A passionate and outspoken Islam critic

I saw Wafa Sultan, the Syrian-American doctor and Islam critic, speak this morning in New York City. If there was a single phrase that sums up her presentation and message, it would be: Humanity versus Islam. it’s the anti-human quality of Islam that she brings out over and over, mostly in personal terms based on her own experiences and those of people she’s known. When I asked her during the question period what Western countries should do to stop and reverse the Islamization of the West, she said, the same thing America did to Germany and Japan. As she said this, she nodded emphatically and looked directly at me, as to underscore her point.

- end of initial entry -

Karen writes from England:

Here is an article about Wafa Sultan which casts questions about her motives for speaking out.

Richard W. writes:

You wrote: “When I asked her during the question period what Western countries should do to stop and reverse the Islamization of the West, she said, the same thing America did to Germany and Japan. As she said this, she nodded emphatically and looked directly at me, as to underscore her point.”

How to interpret this? Is she suggesting we declare all-out war on Islam, like the war we waged against Germany and Japan? Again, that’s not going to happen. As bad as 9/11 was it is still of a vastly different level than the actions of Germany and Japan in unleashing the full force of modern warfare on neighbors without any pretense other than raw expansionism. Is she suggesting we nuke all of Islam? I don’t think that’s realistic. The nukes in WW2 were used at the end of a long, deadly conflict to save U.S. lives. Few would see the moral justification.

So, whatever her analytic skills in understanding the problems of Islam and the West, her prescriptive skills are lacking. Hopefully you can find a way to communicate your views to her. Your “separation” plan is the only feasible one. It is completely morally justified, on many levels, and has a good chance of working if undertaken soon.

It is a huge uphill battle to get a majority of our fellow citizens to understand that Islam isn’t compatible with our civilization, and to drive the needed clarity and strength to effect the separation of our cultures. It only harms that effort to have otherwise valuable supporters suggesting that the only solution is one that requires war and killing. Movements in America tend to be profiled and judged by their lowest rhetorical flourish. (Think of how many most American’s associate the term “White Nationalist” with the costumed clowns in KKK or Nazi garb, as opposed to the writings of Sam Francis or Jared Taylor.)

Therefore it’s imperative that we don’t allow Wafa’s views to become the caricature of what traditionalists are suggesting as our policy for dealing with Islam.

LA replies:

I had qualms about quoting her on this point, but she said it twice before the audience, so I assume that this is a repeated position of hers, not just a careless remark. She also said that she didn’t want to spell things out. She indicated that her job is to tell us the truth about Islam, our job is to figure out what to do about it.

Mark Jaws writes:

So Wafa Sultan thinks we should dispense upon Moslems the same “total war” treatment we doled out to the Japanese and to the Germans? Not a snowball’s chance in hell with this current federal government and judiciary system.

On the other hand, if the federal government were to collapse or be rendered impotent, I think a great many individual states could dispense the people’s justice accordingly to known troublemakers and incendiaries. We Red-State infidels can tolerate only so much.

A. Zarkov writes:

She is a serious Islam critic, as anyone can see from watching this video of an interview with Wafa Sultan on the cartoon matter. She gets right to the point: Islam is a political movement as well as a religion. She says it cannot be reformed. This is a woman of rare courage and insight, and I only wish I had the opportunity to meet her.

The unified and conspiratorial nature of Islam means Muslim terrorism must be regarded as acts of war and not ordinary civil crimes. Liberals are simply unable to grasp this, and keep insisting that the civilian policing model must be applied to terrorist acts—thus the New York City civil trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Don’t liberals realize that the civilian policing model even breaks down in dealing with the Italian Mafia? A unified and conspiratorial organization has the power to bribe and intimidate witnesses, judges and jurors. They can easily get members to bear false witness. The ordinary civilian justice system can’t deal with this, and it never really made progress against the Mafia until the advent of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO. RICO exists in both criminal and civil forms. Few people understand the tremendous reach of RICO, especially in its civil form. RICO makes it a crime to be a criminal in that it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to overt criminal acts. RICO is really an end run around civil liberties. If it took RICO to tame the Mafia, what would it take to tame Islamic terrorism which is worldwide in scope and has national states to back it up? The military. We must end the liberal fiction that Islam is a religion, and that terror acts are simply ordinary crimes.

One might ask: why don’t we apply RICO against Islam? The answer lies in that protective religion wrapper, and Arab oil money corrupting American institutions and politicians.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

Wafa Sultan is saying in clear terms that Muslims should be treated like the enemy. She isn’t wasting time trying to differentiate between the moderates and the radicals.

I think this is what pressuring counter-jihad groups on solutions to the problems does. It forces them to think in unequivocal terms.

Also, I think anyone without a “plan of action” would be unable to ask her the question you did. The many voices of the counter-jihad movement are content to endlessly report on the atrocities of Islam without ever producing solutions.

I’m beginning to think that is because they have never sat down and thought about it, or been pushed to think about it. So, the more people demand of them solutions, the more they are forced to think about it and the more they will put their energies in that direction.

These days, though, more and more are asking where the leaders are. Europe is several steps ahead because it is more deeply embroiled in Islam. It is now leading by example. If there are European leaders, where are the American and Canadian ones?

LA replies:

You are right on all points. In particular, that most of them have never thought about it. So that when someone says, “What should we DO about Islam? What should be our strategy be for dealing with this threat?”, for most people in the room, this is a startling and provocative new question.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 01, 2009 01:58 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):