wafa-sultan « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Wafa Sultan - Author of "A God Who Hates"

Marcus Scriptor — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:52:30 +0000

Wafa Sultan – Author of “A God Who Hates”

Islam teaches HATE.

Read this book.

Listen to her interview by Pamela Geller:

Radio interview of Wafa Sultan by Pamela Geller

“America will never win this war until they read about Islam from Arab sources.” – Wafa Sultan

Allah's Apostate Cassandra

muslimwire — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:42:32 +0000

By Andrew G. Bostom

A review of Wafa Sultan’s, “A God Who Hates,” St. Martin’s Press, 2009, 256 pp.

On Tuesday, October 13, 2009, an ominous interim decision was reached in the case of 17 year- old Sri Lankan native, and Christian “apostate” from Islam, Rifqa Bary. Rifqa fled her Ohio community — notably, the radicalized mosque she was compelled to attend, which revealed and condemned her apostasy. She sought refuge in Orlando, Florida, when Muhammad Bary, Rifqa’s father threatened to murder the young Muslim woman apostate-the consensus draconian punishment for “unrepentant” apostasy from Islam sanctioned by all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, Sunni and Shiite alike, to this day. (For irrefragable examples, see these contemporary Sunni rulings by Al Azhar University, in Cairo, Egypt, the Mufti of Lebanon, and IslamonLine [here; here], website of the mainstream, immensely popular Muslim Brotherhood cleric, and Al Jazeera personality Yusuf al-Qaradawi, as well as this Shiite legal opinion published in Kayhan International, an official organ of the Islamic Republic of Iran).

Pending determination of her parent’s immigration status-extant public access documentary evidence revealed by investigative journalist par excellence Pamela Geller indicates they are illegal aliens-Florida judge Daniel Dawson has ordered that Rifqa Bary be returned to Ohio under the jurisdiction of an Ohio court.

It is a bitter irony that Tuesday, October 13, 2009 also marked the US release of Syrian-born psychiatrist Wafa Sultan’s book “A God Who Hates” — the vigorously argued jeremiad written by our era’s most courageous and insightful secular Muslim woman. Sultan is currently forced to lead a clandestine existence here in America, due to the repeated, ongoing death threats she receives for her own “apostasy,” including those “inspired” by a Yusuf al-Qaradawi appearance on Al-Jazeera television when he proclaimed, “…this woman had the audacity to affront all that is sacred-the entire Islamic nation, its past, its present, and its future. She had the audacity to affront the Prophet, the Koran, and Allah. She even said that Allah prattles in the Koran. She did not omit anything sacred.”

More than two decades before Wafa Sultan’s Al-Jazeera television debate with a Muslim cleric ignited an international firestorm, she traced her own transformative “intellectual shock” to reading two books by Saudi writer and freethinker Abdullah al-Qasimi, who fled his native country after being (predictably) condemned to death for “apostasy/blasphemy.” Regarding al-Qasimi’s criticism of Islam, Wafa Sultan observes that he,

…attacked Islam…in such a way as to make the closed mind stop and really think. He was an original and creative writer with an excellent command of Arabic. His style was enjoyable to read and easy to understand, and it led his readers almost imperceptibly to the point where they could not help but agree with him, at least privately. The fact that he was from Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam, gave him another kind of authenticity.

She describes how al-Qasimi’s taboo writings were privately shared:

His books were not readily available, but we found a way to get copies and share them. I remember a young woman in her early twenties at the hospital where I worked once confessed to me secretly that she read Al-Qasimi’s works, and asked if she could borrow one of them from me. I wrapped the book in one of my dresses to conceal it and, as I gave it to her, made a great show of telling her she could wear the dress to her sister’s wedding on condition she return it afterwards.

Wafa also acknowledges her recurrent fear of revealing she had read al-Qasimi, “lest she should be accused of apostasy.” At that time, she states,

Like most Muslims today, I tried to interpret everything on the basis of a belief that I was frightened to see contradicted: I believed that people’s interpretation of Islam, rather than Islam itself, was responsible for the shortcomings of our Muslim countries.

Moreover, Wafa admits that her devoted husband was reassured by this mindset because,

…he had felt from the outset that my belief that it was Muslims rather than Islam that was at fault would perhaps help protect us from the potentially serious consequences of living in a society that did not permit its individual members to take the smallest step toward examining any of its taboos…

The riveting personal narrative of “A God Who Hates” makes plain that Wafa Sultan’s views have evolved, and she now posits that Islam itself is the bane of the global Muslim community, or “umma.” She argues compellingly that traditional, mainstream conceptions of the God of Islam, Allah, and his Apostle Muhammad, bear ultimate responsibility for the bellicose aggressiveness, intolerance, and misogyny that pervade Muslim societies. Indeed, the book’s central motif characterizes Islam’s Allah as the deceptively fierce ogre in an Arabian parable, raging from his mountaintop perch:

From where he sits, he raves and shrieks, filling people’s hearts with fear by threatening to gobble them up if they leave their homes or do any kind of work at all. The people terrorized by his shrieks, can live only by stealth. Only their survival instinct keeps them going. They steal out like mice in secret to gather enough to keep body and soul together. They live day by day, waiting impatiently for the moment of their death. The fear of this ogre has sapped their intellect and depleted their physical powers, reducing them to despair and hopelessness.

Muhammad, Allah’s Apostle, she notes unapologetically, “…was a warrior rather than a thinker.” Thus, she continues,

He left no moral legacy for his followers to build upon or use as a basis for the societies they founded. Nor did he leave them room outside the boundaries of this law in which they might have exercised their freedoms and perhaps, responding to the demands of time, have invented a moral code of their own. The most important traditions written and handed down about Muhammad concern his raids and what happened in the course of them. All his teachings stem from the realities of the world he lived in and are the indisputable product of it. If you read the biography of the Prophet from beginning to end you will find no trace of any kind of moral authority.

And in response to the query, “Why do they hate us?”-incessantly repeated by naïve, hapless Americans following the 9/11/01 carnage-Wafa Sultan provides these answers:

“Because Muslims hate their women, and any group who hates their women can’t love anyone else.”

