened to belong to that same Islamic sect.
A few years ago, if you recall, an Egyptian man Muhammad Hidayaat walked into El AL – Israeli airline in LA Airport and randomly shot and killed two people. Did this criminal have anything personal against those victims? Of course, he did not. He was motivated by his hatred against Jews. It’s only one example to illustrate the consequences of religiously motivated hatred.
I was a faithful Muslim up to the moment I witnessed the killing of my teacher. That moment heavily traumatized me and I began to dive deeply into the Islamic texts to figure out what is the nature of G-d I have been worshiping. However, I was not able to freely express my thoughts, until I immigrated to the US where I have been exposed to various cultures and religious beliefs. It’s the power of a liberated mind that helps me to become who I am today. I started to publish my articles in Arabic at the first week I was in the US . Prior to Sep. 11th, I was warned by CAIR official not to cross the “red line.” Believe it or not, even here in America they were trying to prevent me from freely expressing myself. However, the tragedy of 9/11 released all inhibitions and fears and helped me to become who I am today.
FP: A 16-year-old girl, Aqsa Parvez, was killed by her father in an honor killing in Toronto recently. Your thoughts on that murder?
Sultan: The crime committed by Aqsa Parvez’s father is a direct product of the Islamic education he received and the influence of the culture he grew up in. I believe that Muslim men, who adhere to these types of immoral deeds, have become criminals by their Islamic induced indoctrination. This is not an isolated case. Similar crimes have been committed daily in various Islamic countries for the last fourteen hundreds years. The Muslim community at large has been muted and has not condemned these types of crimes.
Therefore, the civilized world must take strong action against these brutal offenses.
Western governments need to monitor incoming Muslim immigrants and we should also initiate a proper mechanism within the current Islamic enclaves in the west, to rehabilitate those influenced by Islamism and help them learn to cherish our own western human rights standards.
Regarding this particular crime, I am not a law expert, but it made me so furious when I read that the Canadian court has not decided yet if it is going to consider this crime as first or second degree murder. I think the defendant (the father) should be triad and convicted for first degree murder as a deterrent and a means to send a clear message to the Islamic community that the nature of these heinous crimes are unacceptable.
FP: Many Muslims and the leftist media are arguing that Aqsa Parvez’s murder had nothing to do with Islam. A father orders his daughter to wear the veil and to submit to other dehumanizing rules of Islamic gender apartheid and she resists and he kills her — but this has nothing to do with Islam. Am I missing something here?
The last time an atheist or Buddhist or Catholic father killed his daughter because she refused to veil herself was when exactly? A father kills his daughter because he tries to force the rules of his religion on her — but this has nothing to do with his religion? What is this pathology among many Muslims and Western leftists to absolve Islam of what it fertilizes into earthly incarnation? And if this is not about Islam, then where are all the Muslim clerics who are outraged that this has happened and are now issuing fatwas that veiling can never be forced on a woman and that it must always be her choice?
Sultan: I am not surprised that many Muslims deny correlation between Islam and honor killing. Denial is their way to conceal reality. After all, according to them, Sept 11th as well as suicide bombing phenomenon, honor killing and the daily terror acts perpetrated by Muslims all over the world, have nothing to do with Islam. They conveniently blame Israel and American foreign policy for all miseries inflicted by Muslims, so naturally they obscure the roots of the commonly practiced murders as that of Aqsa Parvez’s. In Pakistan for example, almost daily at least two women are murdered, legitimized as honor killing. Often it’s excused as a cultural phenomenon. Islamic countries do have diverse cultures. In that case, why is honor killing so widespread in the Islamic world? For how long will Muslims mislead the world regarding the nature of Islamic teachings and its culture?
Regarding the leftist media, I wonder what they really know about Islam. What do they base their opinions on? Do they comprehend the extent of the hatred and disrespect the Quran and Hadith instill on men against their women? Are they aware of the numerous Quranic verses like Sura 4.32 where Allah permits husbands to admonish their wives, refuse to share their beds and allows beating them? It’s an utter disgrace for women, especially in the free world to defend and excuse such values.
