亨廷頓錯了，這不是兩種文明之間的衝突， 
不是 a clash of religions or cultures 宗教或者文化之間的衝突, but a battle between modernity and barbarism 而是現代與野蠻之戰, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose 崇尚暴力的、反動的伊斯蘭教勢力註定失敗之戰。 "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "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." “ 這是中世紀的意識與21世紀意識的衝突。這是文明、理智與原始、野蠻之間的衝突。” 
“我們目睹的這場在全球範圍的衝突，不是宗教的衝突，或文明的衝突。那些動不動就上街狂熱反美、反西方的伊斯蘭大男人們，可以合法擁有三、四個老婆，但女性卻連開車都被當作犯罪。它是兩種相互對立的東西、兩個時代的衝突；它是那種屬於中世紀的心理和21世紀的思維之間的衝突；它是先進和落後的衝突；文明和原始的衝突；理性和野蠻的衝突；它是自由和壓迫的衝突；是民主和專制的衝突┅┅” 
我被眼前這位阿拉伯女性利劍般的語言震驚了！ 
近日在阿拉伯網站、猶太網站和許多英文網站流傳的一段2006年2月21日半島電視台（Al Jazeera）辯論節目上，這位女性舌戰伊斯蘭教士，對方簡直沒有絲毫招架之力。這是我觀賞過的最精彩的電視辯論之一，她是一位勇敢的阿拉伯女性！ 在政教合一的阿拉伯世界，不僅專制橫行，還是絕對大男人主義的世界，那些留著大鬍子的毛拉們（mullahs）統管一切。女人連駱駝的價錢還不如，沒有任何權利，連臉都不讓見天日，要嚴嚴實實蒙犯罪，更不要說在婚姻上有同樣的權利。 至於伊斯蘭文化的弊端，更是不許女性插嘴。在那個“要用戰鬥把世界上所有不信伊斯蘭的人，都變成穆斯林”的《可蘭經》主導的世界，誰也不可以對這種文化、這種宗教提出批評。在自由的丹麥，一家報紙登出關於伊斯蘭先知的漫畫，那個世界的男人們就狂熱喊叫著去攻擊人家的使館，向天空放槍，放火；當然，就別提他們用自殺炸彈，去炸猶太人的飯館、學校、老人中心，甚至正舉行婚禮的教堂。 在那樣一個誰也不敢說真話、噤若寒蟬的世界，竟出現一位女性，敢公開在阿拉伯半島電視上和那些毛拉們面對面地辯論，大聲說出事實、真實、真相，痛斥伊斯蘭文化，勇敢地為猶太人、為西方文明辯護。一夜之間，她成為阿拉伯世界“良知”的象徵！ 她就是瓦法．蘇爾丹（Wafa Sultan, 1958年6月14日- ）,一個親眼目睹的事件改變了在敘利亞出生、成長，並曾是虔誠伊斯蘭信徒的女子。1979年，一幫恐怖份子衝進她當時就讀的大馬士革Aleppo大學，高喊著“Allah is great!”（真主是偉大的），當場槍殺了她的教授，並一氣打了一百多槍，她震驚了，意識到這不是她應該要的神和宗教，從而開始質疑曾得到的所有伊斯蘭知識。 她決心逃出那種宗教主導的國家，去尋找真正的文明。1989年，她和丈夫孩子抵達洛杉磯，在那裡學習心理學，後從事心理諮詢工作。她常在網絡上撰文和那些極端伊斯蘭者辯論，後來被半島電視台發現，找去參加辯論節目，由於她信奉自由的價值，大膽地指出伊斯蘭教的弊端，再加上她說話鏗鏘有力，思路敏捷，反應機智，毫不讓步，把那些阿拉伯學者嗆得啞口無言，她被稱為“伊斯蘭神學士的最大夢魘”。 尤其是2006年2月21日，她在半島電視上和埃及伊斯蘭教士辯論，精彩異常，其片斷被“中東媒體研究所”（MemriTV.org）放到網絡上，一下引起轟動，各種語種的網站在轉載這個節目，谷歌上她的詞條有幾百萬，更有成千上萬的評論，甚至有人稱她是“新世界的女神”。 這個節目讓人感到阿拉伯世界的希望所在。更令人確信，不管什麽族裔，什麽文化背景，不管哪裡的人群，面對怎樣嚴酷的專制，只要是人，心裡就會有對自由的呼喚，對真正文明的嚮往！ 蘇爾丹提出一個遠高於哈佛教授亨廷頓的觀念：“文明之間沒有衝突，只有競爭。”她認為伊斯蘭教不是文明，因為這種宗教導致人們傾向暴力和屠殺。她說《可蘭經》明白地寫着，要用武力把所有不信伊斯蘭的人，變成穆斯林。她對穆斯林和猶太人比較說，猶太人經過巨大苦難，流散到世界各地，但他們團結起來，不是用暴力和屠殺，而是用向世界貢獻知識，贏得世人的承認。但穆斯林在做什麽，把三個大佛像鑿毀成廢墟。 
她在辯論中激昂地說，“我們沒有看到一個猶太人，去毀掉別人的教堂；我們沒有看到一個猶太人，用殺人來表達抗議；我們也沒有看到一個佛教徒，去燒毀清真寺，去殺穆斯林，或攻擊人家的大使館。只有穆斯林，用燒毀人家的教堂、殺人、毀掉人家的使領館，來捍衛他們的信仰。” 她最後向伊斯蘭世界發出呼籲：“穆斯林在要求世人尊敬他們之前，必須問自己，可以向人類貢獻什麽？” 她在接受以色列電台採訪時，更是向倍受伊斯蘭世界的大男人欺壓的阿拉伯女性發出呼籲：“我想告訴每一個伊斯蘭世界的女性，你是真正的領袖，如果你不坐在駕駛位置，帶著我們的新一代安全地向前行駛，那麽我們的人民就沒有出路。” 蘇爾丹特別強調，女性的天性不是暴力和強制，而是和平與寬容。她說，“我想告訴每一個女性，伊斯蘭男性除了失敗，他們什麽也沒證明；在把你們排斥到邊緣之後，他們帶領你們走向的是一個又一個災難。我想告訴每一個女性，要相信你自己，扮演你的角色。”“你能生出生命，你就有能力來保護生命！” 她直言：“我想做的是，改變我們人民的思維狀態（mentality ），因為他們已經成為伊斯蘭教義的人質十四個世紀了。沒有哪個人質能夠自己打破獄規，逃離監獄，外部世界的人應該去幫助他們越獄。” 蘇爾丹一夜之間成為世界媒體關注的人物，《紐約時報》、《洛杉磯時報》， CNN 電視，法國《世界報》，以色列廣播電台等，都發表了對她的報導或專訪。