People [then] ask, “But why do Muslims hate their women?”

And I reply, “Because their god does.”

Sultan further argues that the Koranic injunction (33:21) sanctioning Muhammad as the idealized model for all Muslims, eternally, amplifies Islam’s virulent misogyny:

The most terrifying…part…comes from the Prophet’s stories about his wives that create a trap every Muslim woman falls into: No man in my life can be better than his Prophet and I cannot be less obedient to him than his Prophet’s wives were to their husband. Men have internalized their Prophet, and women have internalized his wives.

She illustrates this closed circle of misogynistic humiliation that Muslim women even inflict, perversely, upon each other, with a wrenching anecdote about her “naming”-repeated throughout Wafa’s childhood by her mother to “amuse” local acquaintances:

My earliest memory of my mother is her story of how she chose my name. She laughed when she told me the story, but I always wondered if she was crying inside. She told me she was not very happy at my arrival, and neither was my father, needless to say. My paternal uncle’s wife had already had two boys before her. Under pressure from this calamity she was at a loss as to what name to give me. One morning my paternal uncle was passing by the veranda of our house when he saw my mother carrying me in her arms. He greeted her and asked: “Haven’t you chosen a name for her yet?” My mother replied: “Not yet. Do you have any suggestions?” My uncle said without hesitation: “Call her ‘Shit,’ it’s the only name she deserves.”

My mother told this story hundreds of times when I was within earshot. She would tell it jokingly to amuse her female friends from the neighborhood, unaware of how deeply she hurt me each time she said it. And do, to my tattoo [Note: Sultan operationally defines tattoo earlier as a congenital composite of "a person's family values, principles, customs, and traditions."], my mother added the name Shit at the behest of my uncle. Her own tattoo, however, handed down through the centuries dictated her treatment of me.

Another series of anecdotes characterize Wafa Sultan’s encounters with highly educated Muslim professionals. Such interactions reinforce the author’s contention about the profoundly deleterious impact of Islam’s unreformed, triumphantly asserted dogmas. Her erudite interlocutors’ reactions also confirm the view of the Saudi “apostate” author Wafa cites as her inspiration, al-Qasimi, who observed (in his, “Desert with No Precincts” [Arabic: Sahra Bila Ab'ad]) that Arab Muslim culture, “… does not appreciate criticism; they do not even know it… It is a plot, and treason against authenticity… [Arabs] consider their worst enemies those who try to correct their ideas and beliefs.” Two examples describing initially reasoned discussions about Allah’s named attribute “The Harmer”-both degenerating into vituperative accusations of Wafa Sultan’s “apostasy” and “blasphemy”-will suffice.

“The Harmer” is one of the attributes they have given to the God of Islam. Is it reasonable that God should cause harm? Yet this is an attribute which Muslims bestow on their god and take pride in, just as they take pride in describing him as “The Merciful” and “The Patient.” “The Subduer.” “The Compeller,” “The Imperious,” “The Humiliator,” “The Nourisher,” “The Bringer of Death,” “The Most High,” “The Avenger,” “The Protector”-all these are attributes they bestowed upon their ogre and subsequently internalized in an attempt to merge with their ideal.

Whenever I discuss the legitimacy and morality of these names with erudite Muslims I hear nothing but shouts and screams that within minutes turn the dialogue into a futile quarrel. They cannot confront the negativism of these attributes other than by a desperate attempt to justify them, but when they do this they make things worse. Muslims justify portraying God as The Harmer because they believe such a portrayal is necessary in order to strike fear into people’s hearts and prevent them from disobeying God’s commands. They say: “When a person believes in God’s ability to harm he will take care not to disobey him, so as to avoid being harmed by him.”

I once tried to find common ground on this very point with a Muslim reader from London, an Oxford University graduate with whom I conducted an extensive e-mail correspondence. She wrote to me on one occasion: “Can you deny that God is capable of causing harm? Could he not destroy the universe if he wanted to?” She continued: “What’s wrong with proclaiming his destructive powers? Isn’t this necessary in order to prevent people from crossing the line and disobeying his commands?” I replied: “A father has the ability to harm his child when he disobeys him, but does he do so? Is that the proper way to educate our children not to overstep the boundaries we set for them?” The Oxford graduate responded: “There is no comparison! The difference between God’s power and that of a human being is much greater than the difference between a father’s and a son’s.” I replied: “But shouldn’t God’s wisdom, mercy, and love far surpass the wisdom, mercy, and love of a father?” The exchange turned into a fruitless quarrel at the end of which I heard only the e-mailed shouts of the Oxford graduate as she described me as a misguided unbeliever and apostate deserving only of being put to death.”

…Arguing with Muslims becomes more complicated when they try to persuade you that their God is also merciful, patient, and forbearing. I asked a Muslim doctor who specializes in psychiatry: “How can you persuade your son that God is simultaneously merciful and vengeful? Doesn’t teaching this type of religious lesson contain a contradiction which splits the child’s personality and makes him feel more lost and confused?” He replied: “No. I teach him that God is merciful with believers and vengeful toward unbelievers. I don’t see any contradiction in this.” I asked again: “How do you teach your son to tell the difference between believers and unbelievers so that he’ll know with whom to be merciful and toward whom to be vengeful?” He said, beaming: “A believer is one who believes in God, his Prophet, and the Day of Judgment and so forth.” I inquired: “So when your son hijacks a civilian plane full of passengers, hurtles into a tower, and kills three thousand ‘unbelievers’ he won’t be doing anything outside the boundaries of what his God and ideal would do? Is that the way to distinguish between believers and unbelievers?” The conversation ended with shouts and screams and turned into a futile argument that led only to my being accused of blasphemy, apostasy, and sympathy for the enemies of God and his Prophet!”

Perhaps more disturbing are Wafa Sultan’s revelations about how the same irredentist attitudes permeate the US Muslim community. Her trenchant analysis of this phenomenon is unsparing in its criticism of the self-delusional behaviors of US religious and political leaders who wittingly or unwittingly promote irredentism in America.

