Friday, March 07, 2008

Muslim Women Expose Islam

Muslim and ex-Muslim women are in the forefront of exposing the threat of Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one notable example. Wafa Sultan is another courageous woman speaking out against injustice.

Defending those who criticize Islam in the West, she says:

Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day. … The Danish newspaper exercised its freedom of speech. Liberties are the holiest thing in the West, and nothing is more important. … Westerners who read the words of the Prophet Muhammad 'Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword' cannot imagine Muhammad's turban in the shape of a dove of peace rather than in the shape of a bomb. The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings. … The reactions of the Muslims, which were characterized by savageness, barbarism, and backwardness, only increased the value of these cartoons, and gave them more importance than they merited, simply because they proved that these cartoons were true, and that the message they were conveying was true.”

Criticizing the Islam and the Koran as a political ideology:

“… you know that you cannot separate Islam from politics. Islam is not a religion, but politics. You must let me express my views the way I want. When you called me, you didn't say I was not allowed to discuss Islam or the Koran. Islam says to them that they will 'kill or be killed', and here [in Gaza] they are—killing and being killed. So what's wrong with that? They want to be martyred and to meet their black-eyed virgins, and Israel is merely helping them get what they want. What's wrong with that? If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light.”

14 Comments:

Blogger beakerkin said...

Brother Jason

Perhaps the greatest threat to Islamic patriachy the when is the web. Who knows what will happen when
wireless web devices become even cheaper.

3/8/08, 3:46 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

I spoke on the phone with Dr. Sultan the other day. I'm hoping to get her to agree to an interview on The Gathering Storm Radio Show.

I've heard that Dr. Sultan is working on a book, though she and I did not discuss that in our very brief conversation. As erudite as she is, any book by her would likely be a stunner, even for those of us who "get it" about Islam.

I do worry about the safety of Dr. Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Critics of Islam so often have to work on preserving their very lives.

3/8/08, 9:22 PM  
Blogger Charles N. Steele said...

Good post.

I read the Time note on Wafa Sultan. This essentially crystallizes the point I kept trying to make earlier on your blog: revealed religions are poorly defined, and sufficiently subjective, that a new, more peaceful & liberal definition is always possible.

I hope Wafa Sultan and her kind have great success against their (umm, our) uncivilized opponents.

3/10/08, 1:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Charles N. Steele, still a nominalist after all these years.

3/10/08, 2:08 PM  
Blogger Charles N. Steele said...

Actually, Im an Objectivist, not a nominalist. I just understand that *revealed religions* have no particular content or nature other than what their believers decide they are.

3/11/08, 11:05 PM  
Blogger Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Personally I need proof that someone claiming that they are an "atheist" isn't lying to me.

Why should I take their word for it? Why should I even believe that atheists exist?

3/11/08, 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So basically, Charles N. Steele is inconsistent - he is a nominalist in some cases, and not in others.

I'm always baffled whenever someone tries to argue that something has no nature in and of itself because that's its nature...

3/12/08, 1:32 PM  
Blogger Charles N. Steele said...

I'm not sure why my philosphical position is a topic of interest to "anonymous," but what the heck, I'll bite.

Nominalism is a position about the nature of concepts that denies there can be such a thing as a "nature."

Goodman and Quine: "We do not believe in abstract entities. No one supposes that abstract entities -- classes, relations, properties, etc. -- exist in space-time; but we mean more than this. We renounce them altogether."

This strikes me as cuckoo, and I think it's a position that cannot be consistently maintained.

OTOH, Rand's "Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology" outlines a coherent, defensible (read "correct") account of concepts and concept formation. In short, things have natures, and our concepts abstract the key parts and classify them accordingly.

So what is the nature of the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, and other documents of revealed religions? They are self-contradictory, inconsistent jumbles of obscure ramblings with no consistent message. Any alleged "meaning" is, often as not, a matter of the reader projecting his own arbitrary interpretation onto the badly written, unclear text.

What's the nature of the revealed religions themselves, then? They are concoctions of whatever the "true believers" have extracted from the texts. Hence my assertion they are "poorly defined and subjective."

This is an observation about revealed religion and religionists, not about the fundamental nature of concepts and knowledge.

The Goodman & Quine quote is from their "Steps Toward a Constructive Nominalism" You can read it at http://www.ditext.com/quine/stcn-con.html It's worth a read, if you enjoy Mad Hatterism.

3/14/08, 12:08 PM  
Blogger Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

How do we know an alleged "atheist" isn't merely irreverent or irreligious?

How does one prove he's an "atheist?"

3/15/08, 3:00 PM  
Blogger Charles N. Steele said...

The same way he proves anything else s/he believes.

You can never be certain someone isn't lying to you about their beliefs, but some doubts are reasonable, and some aren't.

George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Agaisnt God' does a nice job of tackling the universal skepticism that would make one doubtful of everything.

3/15/08, 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Americaneocon said...

Nice posting, Jason, as usual!!

3/16/08, 11:25 AM  
Blogger Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Charles,

George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Agaisnt God' does a nice job of tackling the universal skepticism that would make one doubtful of everything.

That's an appeal to authority fallacy. ;)

How can we know he's tackled the entire spectrum of universal skepticism?

;)

3/19/08, 3:48 PM  
Blogger Red.eVolution said...

Hello,
I have found your website libertyandculture.blogspot.com when searching the web on the topics related to my website theme.
I must say your site content is very good and I think we would benefit much from possible partnership - for example link exchange. This would bring more targeted traffic to our sites, plus increase our websites' weight at the search engines, as they give greater value to the links from the topic-related sites rather than irrelevant backlinks.

My website http://mywindowintheworld.blogspot.com/ is definitely related to yours.

I would be glad to link to your site in return to you linking back to mine.
Feel free to email me direct to http://www.emailmeform.com/fid.php?formid=44653 to discuss the details on the possible partnership.

Hope for the fruitful cooperation,

Best regards,
Red.eVolution,
http://mywindowintheworld.blogspot.com/

P.S. Sorry to post here, but unfortunately I couldn't find any contact link.

3/20/08, 5:19 PM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

Why didn't anyone mention that these comments were broadcast on a regular program aired on al-Jazeera?

3/21/08, 3:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home