《華盛頓時報》為此專門發表了題為“勇敢的美籍阿拉伯女性”的社論。她和伊斯蘭神學士在半島電視上的辯論，被譯成各種文字，成千上萬的人發貼討論，成為最近最大的網路新聞之一。 《紐約時報》說，蘇爾丹的勇氣，不僅西方自由世界人們敬仰，連穆斯林世界的改革者們，也稱讚她敢公開在阿拉伯電視上，大聲說出只有少數穆斯林在私下才敢說的話。 當然，她也遭到那些狂熱毛拉們的痛恨，《紐約時報》說，世界各地的伊斯蘭神學士在譴責她，她家裡的電話留言中不斷有威脅的話：“噢，你還活著，你等著瞧吧”；還有人發電子信說，“有人會殺你的，那個人將是我。”即使在半島電視節目上，那些辯不過她的毛拉們，也像霍梅尼發出追殺《魔鬼的詩篇》作者拉什迪一樣，對她發出宗教裁判令（fatwa）。 但她毫不畏懼，她對《紐約時報》說，“知識把我從那種落後的思想中解救了出來，應該有人（承擔責任）去把穆斯林人民從那種錯誤的信仰中解放出來。” 她已用阿拉伯文寫過兩本書。《紐約時報》說，她的第三本（英文）書《逃脫的囚犯：當神是個惡魔》（The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster）出版後，“阿拉伯世界會被攪翻天”。 她的母親和兄弟仍在敘利亞，已不敢直接和她聯繫了，只能通過在塔林的妹妹轉話。她的兩個兄弟，在她上電視批評伊斯蘭教之後，就被敘利亞的秘密警察帶去審問。但蘇爾丹說，“我沒有恐懼，我對我的觀點有信心，這就像一場萬里跋涉，我已經邁出了第一步和最困難的開始十英里。” 這一位女性，提升了整個阿拉伯世界！ 以下是阿拉伯世界的媒體對她採訪的對話：
原文翻譯如下:
我們今天見證的不是宗教間的衝突，也不是文明的衝突，而是正反間的交鋒，不同的時代，中世紀的思想與二十一世紀的思想之間的鬥爭，落後與文明，原始與文明，野蠻與理智，自由與壓迫，民主與專制，人權與踐踏人權，蔑視婦女如獸與尊重婦女如人之間的鬥爭。我們今天看到的並不是文明之間的衝突，不同的文明不會衝突，只會競爭。
問：你的意思是今天的衝突一方是西方文化，另一方是落後無知的穆斯林？
答：沒錯。
問：是誰說的文明衝突，不是享廷頓嗎，肯定不是本拉登。
答：是穆斯林先使用的字眼，是穆斯林開始的文明衝突。伊斯蘭先知說：我必須為了讓人們相信安拉和信使而戰鬥。當穆斯林把人們分為穆斯林和非穆斯林時起，並且號召為他人皈依伊斯蘭教而戰時，他們開始了衝突，開始了戰爭。為了制止戰爭，我們有必有重審經典教義。這些經典教義充滿了消滅異教徒的訓示。我的同事說他沒有侵害別人的宗教，可是在這個世界上誰給了他為別人起名字的權力？給自己起名字是人家自己的權力。可是他叫他們ahi al –dhimma, 還叫他們經書之人，還叫他們猴子和豬，他說基督徒是安拉憎恨之人，誰告訴你他們只是經書之人？他們是無數書本之人，今天你能讀到的所有科學的書都是他們寫的。這是他們自由創新思維的果實。誰給了你權力把他們稱為安拉憎恨之人？或稱他們為迷途之人？然後來到這裡，若無其事地說你的宗教沒有教會你侵害別人的宗教？我不信基督，不信伊斯蘭，也不是猶太人，只是一個俗人，我不相信超自然的力量，但是我尊重別人信仰的權利。
問：你是邪教徒嗎？
答：隨你說什麼都行。我是一個普通的俗人。不相信超自然的力量。
問：如果你是一個邪教徒，那我們沒有什麼好爭的。你褻瀆了伊斯蘭，真主，可蘭經。
答：我信什麼是你管不着的個人事務。你相信石頭也行，只要你不要拿它來砸我。你有信仰的自由。但是別人的信仰是別人的事。即使米賽亞是上帝，是瑪麗的兒子，或者說撒旦是上帝，是瑪麗的兒子，這是人們的自由。猶太人經歷了災難。但是人們尊敬他們是因為他們和知識，而不是他們的恐怖。是勤勞，不是哭泣和喊叫。人類十九世紀和二十世紀的發現和科學歸功於猶太科學家。他們一千五百萬人失散各地，因為勤勞和知識得到權利。我們沒有聽說過有那一個猶太人在德國人的餐館裡當人肉炸彈。也沒有聽說過猶太人毀掉別人的教堂。沒聽說過猶太人為了抗議就殺人。穆斯林毀了三尊大佛。但是有那個佛教徒毀過清真寺？殺死過一個穆斯林，燒掉一個外國大使館？只有穆斯林為了自己的信仰燒教堂，殺人，燒使館。這條道路是走不通的。穆斯林們應該問一下自己能為全人類做些什麼事。而不僅僅是要求得到人們尊敬。
by D.M. Murdock
November 2, 2009 Freethought Examiner from Examiner Website Dr. Wafa Sultan is a Syrian-born, American psychiatrist famous for her blistering critique of Islam in a debate with a Muslim cleric first aired on al-Jazeera television in 2006. The video of this controversial chastisement (far below video) was posted online and has been seen by millions of people worldwide. So popular was this courageous and passionate exposé that TIME magazine voted Dr. Sultan one of the world's 100 most influential people of that year.