Two salient examples Sultan provides illustrate these trends. Shortly after the murderous 9/11 jihad terrorist attacks, a Los Angeles Islamic center donated copies of “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an” (which is merely Yusuf Ali’s annotated, mainstream English translation of the Koran) to the Los Angeles United School District. After an urgent meeting between local Jewish and Muslim leaders, however, Sultan notes,

…the books were withdrawn from the schools and returned to the Islamic center because some of the teachings they contained offended members of other religious denominations. The Los Angeles Times reported the story on February 12, 2002, in an article entitled, “New Version Will Replace Pulled Koran.”

She continues,

The article mentions that Mr. Dafer Dakhil, head of the Omar Ibn Al Khattab Foundation, e-mailed a reaction to the Times, in which he wrote: “The purpose of our gift was to promote greater understanding of Islam and Muslims at a time when misconceptions and interest in Islam about Islam and Muslims are at a peak, and to provide educators, and students an opportunity to use Qur’an alongside the Bible and scriptures of other faiths.” Mr. Dakhil had already apologized as follows: “We didn’t mean to hurt the feelings or cause discomfort to members of other faiths.” Salam al-Maryati, spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, explained: “In the interest of good faith and goodwill and being sensitive to people’s concerns we agreed that the books should not be used.” According to the Los Angeles Times article, “Mr. Al-Maryati and other Muslims at the meeting agreed to work with school officials to find another version of the Quran as soon as possible.”

Wafa Sultan then poses these still unanswered queries:

Then, as now, I am filled with questions about what happened: What other version of the Koran, as soon as possible? How would Mr. Al-Maryati interpret for us in his new version the Koranic verse quoted above? (i.e., referring to 5:33, Yusuf Ali translation, “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter”) Would he tell our children that this verse is no longer applicable in the present day? Ever since I have followed the news closely but I have never heard that Mr. Al-Maryati has managed to come up with a different version. Nor do I know how long he meant when he said “as soon as possible.” The article say the meeting took place behind closed doors. Why did the debate not take place publicly? Has Mr. Al-Maryati explained to all Muslims, both here and in Muslim countries, the actual reasons that version of the book was withdrawn from Los Angeles schools, and has he tried to have it removed from schools throughout the world? What is morally unacceptable in Los Angeles should be morally unacceptable elsewhere, even throughout the Middle East, as morality does not vary with time or place. Why did Mr. Al-Maryati withdraw the books from schools in Los Angeles while allowing others to distribute prizes to Muslim children who excelled at memorizing them at the Islamic school affiliated to the mosque in Anaheim?

She further notes, “This is not the only incident, unfortunately, of a Muslim saying one thing to an English speaking audience and something else entirely to an Arabic-speaking one.” Sultan asks additional questions, leading to her ominous conclusion:

Why do countries in the West allow Muslims who live among them to pretend to be moderates when they speak in Western languages, but don’t criticize them for radical Islamic views when they address the Muslim world in their native languages? This story is just the tip of an iceberg, which represents the increasing Islamization of the West and, especially, of the United States.

The final chapter of “A God Who Hates” includes Wafa Sultan’s devastating critique of remarks Colin Powell made during the latter phase of the 2008 US Presidential election campaign. Appearing on NBC television’s “Meet The Press,” Powell glibly asserted nothing would be wrong with Americans choosing a Muslim President. Wafa Sultan’s analysis of this comment exposes both the terribly dangerous flaws in Powell’s limited, naïve understanding of Islam, and how that ignorance is compounded by obligatory allegations of “anti-Muslim prejudice” (or “Islamophobia”), precluding any rational discussion of the very real threat mainstream Islamic doctrine poses.

I know that Mr. Powell, who lives by the American moral code on which he was nurtured, refuses to judge people on the basis of their religious affiliation, and that is his right. But he does not have the right to be ignorant or to disregard the fact that Islam is not just a religion: It is a political doctrine that imposes itself by force, and we have to subject to microscopic scrutiny any Muslim in America who ascends to the heights of this sensitive and supremely important post.

I would not want anyone to regard what I am saying as anti-Muslim prejudice. Muslims, like any other national group, can be either good or bad, and the best among them do not act in accordance with the teachings of their religion, either because they are not familiar with them, or because they have deliberately progressed beyond them; but to understand what it would mean for a Muslim to become President of the United States, one must search through Islamic history-the history of the Arabs, which is my own history-for a Muslim leader and look at his actions.

The first and most obvious Muslim leader we meet in our search is Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. Had Mr. Powell read the life of Muhammad, as it is recounted in the Arabic sources and as I learned it in my schooldays, he would fall down in a dead faint. In third grade at primary school I read with pride in our religious primer how Muhammad had beheaded 800 Jews from the Bani Quraiza tribe in one night, then taken their wives and children hostage, and spent the same night with the Jewish woman Safia, whose husband, father, and brother he had just killed. This is only a drop in the ocean of what was written about the crimes of Muhammad in the Arabic sources, but, unfortunately, Mr. Powell-it seems-has never troubled to familiarize himself with the most malicious enemy ever to have confronted him or threatened his safety. Once Americans understand that the Koran insists that Muhammad is the ideal that every Muslim male should imitate, they will realize that a Muslim candidate for the American presidency is a very serious matter.

She concludes with these truths that have yet to penetrate the uninformed, self-righteous hubris of American leaders like Colin Powell:

If America had used a small and insignificant proportion of what it spent on the war against terrorism to fund the translation of so far largely untranslated Islamic dogma and history from Arabic sources, it would have saved billions of dollars-let alone a great del of wasted time and spilled blood. America will never win the war until Americans read about Islam from Arab sources, word for word, without distortion or falsification. Reading this material will enable them to draw their own personal conclusions and help them to understand what kind of enemy they are facing. If Colin Powell becomes one of the people who reads the translated sources and sees the hate and violence they contain, he will bite his lip and say to himself: “I was ignorant of the true nature of my enemy, and this was my worst failing.”

