These days, everyone is making a fuss about the big interview Ms. Wafa Sultan had on Al Jazeera's Itijah il Mu'aakis (Opposing Directions), a debate program hosted by Faisal al Qassem. If you search "Wafa Sultan" under Google, you'll realize how much praise she has received from the rightwing pundits. The popular edition of the interview that many anti-Arab and Islamophobes take is the edition brought about by the crock of shit (mind my language) that is MEMRI-TV. The video came along with a very rudimentary transcript.
However, the transcript provided by MEMRI-TV provides only part of the interview, and you can see the entire transcript provided by the title link detailed above. Wafa Sultan, as you can see, is so full of wonderful ideas about civilization and western dreams of democracy that she doesn't care about her own people being killed and their perceived "progress" hindered by the intervention of the West.
Well, I'm seriously going to pick apart this debate and show you what really is behind all this fuss, and what I perceive as the matter, by countering both the arguments of Wafa Sultan and the "extreme opposite" presented here, Dr. Ibrahim al Khouly.
Unfortunately, the transcript is copyrighted, so you can't copy material from it right away. However, I will address the main points one by one.
We begin first with the usually posing introduction presented by Mr. Qassem, presenter of the show. He addresses the question on Western hypocrisy in the jailing of David Irving for his understating the deaths in the Holocaust; in that sense, he was jailed just for talking. The double-standard, he claims, is that many in the West declare the Danish cartoons done in the name of "freedom of expression". Of course, I agree that it is indeed a double standard, as I explained in my third post, "The 'Cartoon' Controversy". However, he loses me when he says that there is a clash of civilizations being forced on the Muslims by the West, but he does raise an interesting questions in that the Danish paper did not outrightly state its position with Muslims and Islam. He argues many questions (though I believe that usually not most of them are actually addressed in the show itself, but we will see).
He goes on to state that the idea of a civilization clash is going to be a fight between the three Abrahamic faiths, and that the idea was perceived before globalist Samuel Huntington coined the term.
Let's move on to the first headline:
The Clash of Civilizations and the Clash of Religions
Qassem brings out even more interesting points and that there seems to be a war on Muslims worldwide, not just in Afghanistan, Iraq and Denmark. After presenting a few facts and anticipating a response, Wafa Sultan responds with a definition for several terms. She claims that religion is
Wafa Sultan is a secular Arab, and she believes that religion is limited and close-minded. Interesting. I believe in God, and I personally believe that there is enough proof to His existence. Also, I believe that Islam is far from "close-minded", as she proclaims. Thus, she is obviously promoting secularism.
She then defines civilization as
Now, this is where she really ticks me off. She claims that we are seeing a clash between "civilization and backwardness". How do you know what backwardness is when you see it? There are many Muslims who present similarly-based arguments as Westerners on the West (or Muslims, in the case of Westerners) being a backward place. She also goes on to define more clashes. She speaks of "chaos and rationality". Is what you are seeing in the Arab world "chaos"? Definitely not. It also depends on what "rationality" is. Personally, the freedoms that I enjoy here in the Arab world (yes, we DO have freedoms) are more rational than what I see in the West, for example. However, as a liberal, I tolerate it, though I could care less if there was a ban on, say, alcohol. She also claims that there is a conflict between "freedom and oppression, democracy and dictatorship"... hold on. "Freedom" is not bombarding the hell out of Iraq, nor is it the suppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis, which she promptly ignores in her upcoming comments. She also claims that there is a conflict between human rights and those who violate it; according to a recent report from Amnesty International, the U.S. and the U.K. were given a bad mark on human rights. What about the Patriot Act and the police state known as the U.K.? I mean, seriously she is not joking? Furthermore, she claims that there is a clash between those who treat women "like animals" and those who treat them "like human beings"... Wait a sec. Granted, there are people who abuse women in the MidEast, but contrary to Western media, this is not the norm, and is actually a misrepresentation of Arabs as a whole, as well as Muslims. One must understand that the hijab and the covering of the body on part of the woman is for her own sake, and is in fact taken by choice and not forced on the woman. On the other hand, we see women being treated as cheap sex toys in Western media, as well as many cases of sexual assault and date rape. However, it is barbaric to think that crime and culture are correlated, because such assumptions are not only barbaric themselves in nature, but are also RACIST.
Basically, what she said here is a gross over-assumption and over-simplification of the real situation. Two wrongs don't make a right, but what she said was simply a crock of bollocks. This argument in itself was not only opinionated, but highly emotional, which makes it null and void from being regarded as fact.