Dr. Sultan is also a co-founder of the American human rights group Former Muslims United, whose members include other important ex-Muslim activists such Nonie Darwish and Amil Imani, along with other brave souls. One of the main purposes of FMU is to ensure that Muslim apostates are protected under U.S. law, which charges people with murder who kill other human beings, regardless of their faith or non-belief. Unfortunately, according to the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, apostates from Islam can be murdered freely and legally - and many of the Muslim faithful have been taught to believe this slaughter is necessary, according to "God's law."
Former Muslims United also educates the public as to other threats to their basic human rights and freedoms under Islamic or sharia law, which is being pushed in non-Muslim countries around the world. One look at the kingdom of Saudi Arabia reveals the fundamentalist Islamic state undersharia law - and this way of life is being exported globally along with an agenda to compel sharia law upon the non-Muslim population as well. Along with sharia comes: ...as well as other brutal and harsh atrocities and mistreatments of human beings. 
Wafa Sultan is an active and courageous critic of Islam at its fundamental core, which includes not only sharia law but also violent exhortations within the Koran/Quran itself. For her vitally important work helping preserve democratic and free society, Dr. Sultan lives under a constant security threat. In order to tell her story and spread her message, she has a new book out explaining the quagmire in which much of the world finds itself currently sinking, A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam. She has kindly agreed to an interview with me here on Examiner.com about her life and mission.
D.M Murdock: Dr. Sultan, thank you for honoring us with this interview. You are a courageous woman for doing what you do. The first question is, have you personally received any threats against you for your work exposing the problems with Islamic law and tradition? Are any of these threats specifically because of your very public apostasy from Islam? How has your life been impacted by these threats?
"I receive death threats on a daily basis."
Wafa Sultan: I receive death threats on a daily basis. I'm a well-known writer in the Arab world. My writings expose me to millions of devout Muslims who have nothing positive to prove but the sheer cruelty of their teachings. Islam has deprived them of their intellectual ability to face criticism with an effective and acceptable way.