Six years ago, Ibn Warraq, in his seminal study of apostasy from Islam, “Leaving Islam,” compared the ex-Muslim apostates of our era, to the ex-Communist writers whose work was compiled in Richard Crossman’s 1950, “The God That Failed.” Warraq wrote in 2003:

As Arthur Koestler said, “You hate our Cassandra cries and resent us as allies, but when all is said, we ex-Communists are the only people on your side who know what it is all about.” And as Richard Crossman wrote in his introduction to The God That Failed, “Silone [an ex-Communist] was joking when he said to Togliatti that the final battle would be between the Communists and the ex-Communists. But no one who has not wrestled with Communism as a philosophy and Communists as political opponents can really understand the values of Western democracy. The Devil once lived in Heaven, and those who have not met him are unlikely to recognize an angel when they see one.”

…[U]nless a reformed, tolerant, liberal kind of Islam emerges soon, perhaps the final battle will be between Islam and Western democracy. And these former Muslims, to echo Kestler’s words, on the side of Western democracy are the only ones who know what it’s all about, and we would do well to listen to their Cassandra cries.

Wafa Sultan’s “A God Who Hates” confirms the brilliance of Ibn Warraq’s recent analogy.

But the only relevant question remains unanswered, “Will we hear her Cassandra cries?”

Kein Friedennobelpreis für Osama Bin Laden?

Nasrin Amirsedghi — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:54:52 +0000

„The Fjordman Files“ erkläret, warum Osama Bin Laden keinen Friedennobelpreis dieses Jahr bekommen hat:

I must admit that the news that US President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was surprising, but only mildly so given what I know about the people who are members of the Nobel Committee in Oslo.

By Norwegian standards, Hillary Clinton is a conservative politician. That was not a joke, it was a factual statement. The New York Times would be one the most right-wing newspapers in Norway. This is the only way I can explain local politics to outsiders. However, even many Norwegians apparently find it puzzling that Barack Hussein Obama got the Peace Prize.

I have spent much of the day trying to figure out why he got it, and I finally came up with this answer:Because he has done so much to advance the cause of Islam.

Two years ago I suggested that Ayaan Hirsi Ali or other ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina or Wafa Sultan should be awarded the Peace Prize. My thinking was that they should get it because Islamic Jihad now constitutes the greatest threat to world peace, and former Muslims who defy the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam are standing up to this.

I am, of course, perfectly aware of the fact that they will probably never receive it, but even if somebody nominated them that would constitute a small victory. The Nobel Committee has now taken the exact opposite approach and concluded that to promote Islam is to promote peace. We all know that Islam is peace, and since Obama is advancing the cause of Islam worldwide he’s spreading peace.

During his Cairo speech as US President in June 2009, Obama announced that “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” In effect, he pledged himself to spreading Islam and censorship of those who criticize Islam around the world. Whatever else he might be, Obama is a man of his word. The Obama Administration has now co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations along with Islamic countries.

If the Norwegian Nobel Committee has indeed decided that to promote Islam is to promote peace, I think they have unfairly bypassed another name: Osama bin Laden. Obama has been very eager during his first months as US President to promote Islam, but in all fairness, bin Laden has devoted his entire life to the same cause. Due to his many years of devotion to the spread of Islamic peace and justice, you could consequently argue that Osama deserves the Peace Prize more than Obama.

I suspect that the only reason why Osama bin Laden hasn’t received the Nobel Peace Prize yet is because as far as I know he hasn’t been nominated. I hope somebody can correct this mistake as soon as possible so that he can receive his well-deserved Prize in 2010.

Not: The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.

For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here...

Wafa Sultan - Why I left Islam

muslimhumanist — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:56:49 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyNUJxmmaP8

Multiculturalismo

unpolitically — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:24:30 +0000

Wafa Sultan: «(…) E’ di importanza cruciale per questi cosiddetti “progressisti” rendersi conto che l’Islam è basato su un sistema anti-liberale. E’ necessario che queste persone aprano gli occhi davanti alle politiche e alle pratiche disumane degli islamisti in tutto il mondo. (…) Un concetto islamico, in particolare, in arabo viene chiamato “Al Taqyya”. Questo permette ed incoraggia i musulmani a mentire e ingannare gli altri al fine di raggiungere il loro scopo finale, che consiste nel sottomettere il mondo all’Islam e alla legge della sharia. Per andare sul sicuro, gli islamisti che seguono l’ideologia politica volta a rovesciare i non-musulmani, assoggettandoli all’Islam, applicano realmente il concetto di “Al Taqyyaa”. E’ dunque venuta a crearsi una relazione distruttiva: da un lato, gli islamisti mentono ai non-musulmani creduloni e, dall’altro lato, molti non musulmani, in particolare coloro che propongono un dialogo interreligioso, accettano quelle bugie ed evitano di fare domande in modo crudo e diretto, come sarebbe necessario per mettere in evidenza le loro pericolose intenzioni. In questo contesto, l’“Al Taqyyaa” dei musulmani e l’ignoranza e l’ingenuità degli occidentali riguardo alle reali intenzioni degli islamisti sono entrambi dei dolorosi modelli di partecipazione ed impegno. (…)». qui [en]

Wafa Sultan: "Unfortunately Rifqa Bary’s case highlights the danger of creeping Jihad in the Western world"

waltjr — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:31:39 +0000

Source: Jihad Watch

Wafa Sultan: “Unfortunately Rifqa Bary’s case highlights the danger of creeping Jihad in the Western world”

Dr. Wafa Sultan, who famously spoke the truth to a Muslim cleric on Al-Jazeera, is a Syrian-born certified psychiatrist, human rights activist, and author of the forthcoming book A God That Hates. Here, she speaks out about the Rifqa Bary case.

Unfortunately Rifqa Bary’s case highlights the danger of creeping Jihad in the Western world. This is not only because of the imminent danger the teenage girl may face right here in the US, had the court decided to have her return to her parents’ home, but also because of the mainstream media’s weak response to the severity of this case. Regrettably, the lack of interest by the media in covering her case comes at the expense of the public’s responsibility to learn the truth about Islam’s detrimental Sharia (Islamic Law) tenets.I was born and raised as a Muslim in Syria. I practiced Islam for thirty years of my life. Now I am a known human rights activist striving to save our future Muslim generations from the impact of the violent, hateful Islamic doctrines embedded in the Sharia. My life is also threatened, not only by my own extended family, but by countless men who consider themselves devout Muslims. Under Sharia, if a Muslim leaves Islam or converts to another religion he / she is an “apostate,” to be killed. Under Sharia every Muslim has the right to kill such an apostate without any questions asked.