She goes on with her rant in that civilizations do not clash... Umm... She oughtta take a history lesson or two. The Persian Empire and the Macedonians under Alexander were civilizations. They had different values for their imperialism, and indeed, they clashed. But who really competes, then, in her own words? Who really compete are allies. Furthermore, development, contrary to what she says, is not a one-way road, but rather a myriad of roads spawning from the same intersection. She claims that humans will be more common when they "develop". In what sense do they develop? However, she also claims that people clash just because of the "difference between levels of development". What about events? What about the Iraq war? World War 2? Palestine and Israel? These conflicts started because of actions on part of individuals, not the thoughts of a people.
However, she shows her true colors in that she affirms that the West represents "civilization" and that Muslims represent "backwards and ignorance". Personally, I am really pissed at her comments, but I remain calm and just have to say that what she said was pretty prejudiced: there are many "progressive" Muslims and many "backward" westerners, going by my definition and even hers. In that sense, we are not seeing a clash between "civilization" and "backwardness". The theory itself smacks with racism, and thus Muslims and Islam are not anti-civilization and pro-ignorance, as I have asserted above.
Enter Ibrahim al Khouly. He's supposedly a sheik and a lecturer at the controversial Azhar University in Egypt. His arguments, though, are profound and thought-provoking. However, what saddened me is that he was misrepresented in the MEMRITV piece. He claims that civilization and other aspects like culture are not correlated, and that civilization is itself a relative term, as I have asserted above. Surprisingly, though, he pertains that man is an animal in the sense that he is abusing nature. He claims that civilization is
Unfortunately, the debate was far from over. He asserts that he does not call enslavement of blacks and genocide of Native Americans "civilization", and thus raises the point in that you can't refer to the West as representative of "civilization". In that sense, the definition of civilization, although subjective, is best defined from a non-aggressive standpoint.
Dr. al Khouly continues to defend Muslims, claiming that they are only backward technologically. What he should have said is that Muslims are backward in some areas, and only some people in the Muslim community are backward, even though they really do have a louder voice, thanks to the biased media outlets of the West. He also challenges Dr. Sultan that civilization is not a criterion for humanity. I agree with him: a man can be civilized, but not humane at the same time.
After an exchange involving Ms. Sultan putting words into the mouth of Dr. al Khouly, Sultan proceeds in associating humanity with civilization, and that in my opinion is not only an ignorant association, but a rather uneducated one. Why? Well, let me clear up what Mr. al Khouly said.
Muslims, he claims, are backwards technologically. He also states that civilization is something that does not enter the issue. However, I'd like to chip in by repeating the definition of civilization being subjective, as well as introducing the concept of "humanity". Civilization, like morality, is subjective to different points of view. However, techonological advancement is not. Thus, one person can seriously be technologically advanced in that he has the latest gadgets, but according to my perceptions, he might not be civilized. Contrary to Ms. Sultan's claims that a society can advance, I argue with the point that technological advancement is based on an individual level. I will be bringing this point up later.
Ms. Sultan then claims that Muslims are the ones who started with the concept of the "clash of civilizations". She took a quote from the Prophet (peace be upon him) out of context, claiming that he was "commanded to fight until they believe in God and His Prophet". Such verses and sayings are usually intentionally taken out of context. Yes, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did say this, but he said this at the height of persecution from the Pagans of Mecca, and this was also at the point of Islam's spreading in its first days. What ticked me off even more is her ignorant assumptions about Muslims. She says,
She further claims that people need to revise Islamic texts. Every single call to "fight infidels" has been taken out of context, and if you backtrack to my post on Islam and whether it requires reformation or not... well, it does not need reformation. What needs to be changed are certain schoolbooks that are taken out of context, even though this is not prevalent everywhere but the institutions that make it to the news. On the other hand, Islam does not call for fighting the innocent, and those who do not believe in Islam. It just calls for fighting those who fight you, as well as fighting against the oppression of Muslims and other minorities that was prevalent at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Dr. Khouly denounces the comments made by Ms. Sultan. He argues that Islam brought humanity, co-existence and tolerance/acceptance, and that is quite true: the Islamic Empire did not spread by the sword (well, at certain times it did, but it was usually in war against an invading army), and everyone under Islamic rule was free to worship what they want and wherever they want; in that sense, Islam brought what secularists believe are the core principles of "democracy" and "civilized" societies. Islam, he continues to argue,
He then continues to disspell the myths that Ms. Sultan brings about. His defense for Islam was sadly ommitted in the crock of shit that is MEMRITV, but his voice has been heard by Arabs all over and they know better. Now, he speaks that Islam should have not made peace with polytheism. Granted, polytheism is one's own faith, but the polytheist Pagans at the time were persecuting Muslims, and thus Islam was the solution to rid themselves of this corruption, and truly unite the Arabs of the Arabian Penninsula, who went from bedouins to knights, philosophers, scientists, artists and other professions of "civility". He continues to argue that Islam is not being practiced correctly by claiming that indeed Islam does not punish for apostasy, and so forth.