FP: What do you think about the poll conducted last May among U.S. Muslims that revealed that one in four younger U.S. Muslims support suicide bombings? How come almost none has heard of this and the media didn’t even seem to mention it?
Sultan: I am not surprised to learn the results. I must acknowledge that young Muslims in the US who believe that suicide bombing is justified are well-versed in their religious teaching. The idea of becoming a Shaheed (martyr) by means of suicide is indeed deeply rooted in the Islamic belief system. The Quran states:
“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods, for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise ): They fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain” (9/111).
I believe that Muslim clerics in the US have explained this verse in the same way that the clerics in Syria had explained it to me at young age. Growing up, I had always believed that suicide bombing was justified for the cause of being a martyr.
The poll results should motivate us to come up with firm ways to face this crisis. We should inspect what is being taught at Islamic schools and mosques here in the US to identify and treat properly the causing factors of this epidemic.
FP: What is your response to Muslim women who claim that it's their own decision to cover themselves? What is your opinion regarding the veil?
Sultan: Let me tell you a short story:
In 2005, I traveled to Syria with my American friend. We visited a small Syrian Island (Erwad). My friend noticed that the majority of women in that place were head covered. I asked our tour guide to explain the reasoning behind it. I asked; “are ALL women in this island covered? Without any hesitation he responded; “Yes, they are ALL covered except for few whores.”
So, yes, it might be their decision, but it’s not their choice. When you make a decision, your society does not necessarily allow you to freely choose. The decision in this case is made to avoid humiliation and reprisal by the Muslim community around these women.
Here in the west, I believe that wearing the Hijab is a way for women to identify themselves as Muslims. It is also a tool for Muslims to prove their superiority over other non Muslims and for Muslim man to control their women. Thus, it’s interesting to note that increased number of veiled Muslim women goes hand in hand with Islamic radicalization. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two. Likewise, head cover had been used to differentiate between “true” Muslim women and the inferior female slaves and it has been that way since then.
Lastly, I must mention that I find it unwise for non-Muslim western women to cover their head for show of respect when they visit Muslim lands (One example is Barbara Walters when she interviewed the Saudi King). This attempt to display their respect to Muslims would have been proper if Muslims respected western values equally. Unfortunately, it is not the case; so in essence, by this type of pacification we weaken our own resolve to demand equal respect.
FP: What is a moderate Muslim?
Sultan: It’s a very important question and a subject of tremendous amount of confusion which is triggered in part by the media, many in the academia and Western government officials. We are consistently told that only a small percentage of the Muslim population is radicalized and the rest are considered moderate Muslims. While it’s correct that only a small percentage of Muslims actively support and involved in terror acts, what about the rest?
Muslims who don’t agree with the strategy of terror as a means to accomplish their aspiration, yet consider the supremacist political ideology of Islamic domination under Sharia Law as the legitimate path for Muslims to follow, and do it through “cultural Jihad”, are they considered moderates?
I don’t believe so. In that case, who are moderate Muslims?
In my opinion, a moderate Muslim is one who fully supports separation of state and religion, rejects implementation of Sharia law and believes that it has no binding with Western codes of human-rights. A moderate Muslim is one who respects and supports our western system of liberal democracy; including equal rights of all religions, races and gender.
Last and not least, moderate Muslims ought to be courageous and honest enough to condemn crimes done in the name of Islam and admit that these crimes are all committed with the tacit approval of traditional Islamic theology which has not been reformed yet.
Having said that, only a very small number of Muslims are considered moderates and these people need to be supported and empowered.
FP: What religion do you consider yourself if you don’t mind me asking?
Sultan: Even though I don’t follow any specific religion, I feel spiritually connected to a higher source of being.
FP: Are Islam and democracy compatible?
Sultan: As of yet they are not. Liberal democratic societies adhere to and grant equal rights to all regardless of religion, gender and race. It also separates religion from state. Islam is both religion and state.
Regarding human rights, women are not equal to men. Non Muslims are not equal to Muslims. In the ideal Islamic dominating world, non-Muslims are to be regarded and treated as dhimmi; second class citizens with particular rulings.
FP: What is the appropriate response to the threat of Islamic totalitarianism?