After hearing the story of Rifqa Bary I urge well meaning American citizens to take action and keep this innocent girl out of her family’s reach. There are all kinds of reasons to believe that she will be harmed both emotionally and physically, or worse—be killed—once her family has charge of her. Our Western court system must be educated on Islamic apostasy laws to understand Rifqa Bary’s predicament, and the plight of all those like her who choose to leave Islam.

I therefore implore our court authorities who are involved in this case: take notice and listen to individuals like myself. Keeping Rifqa protected and away from her family is the proper way to go both legally and morally.

Wafa Sultan debating Islamic Cleric

islamreality — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:12:22 +0000

Geert Wilders och Wafa Sultan talar om yttrandefrihet

smileth — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:19:35 +0000

Danske ‘lite-lite-lite-muslim’ Naser Khaders parti Liberal Alliance försökte förhindra Geert Wilders att komma till Danmark i helgen. Konferensen genomfördes och Geert Wilders var med, fick ett varmt välkomnande och stora applåder.

Syrienfödda islamkritikern Wafa Sultan frågade Naser Khader om profeten MO var muslim eller islamist, men svaret uteblev.

Från Varjagerbloggen 2 maj:

“Naser Khaders parti Liberal Alliance hotar Danskt Folkeparti med att blockera upprustning av dansk kultur såsom domkyrkan och slott samt Fregatter om de fortsätter att kämpa för att Wilder skall komma till danmark.”

Läs hela blogginlägget: Wilders portad igen, Leffes blogg

Enligt Jihad Watch handlar det om en konferens om yttrandefrihet och en klimatkonferens som kan vara i fara i det fall “fascisten” Geert Wilders dyker upp på förstnämnda konferens:

Denmark delays freedom of speech conference to avoid offending Muslims — in case Geert Wilders shows up, Jihad Watch

Freedom of speech conferense delayed again, The Copenhagen Post Online

Geert Wilders a fascist?, Jihad Watch

Bloggaren Snaphanen var på plats på söndagens konferens, tog bilder och filmade och Fröken Sverige också. Vårt starka EU-kort Kent Ekeroth var också där, och frågade Geert Wilders varför hans parti PPV inte planerar att samarbeta med någon särskild grupp i EU- parlamentet.

Deras dokumentation finns på länkarna nedan.

Geert Wilders blev intervjuad av danska tv2 i lördags och programledaren frågade Wilders hur många muslimer som utgör ett hot mot Europa, med sina åsikter om sharia och andra krav på muslimsk särbehandling och överhöghet som Geert Wilders talade om. Wilders kunde bara svara med siffor, men han är inget orakel. Varför tänker inte Europas journalister själva och tar reda på den verklighet de har omkring sig istället för att komma med korkade frågor. Fråga muslimer istället vad de vill ha och varför våld är en del av deras taktik i Europa och kom sedan själva med ett svar. Eller, menar våra politiker och journalister på allvar att man vill islamisera Europa?

Geert Wilders och Wafa Sultan i Köpenhamn 090514, I Mitt Sverige

Christiansborg online söndag d. 14.6, Snaphanen

Video: Geert Wilders in Copenhagen, 2009, Snaphanen

Geert Wilders tal i Köpenhamn, Kent Ekeroth

På Youtube finns intervjun i danska tv2 med den osanna och överdrivna rubriken. Den speglar inte Geert Wilders åsikter och inte ens de argument som han framför i denna intervju:

Geert Wilders in Denmark: Deporting millions of Muslims may be necessary Interview

Läs också Dansk folkepartis Pia Kjaersgaards veckobrev om konferensen om yttrandefrihet och islam i söndags:

Ytringsfriheden kender ikke til fløje, Spydpigen

Geert Wilders och Wafa Sultan i Köpenhamn 090614

imittsverige2 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:18:00 +0000

Köpenhamn 090614. Kent Ekeroth frågar Geert Wilders, om varför hans parti, PPV, inte planerar att samarbeta med någon speciell grupp i EU-parlamentet.

Del 2
Del 3
Del 4

Läs mer:
www.snaphanen.dk
www.kentekeroth.se
www.sverigedemokraterna.se
www.uriasposten.dk
www.trykkefrihed.dk
http://www.youtube.com/user/Erenicus
http://www.youtube.com/user/mxcartoons

Missa heller inte Robert Spencer från i våras på Trykkefrihed
Politiken
Geert Wilders: Måske bliver jeg Hollands statsminister
Jøder sletter DF fra sort liste
Wilders big winner of Dutch EU elections
Geert Wilders står til kanonsejr i Holland

Kvinder ville bekæmpe Wilders med havregrød (15. jun.)

Geert Wilders får stor valgsejr (4. jun.)

Geert Wilders står til kanonsejr i Holland (4. jun.)

K bøjer sig i Wilders-spørgsmålet (12. maj.)

Løkke siger nej til Geert Wilders (12. maj.)

Geert Wilders inviteret til Danmark (8. maj.)

DF sætter deadline for Wilders-strid (7. maj.)

Måling: Frihetspartiet får fire seter i EU-parlamentet

Godt resultat for Europas høyreside

Tv2.NO

/Fröken Sverige

Sultan: "Pregúntense qué pueden hacer por la Humanidad"

samuel — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:54:17 +0000

Mujer valiente contra el Islám en el canal Al Jazeera

Javier de León — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:21:30 +0000

En ciertos momentos tenemos la sensación que todo un pueblo se mueve por unas creencias y un pensamiento unánime. En el caso del pueblo musulmán las mujeres son la sombra de unos hombres que en la mayoría de los casos hacen alarde de su machismo.

Este vídeo es sobrecogedor. Wafa Sultán una mujer árabe y ex-musulmana es entrevistada por el canal de televisión Al Jazzera de Qatar. El criterio unido al valor con el que esta mujer habla es digno de mención.