Now, back to the annoyance and ignorance of Ms. Sultan. She claims that Muslims have called non-Muslims "dhimmi" and claims that there has been a comparison of Jews with donkeys and pigs. There is not one verse in the Quran that claims so; in fact, Islam is against this racist slur because Jews are human beings, and are in fact monotheists who worship the same God of Abraham, like us. She also claims that Christians have been insulted by Islam as "those who have lost the path". I can cite many so-called "intolerant" verses from other religious texts, such as the words Amalek or Goy, or "those who are not with the Holy Father" for example. Now, she continues to claim that Muslims
Moreover, the nomenclature argument she poses is not only senseless, but childish: "Dhimmi" means under protection of Muslims, and it's by no means second-class. Furthermore, Muslims are not "commanded to fight" until they are being fought against. Just go here, so this whole "fight" and "jizya" argument is over with.
After a brief exchange in which Dr. Khouly outlines the ignorance of Ms. Sultan, she goes on to ask,
After a little rough exchange, she argues that the Muslims are really "the People of the Book". She then claims that the only books Muslims have are the Hadiths and the Quran... What? Excuse me, Ms. Sultan, but BEFORE the Middle Ages, there were many prominent Arab thinkers and philosophers, who were also MUSLIM, who wrote even more books. Ever heard of Ibn Sina (Avicenna)? Or Abu Bakr al Razi (Rhazes)? What about Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar)? Or al Ghazali? Better yet, how about al Khwarizmi? These and TONS of other names made themselves famous in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Philosophy and other fields of Arts and Science. In fact, much of what we learn today in school is from Arab and Muslim intellectuals, and yet they go about unsung, which is why you, Ms. Sultan, assert ignorance on the matter.
Dr. Khouly argues what I have just said, and more. He also asserts that if anyone started this "clash of civilizations" according to Ms. Sultan's definitions, it would have been the Europeans. That's settled nicely. Now, to the next heading...
Extremism and the Struggle to Dominate
Dr. Khouly responds nicely to al Qassem's question in that Islam seeks to purify the world from corruption, and the ones who are attacked have the right to defend. I think he is correlating with the idea that every aggressive notion that Westerners have made against Islam should be defended against, and that Muslims have the right to make their voices heard against such injustices.
Now, on to (yawwwn) Ms. Sultan. She claims that extremism is the majority in Islam and that it's prevalent. She claims that the West is immune from extremism... ok, that got a good laugh out of me. If you were to take a look at the world Muslim demographic statistics, you will realize that only 18-25% of them live in the Middle East, and most live elsewhere. Furthermore, extremists in the Middle East have always received the mic and the camera lens, because in Western media, "if it bleeds, it leads". To hell with good Muslims, eh? Well, let's see what else Ms. Sultan has to say. She claims that Dr. Khouly is ignorant. She claims that Islam was spread by the sword and through conquest. Wow... she obviously needs to learn a bit of history. Anyways, Islam was not spread by the sword, but attacked the oppressive nations like the Byzantines with the sword. She claims, baselessly, that Muslims go to churches and denounce Christians as liars... Scoff! Well, I haven't seen any either. I've heard of southern Christians in the U.S. forcefully proselytizing people into accepting Christ as the "Son of God", but I have yet to see Muslims openly proselytizing. Sure, there may be annoyances in places like Saudi Arabia, but is Saudi Arabia, a MONARCHY (monarchies are by definition un-Islamic), representative of Islam now?
Dr. Khouly rebuts her argument with the classical adage that I have adopted myself: The actions of an individual or group of individuals does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the entire group that he is assumed to represent. He goes on to argue against the notion that Muslims are the ones causing trouble by arguing that the west, communists, and other political and religious extremists like Dubya Bush have wreaked even more havoc.