Sultan: First, the west must recognize that Islam is viewed by the majority of devout Muslims not merely as a religion but also as a political ideology of domination. Therefore it should not be treated by the west as a religion only. I have been told numerous times by the Muslim community where I live, that they are here to spread Islam and replace the American Constitution with the Islamic Sharia. One member flatly told me; “wait and see that America will soon collapse.” This is precisely why when 9/11 happened I was shocked but not at least surprised.
Up to February 2006 when my Al Jazeera interview took place, I felt the need to educate only the Arab audience with whom I have been sharing my writings on the issue of Islam. But then, following the interview, through gaining experience during speaking engagements and by being exposed to western audiences, I found out that unfortunately the west also suffers a lack of awareness about the realities of Islamism.
The west must thoroughly understand the Arab mindset. For example, our Arab society follows the Islamic eschatology which does not necessarily value and respect the present life, but equally revere life after – in paradise. Additionally, our concept of time is significantly different from that of the west.
There is an Arabic proverb stating that “the Arab man took revenge after 40 years because he was in a hurry…” It highlights the notion that Muslims have the patience to slowly but surely achieve their objective for Islamic domination.
Ignorance is not a choice when dealing with this matter. The west must recognize that Islamism has no place in a liberal democracy and in open societies.
I will conclude with a quote I read by Mrs. Melanie Phillips; a British writer and journalist, from a speech she gave in Sweden last year. She stated; “We must defend our society in two ways; on the negative side we must stop Islamists recruiting to extremism and terrorism in our countries. On the positive side, we must strongly reassert our own values”
Thus, I am asking all free thinking individuals to rally behind my message. I pray that those who cherish our free way of life will march beside those of us; enlightened Arab and Muslims who speak up to save us all from the danger of Islamism. We should all be united in this fight.
FP: Are you optimistic? Where are we heading?
Sultan: I believe that most people in the West genuinely desire to preserve our true democratic liberal values. My fear is that we confuse liberalism with multiculturalism by allowing a minority Islamic fascistic ideology to assert itself as the dominant cultural force. So, in order to win this battle, we must unite whether we are conservatives or liberals, democrats or republicans, right or left, and defend our way of life; human-rights, freedom of speech, modernity, equality and forward thinking.
FP: When the Soviet Empire was tormenting its millions of victims, brave and heroic dissidents like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Ginsburg, Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and many others stood up against the despotism that was brutalizing and suffocating its people. Today, as the totalitarian force of Islamism wages its viciousness, we have a new generation of heroes and dissidents, such as Wafa Sultan, who risk their lives for the triumph of the human spirit and for liberty.
From where does Wafa Sultan get her courage? From where do you get your inspiration to battle against these dark forces, often single-handedly? What, in the end, drives you and makes you tick, and gives you the power to sacrifice so much, including even potentially your own life, for the cause of freedom?
Sultan: I am inspired by every single moment of my life in America . The sheer experience of walking freely in the street without being accused of being a whore is a blessing for me and an experience that I will die to defend.
In my first interview on Al Jazeera I was asked “why are you trying to be American more than Americans”? I responded that I don’t take my American freedom, for granted, as many Americans do. I was born and raised in hell and I moved to live in Paradise . I know the difference between these two diametrically different worlds. I am now living the life I choose to live, and not the life I was forced to live for the first three decades of my life.
Therefore, I feel morally obligated to defend it. On the other hand, I can’t forget the Muslim women I left behind, whom I feel morally obligated to defend as well. Yet, I am not alone waging this battle, but rather inspired by many other heroic women like Nonie Darwish and Ayaan Harsi Ali, and fortunately, I am also supported by many wonderful people; both in the Us and in the Arabic world. Only today for example, I received an e-mail from a group of highly educated people living in Iraq . They formed an organization and named it; “The friends of Wafa Sultan”.
FP: For those readers interested, click here to see one of Wafa Sultan’s most powerful performances on Al-Jazeera.
Thank you Wafa Sultan. We hope you will visit Frontpagemag.com again soon.
Sultan: Thank you so much. I am and always will be delighted to be a guest of Front Page Magazine.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist.