Como decía al principio: en ciertos momentos tenemos la sensación que todo un pueblo se mueve por una creencias y un pensamiento unánime, ahora veo la excepción confirma la regla.

Entrevista con subtítulos en español de una mujer árabe ex musulmana en el canal Al Jazeera de Qatar el 21-02-06.

Video enviado por Lisandro Rodríguez.

Gracias.

Yo quiero ser Steven Seagal

El Marques de Auvergne — Sun, 24 May 2009 22:41:45 +0000

La semana pasada fue una semana bastante durilla. Si fuera un héroe de acción, como por ejemplo Steven Segal, probablemente habría acabado mi aventura en una cama gigante, bañado por piedras preciosas, mientras una cohorte de mujeres masajeaba mis cansados bíceps, pero en su lugar, acabé en el coche de uno de mis mejores amigos, salpicado de pelos del perro que habitualmente ocupa el asiento donde me encontraba y contemplando como un hombre extremadamente bajito intentaba, sin éxito alguno, pasar por la acera sin que los aspersores de agua lo mojaran.

Nunca se me ha dado especialmente bien pasar mucho rato a solas, lo reconozco, tengo la habilidad de desesperar a cualquiera, lo que a veces tiene sus ventajas, y para mi desgracia, cuando me encuentro solo, mi “don” se vuelve contra mi, en forma de pensamientos recurrentes y “comeduras” de cabeza.

Pese a lo dicho, al terminar este fin de semana me siento cuanto menos orgulloso. Por diversas circunstancias me he visto obligado a soportarme más tiempo del normal.

“He sido probado y he resultado victorioso”.

Ya esta, aquí me correspondería acabar esta entrada. Sin embargo, no me parece muy acertado, así que en lugar de hacer eso, voy a enlazaros un tema que me parece digno de mención.

Wafa Sultan, (en árabe وفاء سلطان) esta mujer ha recibido duras críticas por su postura frente al Islam. Cualquiera que desee saber sobre ella puede escribir su nombre en el Google y le saldrán muchísimas entradas. Yo solamente os voy a dejar sus videos, para que al igual que yo, aplaudáis si así lo creéis conveniente, su valentía y arrojo. Porque aunque a nosotros nos parezca algo impensable, en el mundo del que viene esta mujer, decir lo que dice la convierte en objetivo de odios y violencia, y no todo el mundo estaría dispuesto a asumir el riesgo que eso conlleva.

Video 1 de Wafa Sultan desde Youtube

Video 2 de Wafa Sultan desde Youtube

Video 3 de Wafa Sultan desde Youtube

Alguna persona me podrá decir que cualquier religión tiene extremistas, pero al menos aquí hay alguien que conocedora de esa realidad no se queda callada, sino que alza la voz para que quien escuche pueda reaccionar a tiempo.

Un saludo a todos

Being straight and serious

Time — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:04:28 +0000

Manch Orkversteher oder freundlicher Orientale mag relativieren, Klohametts Befehle, Widersacher zu köpfen usw. ständen zwar im Kloran (was sich ja keinesfalls leugnen läßt), sie seien aber nicht wörtlich sondern quasi “poetisch-symbolisch” zu nehmen (ebenso wie unbotmäßige Frauen angeblich nicht wirklich zu verprügeln seien, sondern bei ihnen lediglich mit einer Zahnbürste symbolisch angeklopft werden sollte).

Von de Sades schrecklichen Fantasien wissen wir, dass sie in jahrelanger Kerkerhaft hinter meterdicken, feuchten Mauern entstanden, also in hohem Maße Sublimation sind. Von Klo aber wissen wir (so jedenfalls die religiösen Schriften des Mohammedanismus), dass er mit starkem persönlichen Engagement, um nicht zu sagen perverser Lust, ans massenhafte Quälen und Töten gegangen ist. Insofern also die zweit- und drittwichtigste Textsammlung der Orks bar jeder Poesie sondern vielmehr mit total trockener und nüchterner Beschreibung in dieselbe Richtung wie das teilweise lyrische Hauptwerk zielen, werden sie zu “Kronzeugen” gegen jede Theorie, die die Gewalttätigkeit und Perversion Klohametts relativieren will.

In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich nochmal auf das Sira-Kapitel “Der Angriff auf die Banu Quraiza” aufmerksam machen, welches besser “Die Schlachtung der Banu Quraiza” heißen sollte (1). Wir erfahren dort, wie sich die 600 – 900 Männer des jüdischen Stammes freiwillig von Klo und seiner Kamarilla enthaupten lassen, weil dies die einzige Möglichkeit ist, das Leben ihrer geliebten Frauen und Kinder, wenn auch in mohammedanistischer Sklaverei, so doch zu erhalten. Mit blutigen Händen vergewaltigt Klo sodann die Jüdin Raihanna, deren Ehemann, Vater und Bruder er kurz zuvor gemeuchelt hat, um ihr gleich anschließend die Ehe anzutragen. Klo, der perverse Massenmörder, das Vorbild aller Mohammedanisten, der nach ihrer Meinung beste Mensch aller Zeiten…

Gestern wurde ich durch einen Hinweis von BB von GoV (jetzt auch PI) auf eine deutsche counterjihadische Aktionsgruppe aufmerksam (2). Sie scheint gut vernetzt und energisch zu sein, ich hoffe, wir werden häufiger von ihnen hören. Die Website der Gruppe will in vielen Kapiteln über den Mohammedanismus informieren und tut das auf lesenswerte Weise, indes ist die Biografie des Bandenführers mE. beschönigend und schwankhaft-unpräzise (gemessen an der Sira, nicht an den Resultaten zB. der Ohlig-Gruppe). “Es wird gesagt, dass in der Schlacht von Badr auch Engel auf der Seite des Propheten kämpften”, das ist ein mE völlig überflüssiges Gesülze von der Art Taheris. “Allah sagte ihnen, sie sollten darum nicht trauern”: Hier geht die notwendige Trennschärfe völlig verloren, denn da es – zumindest für den Counterjihadi – keinen Alla gibt (es sei denn den -wertesten), kann er auch nichts sagen. Über den Krieg mit den jüdischen Banu Qaynuqa heißt es: “Mohammed wollte die Juden zunächst töten. Nachdem einer seiner Leute jedoch ein gutes Wort für sie einlegte, ließ er die Juden gehen.” Über die Vertreibung der Banu Nadir heißt es: “Mohammed ließ sie am Leben unter der Voraussetzung, dass sie all ihren Besitz an ihn gaben.” Also eigentlich ein vergleichsweise kulanter Feldherr, möchte man nun meinen, hätte man nicht die Sira gründlich gelesen und Kenntnis von der abscheulichen und doch unter Mohammedanisten hochgerühmten Geschichte des Massenmordes an den Männern der Banu Quraiza, einer Geschichte, die auf der besprochenen Webseite nicht erscheint.