However, he argues further that the "war on terror" is cover for a war on Islam and Muslims. To a degree, I agree, but I don't think that Dubya Bush would want to attack Islam should his image falter. On the other hand, he argues that Muslim nations have been targets of interventionism for the past 50 years, and kudos for bringing that up. More kudos for him stating that the western powers are constraining Muslims from their rights to exercise power in the form of self-defense. He argues further that Muslims are being attacked by secularism, and secularism is not necessarily progress. And yes, I do agree with this, even though theocracies themselves do not mean progress as well. As I have said before, progress is an individual concept, not a societal one. Finally, he claims that Muslims are being forbidden from uniting with each other. The divisions in the Muslim community are enough proof of this, with the further fact that Muslims are not a homogeneous group to be painted with the same brush.
But obviously, like all other western pundits, Ms. Sultan is blind to the hypocrisy that is the West, and responds ignorantly with the same sentence:
She claims that Islam calls for rejection and intolerance, as well as murder. Wow. What does self-defense have to do with murder? Murder is an act of aggression, and is forbidden by Islam, no matter who kills who and thus regardless of religious background... yes, Ms. Sultan, even Muslim killing Pagan senselessly. She further claims that the sheikh is turning a "blind eye" to Islamic teachings. Well, the sheikh obviously explained what those verses meant, didn't he?
I think Ms. Sultan is blind. Islam and Muslims are not.
Believe me: Islam respects and tolerates other beliefs, but does not call for Muslims to agree with other beliefs in that they should worship more than one god, for example, or practice other systems.
After an exchange, she argues in a "defensive" way... what the hell? She was the one arguing aggressively the whole time, but this is nothing new from the Islamophobic crowd: any defense of Islam is treated as an attack on Islamophobes. I pity her, really. Then she claims that one is free to worship what one wishes... Well, so do Muslims. She also claims that Muslims call Christians as "lost". Hey, Christians call our Prophet "false", even though we refer to Jesus as a human being, not a God. Which is worse, Ms. Sultan?
Tell me: when a Christian says that Islam is the "tool of the devil", do you agree with this? Don't you think that is "overstepping the boundaries" as you claim (even though the doc had every right to claim that you indeed did overstep your boundaries)?
Let's move on to the final part of the discussion.
Global Conflict and Western Designs
Khouly starts by arguing that Christians are also preaching like Muslims, and that Christians like Bush claim that they are on a "Crusade". Read above for my 2 cents on this, but nothing new here. Moving along...
After a little exchange, Ms. Sultan returns to her ignorance. She claims that Islam is fighting the rest of the world... How? Well, Islam is for one thing not fighting and killing. It's a religion, and religions don't fight. People sure do, but Muslims, after the rise of Islam, through their own share of fighting and battling invaders, also instated a civilization. She brings the example of Bibles and Saudi Arabia. This was quite an old legislation, and I agree that Saudi's government was quite radical before. However, this legislation has changed, and there are people who read the Bible even in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the MidEast. She claims, though, that Muslims do not allow for others to preach. This is false: Christians preach openly in Egypt and Lebanon, as well as several Arab countries. Muslims, on the other hand, preach the same way, but certainly not a lot of people preach Islam as openly as those in the south of the U.S. do.
Dr. Khouly rebuts her argument with the fact that Saudi Arabia is not representative of all Muslims, and by Islamic standards is "condemned". He further argues that Saudi Arabia is perverting Islam through its own legislation, and again I agree. He further stresses my point that concepts like "clash of civilizations and cultures" are oversimplifying the real issues at hand.
On to the next headline.
Freedom of Expression and Violation of Sanctities
Ms. Sultan argues that respect is earned, not gained. This is true, but then she continues with the most utter bull I have seen her spew out in the argument. She speaks of Jews "emerging from tragedy" and forcing the world to "respect them... through science....". She claims that Jews have done great things, etc. etc. However, she treats Jews, like Muslims, as a homogeneous group. Moreover, as I have asserted before, achievement and progress are individual aspects, not societal ones. In that sense, Einstein made much contributions to science as an individual, not because he was a Jew or representative of one (I think he's actually a deist, but an ethnic Jew). She speaks of Jews who have not blown themselves up or destroy churches or object to anything by murdering people.