Being born and raised as a Muslim has helped me to realize how serious these threats are. While I try to not let the threats interfere with my mission, at the same time I don't ignore them either. Prior to the release of my book A God Who Hates, I was forced to go into hiding. It hasn't been easy, but since I believe in my mission, nothing will deter me from accomplishing my objective.
DM: You were born and raised in a country - Syria - that, although it supposedly has a "secular" government, is largely Muslim. How was life different in Syria than it has been since you became an American citizen? Specifically as a woman, how is your life different from what it would have been, if you had stayed within the Syrian Muslim culture?
WS: The idea of "secular" government is a misconception that needs to be clarified. There is no secular government in the Islamic world. Some governments pretend to be secular for two main reasons:
To prove to the West that they are "secular" and in that way to benefit economically from its dealing with the West The despotic governments are always threatened by Islamists. That leaves those autocratic regimes with no choice but to hit the Islamists with an iron fist.
The continuous conflict between the two evils doesn't mean that the government is less Islamic. In Syria, as long as Islamists don't bother the government - especially the president and his family - they are free to do whatever they wish. For the last twenty years, the Islamists with the help of Saudi money have played a major role in radicalizing the Syrian public, while the Syrian government has been turning a blind eye.
The situation under Islamic Sharia is bad in every Islamic country, but the level of strictness is different from one country to another - depending on the degree to which these laws are applied and followed. On a scale of one to ten where #1 is the least and #10 is the worst, I would grade Syria #6 compared to Saudi Arabia, which deserves to get a #10.
However, my life in America is not comparable to my life in Syria at any aspect. Since I left my country in 1989, I have been enjoying my life as a free person. Regardless of the threats I receive, I express myself freely and speak my mind without the fear of being killed by my family and associates.
Do you think that if I lived in Syria I could answer your questions freely the same way I'm doing it now?
DM: When you earned your American citizenship, you learned about the U.S. Constitution. What are some important differences between the American Constitution and Islamic/sharia law, as you understand them?
WS: In essence, I began learning about the U.S. Constitution the first moment I arrived in the United States. I learned about the Constitution not necessarily by reading it but rather by experiencing life as a free woman - freedom that has been granted to me under the full protection of the American Constitution.
Since then, I have been enjoying my life as a liberated human being, able mentally and intellectually to make my own choices and by that shape my destiny.
"Under Islamic sharia, a woman is not considered a free being. She is mentally unfit to decide her own life."
In contrast, under Islamic sharia, a woman is not considered a free being. She is mentally unfit to decide her own life, so she is to be under her husband’s control. She has no right to marry a man of her choice without her father's or another male family member’s consent. She has no right to divorce by her choice or to gain her children’s custody in case of divorce. The value of her life is half the value of her husband.
In brief, women are the commodity of their husbands and extended family, and therefore their free choice is entirely restricted under Islamic sharia.
DM: As a psychiatrist, how important do you feel are freedom of thought and speech to the emotional, psychological and spiritual health of a human being?
WS: Humans can't prosper intellectually, mentally and emotionally without being able to think and express their thoughts freely. Throughout history, great civilizations have always been the product of free minds. If we take a look at any tyrannical society, regardless of the nature of its oppression, religious or politics, the results are nothing short of coercion, poverty, and backwardness at all aspects of life.
There is an Arabic saying which we repeat but never apply:
"A healthy body is always managed by a healthy mind."
It's a matter of fact that our physical health is also a product of our healthy mind. Therefore, a human being will never have a healthy mind unless he is able to nurture and express it freely.
DM: As an ex-Muslim, do you consider yourself an atheist or secularist, or do you adhere to a different set of religious beliefs or spiritual practices? Or perhaps none of the above? Do you agree that people should be free to believe or disbelieve in religious dogma of whatever kind, so long as they do not impose it and themselves on others?
"Generally speaking, I consider myself a spiritual person who believes in
the existence of a divine power that to some degree controls this universe."
WS: It depends on how we define secularism. Generally speaking, I consider myself aspiritual person who believes in the existence of a divine power that to some degree controls this universe. I consider this power to be a source of positive energy that can inspire human beings to be kind and compassionate. I don't follow a specific religion, but I respect the right of others to freely choose and practice theirs. My simple philosophy is, you have the right to worship a stone, so long as you don't hit me with it.
DM: If you had one thing you could say to the American public, what would it be?
WS: In my book, A God Who Hates, I tell my life story, through which the reader can get an intimate understanding of life - especially a woman’s life in an Islamic society and the ominous reality of Islam in general. It is imperative for Americans to get educated about this topic, including on the foundation of the Islamic religion and its political ideology.