Dafür haben wir allerlei mohammedanistische, kalligrafische Schmuckelemente als Hintergrund und im Text, aber ich frage mich, wozu?

Denn einerseits kann und will doch keiner von uns lesen, dass “Rosen zwar betörend riechen, jedoch einen ekelhaften Gestank absondern verglichen mit den Fürzen Klos und Klomenis” (hierzu übrigens ein bis etwa 4:00 sehenswertes Video von Klomenis Beerdigung unter (3) mit Sesselszene bei 1:16).

Andererseits muß ich dem geschätzten Ex-8dS-Kommentatoren und Kalligrafen Friedel B., der die Ork-Schrift mag, aus der Perspektive des engagierten Laien widersprechen indem ich sage, die orkische Kalligrafie kommt für mich eher daher wie Peitschen- oder Schwertmale auf einem Körper. Sie ist mir verworren, verwirrend, verschleiernd, täuschend, maniriert, unsachlich, unpräzise, aufgeblasen und angeberisch. Sie kommt genauso großspurig daher wie die Minarette und die ganze Ornamentik. Sie führt das vom Bild stammende Konzept der Schrift in vieler Hinsicht wieder auf das Bild zurück. Wie alles Orkische scheint mir auch die Ork-Schrift die mit Abstand abstoßendste aller Zeiten zu sein. Deshalb finde ich ihre Rezitation auf Counterjihadseiten genauso überflüssig wie das zwanghafte “Partei Gottes” in Klammern, welches FAZ-Ali2-Lerch jeder Nennung der Mörderbande Hisbulla stets anfügt.

Ich meine, man kann sich den Orkismus gar nicht abartig genug vorstellen, wie das fortschreitende Wissen über ihn zeigt. Ich bin daher der Ansicht, das auch die orkischen Symbole vollständig GEÄCHTET werden sollten (zumal vom Counterjihad), und ich stimme Wafa Sultan zu, wenn sie fragt: “Is it not a duty for each one of us to view Islam not FRIVOLOUSLY but in a most SERIOUS manner?” (4).

Time am 17. Dezember 2008

_____

(1) http://madrasaoftime.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/sira-1-einfuhrung-und-massenmord/
(2) http://www.unterm-schleier.com
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=628Jd4qJDaM
(4) http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023953.php

_____

PS.: Ian Dury will auch straight sein:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYErPddxYEo&feature=related

We are at WAR

chittyboy — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:30:06 +0000

Wafa Sultan: “The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.”

These were the exact words of a Syrian woman, borned into a Muslim family and later on took on Christianity. Very strong words. I cannot agree more with her. She preached everything i ever believed in, that everyone should be open to their rights to belief and rights to practice as we wished. Her quotes touched my heart… I shall not condemn any religion as i believe no religion is wrong. No religion tells you to kill, none tells you to sin. But as civilization moves forward, not all move forward with it. Laws of religions created then might not be applicable now. Be it Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism, they are all holy and good religions. But the laws of the religions need to progress with time.

And only when a particular leader dares to change the ways of its teaching’s, can the religion grow bigger and deeper.

One Malaysia? let’s work towards once voice in respecting each other’s religions first…

Classic words..

“Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don’t throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people’s beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.”

My conclusion of the video… ‘Should my kids choose to embrace a religion not of mine, let it be.. so as long as they do not stop their children from embracing another. Only then, can people believing in different thing’s can live together, with love and respect for one another..’

Abuse of Women in Islam: Must watch Documentry

oxyuranusscutellatus — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:26:06 +0000

Abuse of Women in Islam 1

Abuse of Women in Islam 2

Wafa Sultan : “J’ai décidé de combattre l’islam”

constantiam — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:02:53 +0000

Informasjon: Kunsten å forenkle Islam

Arne Hassel — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:14:34 +0000

Snikislamisering i kunst

Mengden informasjon øker hele tiden. Vi som mennesker prøver kollektivt å samle informasjon, og bearbeide den til forståelse og nytte for oss selv. Med introduksjon av datamaskiner, og senere nettverket som knyttet disse sammen, fikk vi verktøy til å behandle og prosessere informasjon enda raskere og mer effektivt. Vi konstruerer også sensorer som registrerer informasjon vi ikke selv kan beskrive nøyaktig, og behandler dette til å bli forståelig for oss.

I løpet av våre korte liv vil vi bare få tatt inn en minimal mengde av informasjonen som finnes, så lite at det er ubetydelig i den store sammenhengen. Men informasjonen vi får har alt å si for våre liv. Hvordan vi velger å bruke den, hvordan den styrer oss mot mer informasjon, og hvordan vi velger å forenkle alt vi mottar.

Det er sistnevnte som opptar meg i dette innlegget. For vi driver alle med forenklinger, det er umulig for oss å se alle situasjoner i lys i seg selv. Det blir rett og slett for mye informasjon for oss, og det er også slik vi er konstruert fra naturens side. Men det varierer hvor mye vi forenkler, og hva vi forenkler. Og ikke minst hvorfor.

Hvorfor velger noen å forenkle deres inntrykk av muslimer?