Again, she treats them as a single group. Does she not know about Israel and its terrorism? Israel, in my humblest opinion, is not representative of the Jewish community. However, most Israelis are Jews. And yes, during the 1948 wars, Jewish soldiers destroyed mosques in their invasion of Palestinian towns, and yes, they have blown up (not necessarily themselves) hotels and restaurants as well as HOMES, perhaps the only building that has a significance to individual humans. She also forgets that Israeli soldiers have responded to peaceful protests by murdering the protestors (1967, protests in many Palestinian towns were quelled and several people murdered in cold blood).
She goes further to argue that "Muslims reduced three statues of Buddha to dust." Well, first off, the Taliban are not representative of Muslims and are by no means Islamic in their acts of terrorism and oppression. On the other hand, I have seen Hindus destroy mosques and churches in India and force their worshippers to worship their gods. She goes on to say that Muslims
She claims that Muslims are the ones responsible for this whole mess. Why doesn't she stop hacking at the branches and strike at the roots? She also claims that jealousy breeds contention. Muslims are by no means jealous of the West: many Muslims would rather live in their own countries than in the West. We as Arabs and Muslims are happy with the freedoms we have. We have already seen the "freedoms" brought about by the West and other nations intervening in the Islamic world. We don't want it and we don't need it, but if the west just stops bashing Muslims, perhaps we wouldn't have had such fringe radicalization.
Dr. Khouly, though, responds beautifully, and ends the argument once and for all. He claims that such cartoonists should be ignored, and that my friends, is the Islamic way to respond to such ignorant Islam-bashing. He claims that it is indeed elements from those outside Islam who are forcing Muslims to follow what they want, not the other way around.
Before we know it, the show ends.
So it all comes down to this: the "clash of civilizations" concept holds no water, and oversimplifies the situation. It also smacks with racism when it deals with "backwardness". Islam, furthermore, is obviously not what Ms. Sultan thinks it is, and she is obviously owned in that argument, contrary to what many rightwing pundits claim. Moreover, the mistranslation on MEMRITV, that Dr. Khouly called her a "heretic", was unfounded, and that he responded with all clarity and with facts. All what Ms. Sultan was doing was heaving nothing but the same old lame old ignorant trash thrown around by Islamophobes. SO, in that sense, she is no here, but a zero.
People, stick to the politics of the situation. The unfounded arguments like "clashes between civilizations" and whatnot hold no basis in politics. It was also kind of surprising: I watched the MEMRI TV version at first, and thought that the sheikh was a complete asshole, second to Ms. Sultan, who now turned out to be the bigger asshole in this argument. Sorry, Ms. Sultan, but your emotive arguments are not convincing me one bit.
Salaam, from
Saracen
However, the transcript provided by MEMRI-TV provides only part of the interview, and you can see the entire transcript provided by the title link detailed above. Wafa Sultan, as you can see, is so full of wonderful ideas about civilization and western dreams of democracy that she doesn't care about her own people being killed and their perceived "progress" hindered by the intervention of the West.
Well, I'm seriously going to pick apart this debate and show you what really is behind all this fuss, and what I perceive as the matter, by countering both the arguments of Wafa Sultan and the "extreme opposite" presented here, Dr. Ibrahim al Khouly.
Unfortunately, the transcript is copyrighted, so you can't copy material from it right away. However, I will address the main points one by one.
We begin first with the usually posing introduction presented by Mr. Qassem, presenter of the show. He addresses the question on Western hypocrisy in the jailing of David Irving for his understating the deaths in the Holocaust; in that sense, he was jailed just for talking. The double-standard, he claims, is that many in the West declare the Danish cartoons done in the name of "freedom of expression". Of course, I agree that it is indeed a double standard, as I explained in my third post, "The 'Cartoon' Controversy". However, he loses me when he says that there is a clash of civilizations being forced on the Muslims by the West, but he does raise an interesting questions in that the Danish paper did not outrightly state its position with Muslims and Islam. He argues many questions (though I believe that usually not most of them are actually addressed in the show itself, but we will see).
He goes on to state that the idea of a civilization clash is going to be a fight between the three Abrahamic faiths, and that the idea was perceived before globalist Samuel Huntington coined the term.
Let's move on to the first headline:
The Clash of Civilizations and the Clash of Religions
Qassem brings out even more interesting points and that there seems to be a war on Muslims worldwide, not just in Afghanistan, Iraq and Denmark. After presenting a few facts and anticipating a response, Wafa Sultan responds with a definition for several terms. She claims that religion is
"a collection of values, principles and ideals that govern the relationship between man and a higher power in which a man believes, and the boundaries of this relationship should not be crossed."(If you were wondering, I was copying by typing).