There are four main entities in our society that need the proper education:
Government officials - especially those who deal with our security - must acquire the knowledge by studying Muslims texts, including Koran and the Sunna from Arabic sources, word for word without alteration of the texts. That will underscore the predicament of political Islam, which aspires to submit the western world under islam and sharia.
"The media needs to avoid being politically correct,
and be forthright in discussing brutal Islamic related news stories." The media needs to avoid being politically correct, and be forthright in discussing brutal Islamic related news stories. Unfortunately, the heartbreaking stories of honor killings are gradually growing in number here in the U.S. as well as in Europe.
The academia needs to avoid whitewashing Islam and to teach Islamic studies from a scientific perspective so that students get the correct information. For example, students need to know the reality of Jihad from a geopolitical and historical perspective. In that way they may learn the devastating consequences of Islam’s expansion throughout history and the brutality which had been used to conquer and spread Islam.
Lastly, non-Muslim proponents of interfaith dialogue must get a comprehensive education on various important Islamic concepts from reliable scholars of Islam as opposed to apologist scholars like Karen Armstrong and Professor John Esposito. With proper and solid information, participants in interfaith dialogues need to be bold enough and ask their Muslim counterparts the harsh and unpleasant questions regarding Islam. That may generate some productive outcome in forcing Islamists who are mistakenly considered "moderates" to unveil their true intentions.
In short, the pervasive political correctness in our society is an epidemic of great proportions. With its moral relativism and multiculturalism, it leads to a drastic decline of Western values, and if it continues unrestrained, it may well lead to the destruction of Western civilization as we know it today.
DM: Thank you, Dr. Sultan, for your courage and intelligence in speaking out on behalf of human rights for people worldwide. We wholeheartedly support your efforts and hope you will be safe and active for a very long time.
“The truth will set you free, unless you are afraid of it”If you own a computer and hadn’t heard the name “Wafa Sultan” prior to last February, you were bound to have become familiar with it since then. A record eight million hits and counting have been charted on a six-minute video clip – originally subtitled and circulated on the Web by the Middle East Media Research Institute – in which Sultan, a Syrian-born, Los Angeles-based pundit (trained as a psychiatrist) slams Al Jazeera host Faisal al-Qasim and guest Ibrahim Al-Khouli about the ills of Islam. That Sultan is an Arab woman telling off her male challengers on this particular network is only part of the reason her appearance is so startling. More sensational is the fact that the outspoken 49-year-old is herself a Sunni Muslim. Well, she was born and raised as one, at any rate. And, unlike many of her sympathizers, she does not hold with the opinion that Islam was “hijacked” by extremists. On the contrary, she says, serious research into the holy texts led to her own personal rejection of the religion. The faith, she says, cannot be reformed, but rather has to be “transformed.” Anyone hearing the keynote address she gave earlier this month at the conference “Women in the Middle East – the Beacon of Change” (held in Washington by the American Enterprise Institute) would have been hard pressed to disagree with her assessment. Not that the other panelists – myself excepted – had anything rosy to report on the treatment of their countries’ female population. In fact, the only “disagreement” among the participants, who hailed from Egypt, Tunis, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Sultan, from Syria, was the extent to which women could and would ever be able to enjoy freedom under Islamic regimes. Otherwise, consensus had it that women’s and human rights violations throughout the Arab world are so egregious that if change doesn’t come from within – and pressure isn’t applied from without – then the world is in for a lot worse than 9/11. If the blood-chilling tales Sultan and others recounted of abuse against girls and women in the name of Muhammed and Allah are true, there is indeed much cause for alarm. Sultan began her speech with the description of an honor killing that took place in the Palestinian Authority in 2003: “‘Tonight you die,’ Suad told her daughter, before wrapping a bag tightly around her head. Next she sliced her daughter’s wrist… ignoring her daughter’s muffled pleas, ‘No, Mother, No.’ After her daughter went limp, Suad struck her in the head with a stick. The killing of her child took 20 minutes. Suad told a visitor through a stream of tears, ‘She killed me before I killed her. This was the only way to protect my family’s honor.’ …This poor teenager’s sin was being raped by her two older brothers.”
Sultan continued with another story, this one from Saudi Arabia in 2002: “The religious police stopped school girls from leaving a blazing building because they weren’t wearing correct Islamic dress… Young lives were forced to perish barbarically…” “Once we realize the cruelty of an ideology that can harden the heart of a mother, or can consider young lives as expendable, we will be able to find remedies for liberating the women of the Middle East, where countries in different degrees are ruled by the Islamic Sharia.”
The passion Sultan displayed during her diatribe was peculiarly uplifting, in spite of its horrifying content. Speaking privately with the married mother of three – whose English is fluent but heavily accented – one could see how such an apparent contradiction-in-terms was possible. In an hour-long interview the day after the conference, Sultan was as cheerful and optimistic in person as she seemed like an angry dynamo from the podium. The contrast in her personas was striking – a metaphor, perhaps, of the two vastly different lives she has led. She grew up as a religious girl in Banyias (“a small town on the Mediterranean”), attended medical school in Aleppo, and now lives as a secular American in California, where she settled in 1989, eight months after her husband, and two years before her two elder children (her youngest was born in the US). 