Etter Siv Jensens tale om snikislamisering har muslimer og grupperinger av samfunn blant dem fått mye mediadekkning. Og med økt mediadekkning kaster bloggere seg etter, og lenker til medias artikler i fleng. Jeg liker at nettavisene har trackback til disse blogginnleggene, selv om jeg er redd for at de mange ganger blir misbrukt (men den frustrasjonen skal jeg ta for meg i et annet innlegg). Det jeg liker med det er at jeg får mulighet til å se hva enkeltmennesker mener om det som omtales i media-artikkelen. Jeg liker kanskje ikke alltid det jeg leser, men jeg forkaster ikke bloggen av den grunn. F.eks. abonnerer jeg på blogger som jeg til tider syns har ganske uhyrlige innlegg, men forkaster jeg dem av den grunn så kommer jeg aldri til å lære dem å forstå. Men det er visse bloggere og blogginnlegg jeg til tider har vanskelig å forstå.

Jeg ser at det er problemer i invandringspolitikken. Men jeg er redd for at frustrasjonen over de tilfellene (og det må understrekes at det tross alt er enkelttilfeller) hvor ting går dårlig skal gå utover skjebner til innvandrere som gjør det godt her i landet. Jeg er redd for dem som ønsker å forenkle lovverket til den grad at enkeltindivider ikke lenger skal ha noe å si i deres tilfeller. Og det er dette som gjør meg frustrert over enkeltpersoners forenkling av informasjon, og det når de bruker det i det formål å spre deres politiske overbevisning.

Politikk har alltid vært en rotete affære. I et demokrati likeså, selv om vi liker å tro at mekanismene der beskytter oss bedre mot overgrep enn andre styremåter (men igjen; det for være til et senere innlegg). Demokratiet åpner for partidannelser, hvor folk kan enes om saker i grupper, og folket kan stemme frem disse gruppene for å la dem styre samfunnet for seg. Jeg har tro på demokratiet (som det beste alternativet vi har med dagens teknologiløsninger), men frykter et samfunn hvor folket setter all sin lit til partiene. Vi må forbli kritiske, og tenke som individer over hva vi mener er rett og galt.

Så tilbake med dette med snikislamiseringen. I kjølvannet av Jensens utspill har jeg merket en økt tendens til åpenlyst kritiske innlegg mot Islam. Det virker som debatten som har oppstått har skapt en legitimitet blant det å uttrykke seg kritiskt mot Islam. Om listen har blitt mindre for å ytre sine meninger, så applauderer jeg dette, men om respekten for en av verdens største Islam samtidig har gått ned, så er dette dumt.

Ja, jeg mener at Islam skal respekteres. Som religion. Jeg mener at når man snakker om Islam, så må man kunne skille mellom Islam som religion og de utallige samfunn som har den som religiøst samlepunkt. Således er jeg sterkt kritisk til ord som snikislamisering, på grunn av alle de to ordene består av, og hva betydningen av dem legger opp til.

Islamisering

Jeg hater dette ordet. Når jeg hører det får jeg bilde av en bevegelse, en gruppe mennesker som står samlet og jobber for felles mål. Sniking er noe stygt, noe bare feiginger og idioter gjør. Det kan også legges onde følelser i det, at folk undertrykker andre for å fremme egne interesser. Og det er vel ikke til å legge under teppet at mange som bruker ordet snikislamisering til å fremme sine saker, bruker dette for å vise Islam i dårlig lys. Unntaket er dem som tar det opp for å avvæpne ordet.

Jeg fikk i dag en invitasjon om å bli med i Facebook-gruppen Nei til mer Islamisering av Norge. Igjen det ordet. Jeg måtte sjekke hva det dreide seg om. Inne på siden var det lenket til flere grupper som dreide seg rundt ordet, i tillegg til to videoer som jeg vil videreformidle:

Disse to videoene formidler for meg sterke meninger om Islam. Og, igjen for meg, begge tar utgangspunkt i den feilaktige forenklingen av informasjon. Nemlig at Islam er en gruppe mennesker med kultur som ikke er forenlig med kulturen i vesten.

I tilfellet Pat Condell kan jeg kanskje forstå det. Jeg tror ikke kulturen han ser seg medlem av er godt forenlig med kulturen til de fleste muslimer. Det, tror jeg, har nok mye med hans anti-religiøse holdning å gjøre. Men det betyr ikke at det er umulig for Pat Condell og en muslim å jobbe ved siden av hverandre. Eller bo ved siden av hverandre. Så lenge de respekterer hverandres rettigheter.

Wafa Sultan er for meg en mer interessant person. Det har kanskje noe med at ho er veldig flink til å presentere seg og legge til grunn sine meninger. Historien ho forteller er tragisk, og jeg har ingen forståelse for folk som tillater ekteskap hvor en eller begge parter er under 16 år. Helst ser jeg at man ikke tillater ekteskap før folk er minst 18 år. Men igjen, dette er tema for et annet innlegg.

Historien Wafa Sultan er tragisk, og jeg tror ikke jeg fullt ut kan forstå hva hun har gjennomgått. Men jeg mener fortsatt ho går i en felle når ho erklærer krig mot alt som er del av Islam.

Er det mulig å kreve i seriøse debatter at man skiller mellom Islam som religion, og kulturer hvor Islam er et religiøst samlepunkt?

Jeg håper det.

La oss slutte å bruke ord som islamisering. Ordet er feil. Islamister likeså. Ekstrem Islamisme… Huff… (merker jeg blir oppgitt)

Jeg har kanskje ikke vært særlig god til å forenkle informasjonen jeg ønsker å få frem i dette innlegget. Men om du har spørsmål til temaene jeg stiller over, så er det bare komme med spørsmål i kommentarfeltet, så skal jeg svare så godt jeg kan for meg. Hvem vet, kanskje du klarer å overbevise meg at Islamisme er en verdensomspennende konspirasjon som skal få alle til å tilbe Allah. Jeg tviler sterkt dog.

Anbefalt lesing:

"Do not allow the destructive forces of Islam to ruin the West. Preserve your freedom, protect it, cherish it.

ournemesis — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:57:35 +0000

Dr Wafa Sultan pleads to the western world to fight and to reject any addition of Sharia Law in the

"Do not allow the destructive forces of Islam to ruin the West. Preserve your freedom, cherish it.

ournemesis — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:57:35 +0000

Dr Wafa Sultan pleads to the western world to fight and to reject any addition of Sharia Law in the