Wafa Sultan is a secular Arab, and she believes that religion is limited and close-minded. Interesting. I believe in God, and I personally believe that there is enough proof to His existence. Also, I believe that Islam is far from "close-minded", as she proclaims. Thus, she is obviously promoting secularism.
She then defines civilization as
"a superior level of social accomplishment in work or effort. When one reaches this level of development one lives in peace, respect and is in turn more able to create and accomplish."Well, I have a different definition for civilization, and it does not necessarily include progress. Also, I believe that civilization is on an individual level, not a societal level. It also depends on how one person defines civilization, thus holding its definition subjective to many views. In that sense, one may perceive religion encompassing a big part of civilization in the sense that religion is civilization. Most of the world's religions do not include teachings to refrain from science: Islam, for example, has a good basis in science and encourages progress. That makes her assertions on "blind religion" wrong.
Now, this is where she really ticks me off. She claims that we are seeing a clash between "civilization and backwardness". How do you know what backwardness is when you see it? There are many Muslims who present similarly-based arguments as Westerners on the West (or Muslims, in the case of Westerners) being a backward place. She also goes on to define more clashes. She speaks of "chaos and rationality". Is what you are seeing in the Arab world "chaos"? Definitely not. It also depends on what "rationality" is. Personally, the freedoms that I enjoy here in the Arab world (yes, we DO have freedoms) are more rational than what I see in the West, for example. However, as a liberal, I tolerate it, though I could care less if there was a ban on, say, alcohol. She also claims that there is a conflict between "freedom and oppression, democracy and dictatorship"... hold on. "Freedom" is not bombarding the hell out of Iraq, nor is it the suppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis, which she promptly ignores in her upcoming comments. She also claims that there is a conflict between human rights and those who violate it; according to a recent report from Amnesty International, the U.S. and the U.K. were given a bad mark on human rights. What about the Patriot Act and the police state known as the U.K.? I mean, seriously she is not joking? Furthermore, she claims that there is a clash between those who treat women "like animals" and those who treat them "like human beings"... Wait a sec. Granted, there are people who abuse women in the MidEast, but contrary to Western media, this is not the norm, and is actually a misrepresentation of Arabs as a whole, as well as Muslims. One must understand that the hijab and the covering of the body on part of the woman is for her own sake, and is in fact taken by choice and not forced on the woman. On the other hand, we see women being treated as cheap sex toys in Western media, as well as many cases of sexual assault and date rape. However, it is barbaric to think that crime and culture are correlated, because such assumptions are not only barbaric themselves in nature, but are also RACIST.
Basically, what she said here is a gross over-assumption and over-simplification of the real situation. Two wrongs don't make a right, but what she said was simply a crock of bollocks. This argument in itself was not only opinionated, but highly emotional, which makes it null and void from being regarded as fact.
She goes on with her rant in that civilizations do not clash... Umm... She oughtta take a history lesson or two. The Persian Empire and the Macedonians under Alexander were civilizations. They had different values for their imperialism, and indeed, they clashed. But who really competes, then, in her own words? Who really compete are allies. Furthermore, development, contrary to what she says, is not a one-way road, but rather a myriad of roads spawning from the same intersection. She claims that humans will be more common when they "develop". In what sense do they develop? However, she also claims that people clash just because of the "difference between levels of development". What about events? What about the Iraq war? World War 2? Palestine and Israel? These conflicts started because of actions on part of individuals, not the thoughts of a people.
However, she shows her true colors in that she affirms that the West represents "civilization" and that Muslims represent "backwards and ignorance". Personally, I am really pissed at her comments, but I remain calm and just have to say that what she said was pretty prejudiced: there are many "progressive" Muslims and many "backward" westerners, going by my definition and even hers. In that sense, we are not seeing a clash between "civilization" and "backwardness". The theory itself smacks with racism, and thus Muslims and Islam are not anti-civilization and pro-ignorance, as I have asserted above.
Enter Ibrahim al Khouly. He's supposedly a sheik and a lecturer at the controversial Azhar University in Egypt. His arguments, though, are profound and thought-provoking. However, what saddened me is that he was misrepresented in the MEMRITV piece. He claims that civilization and other aspects like culture are not correlated, and that civilization is itself a relative term, as I have asserted above. Surprisingly, though, he pertains that man is an animal in the sense that he is abusing nature. He claims that civilization is
"the physical aspect, what you (Wafa Sultan) are speaking now is urbanized society based on science and the application of science through advanced technology, the combating and controlling of nature for the service of man, the animal, and not man, the human being. This must be very clear from the start and civilizations within this narrow definition are the fruit of the cumulative outcome of science and technological effort. Civilizations, when defined, are thus neutral."Amazing! Simply AMAZING! I mean, this is probably an excellent definition for civilization: a completely neutral aspect. Personally, I think that this should have ended the argument.