Wafa Sultan - photo: Brenda Gazar JP: Was it dangerous for your children to remain behind, given who you are? WS: Not at all. At that time nobody knew who I was. I wasn’t Wafa Sultan, the one you’re interviewing today. I was a totally different kind of person.
JP: If you were “a totally different kind of person,” what made you want to move to the United States? WS: I was looking for a better life – freedom to express myself – because I was born a writer. All my teachers said so. But anyway, I secretly underwent a change before coming to America.
JP: Did you and your husband undergo this change together? WS: Yes. We met in 1975, at university in Aleppo, when I was in medical school and he was studying agriculture. It was against our culture for a man and a woman to have an unchaperoned relationship, so we had to conduct our friendship in secret – which we did for four or five years prior to our marriage. Being away from my family made this relative freedom possible. But 1979 was the real turning point of our lives. It was the year I witnessed the murder of a professor of mine. While shooting him, the killers were screaming “Allahu Akbar [God is great]!” I was in a state of shock. The sound of the bullets became associated in my mind with Allah.
JP: Why was your professor targeted? WS: For no reason other than belonging to the Allawi sect of Islam – that of the president – while the majority in Syria were Sunnis. And at that time, there was a bloody conflict between the government and the Muslim Brotherhood. But I knew for a fact that he was not involved in politics. I was devastated, and began to question what kind of Allah this is.
JP: Until then, were you and your family devout Muslims? WS: Oh yes. I had to fast, I had to preach about Islam…
JP: What altered that? WS: After the trauma of the murder in the name of Allah, I delved into all the Islamic texts – the Koran and the Hadith – carefully studying each, one by one.
JP: What made you question Islam rather than the specific perpetrators of the murder? You could have reached the conclusion that Islam was being abused by certain people, after all. WS: That’s exactly what I was trying to find out through my research – whether Islam is inherently violent, or whether its adherents misunderstand its teachings. The more I researched, the more convinced I became that the root was in Islam itself. I believe that beliefs drive behaviors.
JP: Is belief-driven behavior something you come across in your work as a psychiatrist? WS: Of course. In order to change any situation, you have to change people’s behavior. And in order to change their behavior, you first have to change their belief system. Look, the Iraqi woman on the panel [Pascale Warda] told me about a case of a man killed in Iraq for selling ice, since Muhammed didn’t use ice. Can you imagine? According to Sharia, selling ice is a crime! She also told me that Iraqis believe that you must not put cucumbers and tomatoes in the same bag, because cucumbers are male and tomatoes are female. This is an example of a dangerous belief system driving bad behavior.
JP: Can you give an example of a non-religious belief system driving bad behavior? WS: This woman in Texas who drowned her five children in the bathtub. She believed she heard a voice ordering her to kill them. To some extent, I can understand her act, because she couldn’t resist the commands in her head: “Kill them! Kill them!”
JP: In your lecture, you described a Palestinian mother strangling her teenage daughter for having committed the “crime” of being raped by her two brothers. Whereas the mother in Texas was deemed psychotic and sentenced to an institution, the Palestinian mother’s act was sanctioned by her society as a necessary honor killing. What in the Islamic world would be considered psychotic behavior? WS: What I am doing would be considered crazy behavior. I abandoned my belief in Islam – so I must be crazy. In fact, I can show you hundreds of e-mails telling me that I’m a sick-minded woman.
JP: Your view of Islam is dim, and your rejection of it indicates pessimism about its ability to reform. If so, what is the solution to its spreading radicalization? WS:I personally don’t believe Islam can be reformed. But my view is very much needed among those who wish to reform it. There are two choices: rejection or reform. My voice forces the reformists to work even harder. The first step is for the West to put pressure on Islamists to respect my right to reject Islam as much as I respect their right to believe in it. Once Muslims are free to choose, the rest will take care of itself. The real solution, in other words, is transformation, not reformation.
JP: Christianity underwent a reformation. Why not Islam? WS: They are not comparable. According to Islam, anyone who questions a single word of the books or teachings should be killed.
JP: Do you think a “transformation” will be best achieved through the men or the women? WS:Through the women. Muslim women have everything to gain by a transformed Islam and nothing to lose. They’ve already lost everything. Muslim men, on the other hand, won’t relinquish their powers so easily.
JP: Judging by the speeches of the women at the conference, one has to be extremely strong and courageous to be willing to fight for freedom in Islamic countries. Surely, doing so takes a special kind of person. How many such special people are there? WS: You would be surprised to discover how many women out there are waiting to be given the opportunities I have. They’re ready. They just need to be encouraged.
JP: Maybe that’s easy to say when you live in California, as you do now. If you were still living in Syria… WS: It would be impossible for me to be who I am. On the other hand, when I lived in Syria, I didn’t have a voice like mine to guide me. Nor did I have the Internet. Today, the conditions are different. Women in Islamic countries now have more opportunities than before. And they have me. In fact, there’s a group in Syria right now getting together to establish an organization called the Friends of Wafa Sultan.
JP: Is it a group of women? WS: Both men and women. The leader is a male teacher, who is secretly enlisting students. I received many e-mails from these people. And I told them I would support them, even financially, to help me spread my message.
JP: How would a woman who is being controlled and terrorized by her father or her husband have access to a computer or be able to attach herself to such an organization? WS: It’s not easy, but it’s possible. The men cannot watch them 24/7. It is crucial for these women to stop being victims. There’s always a way to instigate change, even if it’s very small and gradual. I try to inspire and encourage women to find a way to do this.
JP: How did your own parents respond to your shift? WS: My father died when I was 10. My mother hasn’t spoken to me for two years. I understand her situation. It’s tough on her. She’s ashamed of me. If my family lived here in America, they might be able to understand me. But, from where they’re sitting, it’s a tough task.
JP: Yet your mother is also a woman who suffered – and continues to suffer – from restrictions. Why doesn’t she believe in the message that you are conveying? WS: She, like too many women in the Islamic world, grew up with the belief that they have to have a man to protect them. My mother came to visit me in the US four times since 1989. And she got very angry whenever I asked my husband to bring me a cup of water. She reprimanded me by saying, “You’re a woman; you have to serve your husband.” This mentality has been shaped for 1,400 years.
JP: How was it all right for her to leave Syria to visit you? WS: One is welcome to leave Syria at any time. But now, I believe it’s much harder for any member of my family to leave. Nobody has tried in the last couple of years, but I think that if they did, the authorities would want to punish them for my actions.
JP: When I asked you whether change would be effected through the men or the women, you said that it would be through the women. Yet, the underground network you mention is being led by a man. Isn’t this a losing battle without the cooperation of men? WS: The men are definitely needed. What I meant was that not every woman needs a man to inspire her to rise up. Or to open the door for her. It’s important to instill in their minds that they can do it themselves.
JP: Are Western feminists on your side? I have encountered Americans and Israelis who – when it comes to the rights of women in Arab countries – side with multiculturalism. Has this been your experience as well? WS: Yes it has. I haven’t received the kind of support I expected from women in the US. Recently, I gave a speech at the University of California, and during the question period, an American woman told me she didn’t believe the things I was saying about Muslim men’s treatment of women. She said: “Muhammed was the first man on earth to give women rights.” I responded, “Would you please tell me what some of those rights are, so I can tell Muslim women to be aware of them?” She said, “I don’t know, but I was invited to a mosque in LA, and that’s what the mullah told us.”
Can you believe how naive these women are?
JP: From whom have you received the greatest support? WS: From the Jewish community, of course, which is very aware of what’s going on. But also from the atheist community.
JP: How do you feel about Saudi Arabia – in which women are not even allowed to drive cars – sitting on the human rights commission at the UN? WS: I blame the free world for this travesty. Shame on America! Shame on any country that calls itself civilized and has relations with Saudi Arabia.
There is a saying in Arabic: When Pharaoh was asked, “Who made you Pharaoh?” he replied, “Nobody stopped me from becoming Pharaoh.” If there is no one to stop evil, don’t blame the evil. Saudi Arabia hasn’t been stopped from doing what it’s doing to half of its population.
JP: Are the Saudis the worst among the Islamists in this respect? WS: Yes, and I believe they Islamicized the Syrians. They are behind the trouble everywhere. In 1991, when I was relatively new to this country and struggling financially, I was offered $1,500 per month by the Saudis to cover my head and attend a mosque. In California, when you tell any American about this, he says, “Who cares?” You have to care and you have to pay attention! Not caring and not paying attention is why we ended up with the events of September 11 – events the likes of which I expected and predicted well before.
JP: Why did you expect such a massive terrorist attack? WS: Two or three years prior to 9/11, a Jordanian Islamist came to LA to attend an event held by the Muslim community there. I wasn’t there, but I read in the newspaper that he gave a speech in which he said, “Now we are ready to rule the world.” Nobody paid attention to that but me. I wondered why nobody asked him, “What kind of political, economic, moral or psychological readiness do you have to rule the world?” And I thought, “How stupid these Americans are. It’s happening right inside their country.” I wanted to tell them, “Fight terrorism here before you fight it there. Protect yourself here before you go there for that purpose.”
That guy knew what he was talking about when he said the Muslims were ready to rule the world.