Unfortunately, the debate was far from over. He asserts that he does not call enslavement of blacks and genocide of Native Americans "civilization", and thus raises the point in that you can't refer to the West as representative of "civilization". In that sense, the definition of civilization, although subjective, is best defined from a non-aggressive standpoint.
Dr. al Khouly continues to defend Muslims, claiming that they are only backward technologically. What he should have said is that Muslims are backward in some areas, and only some people in the Muslim community are backward, even though they really do have a louder voice, thanks to the biased media outlets of the West. He also challenges Dr. Sultan that civilization is not a criterion for humanity. I agree with him: a man can be civilized, but not humane at the same time.
After an exchange involving Ms. Sultan putting words into the mouth of Dr. al Khouly, Sultan proceeds in associating humanity with civilization, and that in my opinion is not only an ignorant association, but a rather uneducated one. Why? Well, let me clear up what Mr. al Khouly said.
Muslims, he claims, are backwards technologically. He also states that civilization is something that does not enter the issue. However, I'd like to chip in by repeating the definition of civilization being subjective, as well as introducing the concept of "humanity". Civilization, like morality, is subjective to different points of view. However, techonological advancement is not. Thus, one person can seriously be technologically advanced in that he has the latest gadgets, but according to my perceptions, he might not be civilized. Contrary to Ms. Sultan's claims that a society can advance, I argue with the point that technological advancement is based on an individual level. I will be bringing this point up later.
Ms. Sultan then claims that Muslims are the ones who started with the concept of the "clash of civilizations". She took a quote from the Prophet (peace be upon him) out of context, claiming that he was "commanded to fight until they believe in God and His Prophet". Such verses and sayings are usually intentionally taken out of context. Yes, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did say this, but he said this at the height of persecution from the Pagans of Mecca, and this was also at the point of Islam's spreading in its first days. What ticked me off even more is her ignorant assumptions about Muslims. She says,
"When Muslims divided people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called for fighting others until those others believed in what they believed in, they sparked this conflict, this war. And they must cease this war. They must revise their Islamic books and academic curricula, filled as they are with calls to denounce others as infidels, and to fight infidels..."This, of course, is based on fantasies about Islam. For one thing, when the Muslims divided Muslims from non-Muslims, such things happened in times of war and conflict, where the Muslims were the ones who were being attacked. She claims that Muslims started "clashing" with "civilizations". Islam brought civilization to the Arabian Penninsula. The Arabs at that time were nothing but barbaric and uncivilized, no matter how you would look at it. They had backward practices and women's rights were often violated horribly. So, technically, Muslims didn't clash with civilizations. They, at that time, represented civilization, according to her own definition. But of course, she refers again to such ignorant Islam-bashing sources, considering that she is not a believer of Islam.
She further claims that people need to revise Islamic texts. Every single call to "fight infidels" has been taken out of context, and if you backtrack to my post on Islam and whether it requires reformation or not... well, it does not need reformation. What needs to be changed are certain schoolbooks that are taken out of context, even though this is not prevalent everywhere but the institutions that make it to the news. On the other hand, Islam does not call for fighting the innocent, and those who do not believe in Islam. It just calls for fighting those who fight you, as well as fighting against the oppression of Muslims and other minorities that was prevalent at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Dr. Khouly denounces the comments made by Ms. Sultan. He argues that Islam brought humanity, co-existence and tolerance/acceptance, and that is quite true: the Islamic Empire did not spread by the sword (well, at certain times it did, but it was usually in war against an invading army), and everyone under Islamic rule was free to worship what they want and wherever they want; in that sense, Islam brought what secularists believe are the core principles of "democracy" and "civilized" societies. Islam, he continues to argue,
"...removed all reason for conflict of racism, supremacism, prejudice and all which divides man..."Once again, I agree.