JP: Is Islam the problem? Or are Arabs the problem? After all, secular Arab leaders have been just as bad as religious ones when it comes to human and women’s rights. WS: I don’t believe it. You cannot be secular and a dictator at the same time. [Secular Arab leaders] repress the problem [of radical Islam]. They sweep the dirt under the carpet, rather than clean it up. They have never come out and said that we have problems in our teachings. Indeed, they oppress anyone who expresses this sentiment.
JP: Are you saying that Islam is a tool for such leaders to keep their people down? WS: Exactly. When I was in Syria, I never heard of a religious school teaching the Koran to five-year-olds. Now I was told there are 5,000 religious schools in Syria, teaching 5-10-year-olds only about the Koran. No math; no science; nothing else but religion. I don’t believe you can call leaders of such a country secular.
JP: What about suicide bombing? Is that also a tool used by leaders of Arab countries? WS: Martyrdom is deeply rooted in our teachings. The Koran clearly states that God buys your life from you – “To kill or to be killed.” But with the help of Saudi money and Wahabbism, what was written in our holy book came to life.
JP: Are the Saudis also involved in Palestinian terrorism? WS: No question about it. They are everywhere. People [all over] are starving for a piece of bread, while millions upon millions of dollars are being spent on building mosques. And how many Americans – if offered $1,500 a month to cover their heads or become Muslims – would turn that down? I heard the Saudis are willing to pay $1,000 to any man who changes his name to Muhammed. How many poor or homeless people would refuse that offer?
JP: Should President Bush have shut down all American mosques in the aftermath of 9/11? WS: He didn’t necessarily have to shut down all mosques. But at least he could have begun paying close attention to what’s going on inside them; at least open their books before children read them; at least question the content of those books, and demand an answer; at least watch what they are up to.
JP: If the mosques in the US were watched, and their books examined, how would that help other countries? WS: It would at least be a first step.
JP: How do you view Bush’s relations with the Saudis? WS: As a double standard. And that’s how people in the Middle East see it as well. He’s riding on two horses – trying to democratize Iraq on the one hand, and having relations with Saudi Arabia on the other. That’s what worries me. I don’t know if the administration is serious enough to make a change. I really doubt it.
JP: Would a better US policy have been to throw money around, like the Saudis do, to foment revolutions in Arab countries? WS: Why not? Dissident groups need to feel supported. I’ve heard that only three percent of the Syrian population have access to the Internet, for example. Why not provide them with computers, radio and TV broadcasts… so they can be exposed to different cultures, and freely choose their own way of life? Islam has been the only source of knowledge or information in the Middle East. A few days ago, I asked a Palestinian I met: “Let’s assume that all the Jews of Israel were to convert to Islam, would you still fight them?”
He said, “No.” In that case, the land is not the problem. A month ago, I read on a Saudi Web site that Muhammed was walking with a group of his followers, and they heard a noise; so they asked him what it was. He said: “Oh, don’t worry about that, it’s only God torturing the Jews in their graves.” But during the time of Muhammed, there was no Israel or America. So there you have it. Our biggest problem is religion. If we overcome that, we will be able to resolve the political problems.
The Islamic State has posted a gruesome video online that shows ISIS fighters hoisting four Iraqi prisoners over a fire and burning them alive. 
The Islamic State has released a chilling new video showing the execution of four Shiite prisoners by burning in Iraq. The four men are accused of being members of the Shiite Popular Resistance Committees. They are forced to confess for the camera before the execution. They are suspended from a frame with ropes and a fire lit underneath. Islamic State music accompanies the executions. The killings are believed to be revenge attacks for a video circulated last week of a Shiite militia roasting a fighter accused of allegiance to ISIS over an open pit. The video is entitled Punish Them with the Same Harm They Have Caused You, a verse from the Quran alluding to vengeance. As the video was released news broke that ISIS blew up the Temple of Bel in Palmyra. It was considered to be the most important temple at the site and was the second to be destroyed, following the destruction of the Temple of Baalshamin last week.
活燒敵人從娃娃抓起
A toddler torches teddy bear in front of ISIS flag in latest sickening mock execution pictures 10:08, 2 SEP 2015 
Fire: The flame crawls towards the cuddly toy 
Saddening: The boy points as the bear is engulfed in flame 
ISIS thugs force children to watch as executioners behead and crucify two men 20:30, 11 OCT 2015
“伊斯蘭國”到底是十惡不赦的恐怖 組織， 還是當前中東政治發展的必然 產物，仍很難定論。
引自中東問題專家中國現代國際關係研究院副研究員田文林博士： 2014年09月17日《環球時報》美國號召打ISIS夾帶不少私貨 
Geert Wilders ( born 6 September 1963 ) is a Dutch politician and the founder and leader of the Party for Freedom, which is a political party in theDutch parliament. Wilders is best known for his criticism of Islam. 
|