He then continues to disspell the myths that Ms. Sultan brings about. His defense for Islam was sadly ommitted in the crock of shit that is MEMRITV, but his voice has been heard by Arabs all over and they know better. Now, he speaks that Islam should have not made peace with polytheism. Granted, polytheism is one's own faith, but the polytheist Pagans at the time were persecuting Muslims, and thus Islam was the solution to rid themselves of this corruption, and truly unite the Arabs of the Arabian Penninsula, who went from bedouins to knights, philosophers, scientists, artists and other professions of "civility". He continues to argue that Islam is not being practiced correctly by claiming that indeed Islam does not punish for apostasy, and so forth.
Now, back to the annoyance and ignorance of Ms. Sultan. She claims that Muslims have called non-Muslims "dhimmi" and claims that there has been a comparison of Jews with donkeys and pigs. There is not one verse in the Quran that claims so; in fact, Islam is against this racist slur because Jews are human beings, and are in fact monotheists who worship the same God of Abraham, like us. She also claims that Christians have been insulted by Islam as "those who have lost the path". I can cite many so-called "intolerant" verses from other religious texts, such as the words Amalek or Goy, or "those who are not with the Holy Father" for example. Now, she continues to claim that Muslims
"fight those who do not believe in God or His Prophet, until they pay jizya in state of subjection."Again, more ignorance. Jizya is just the name of the tax that non-Muslims pay under Islamic rule, and Zakat is just the name of a similar tax that Muslims pay. Nothing discriminatory about it, really.
Moreover, the nomenclature argument she poses is not only senseless, but childish: "Dhimmi" means under protection of Muslims, and it's by no means second-class. Furthermore, Muslims are not "commanded to fight" until they are being fought against. Just go here, so this whole "fight" and "jizya" argument is over with.
After a brief exchange in which Dr. Khouly outlines the ignorance of Ms. Sultan, she goes on to ask,
"If you have any justification for going to war with them, do you have any justification for them to pay a jizya in a state of subjection?"I have to admit that this sheikh is not the sharpest mind on Islam there is, but he speaks from a more aggressive viewpoint. However, in Surat ul Baqara, verse 190, God clearly instructs us to fight those who fight us, but not to "transgress the limits". The "limits" are killing civilians and causing senseless damage, as well as fighting those who do NOT fight us.
After a little rough exchange, she argues that the Muslims are really "the People of the Book". She then claims that the only books Muslims have are the Hadiths and the Quran... What? Excuse me, Ms. Sultan, but BEFORE the Middle Ages, there were many prominent Arab thinkers and philosophers, who were also MUSLIM, who wrote even more books. Ever heard of Ibn Sina (Avicenna)? Or Abu Bakr al Razi (Rhazes)? What about Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar)? Or al Ghazali? Better yet, how about al Khwarizmi? These and TONS of other names made themselves famous in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Philosophy and other fields of Arts and Science. In fact, much of what we learn today in school is from Arab and Muslim intellectuals, and yet they go about unsung, which is why you, Ms. Sultan, assert ignorance on the matter.
Dr. Khouly argues what I have just said, and more. He also asserts that if anyone started this "clash of civilizations" according to Ms. Sultan's definitions, it would have been the Europeans. That's settled nicely. Now, to the next heading...
Extremism and the Struggle to Dominate
Dr. Khouly responds nicely to al Qassem's question in that Islam seeks to purify the world from corruption, and the ones who are attacked have the right to defend. I think he is correlating with the idea that every aggressive notion that Westerners have made against Islam should be defended against, and that Muslims have the right to make their voices heard against such injustices.
Now, on to (yawwwn) Ms. Sultan. She claims that extremism is the majority in Islam and that it's prevalent. She claims that the West is immune from extremism... ok, that got a good laugh out of me. If you were to take a look at the world Muslim demographic statistics, you will realize that only 18-25% of them live in the Middle East, and most live elsewhere. Furthermore, extremists in the Middle East have always received the mic and the camera lens, because in Western media, "if it bleeds, it leads". To hell with good Muslims, eh? Well, let's see what else Ms. Sultan has to say. She claims that Dr. Khouly is ignorant. She claims that Islam was spread by the sword and through conquest. Wow... she obviously needs to learn a bit of history. Anyways, Islam was not spread by the sword, but attacked the oppressive nations like the Byzantines with the sword. She claims, baselessly, that Muslims go to churches and denounce Christians as liars... Scoff! Well, I haven't seen any either. I've heard of southern Christians in the U.S. forcefully proselytizing people into accepting Christ as the "Son of God", but I have yet to see Muslims openly proselytizing. Sure, there may be annoyances in places like Saudi Arabia, but is Saudi Arabia, a MONARCHY (monarchies are by definition un-Islamic), representative of Islam now?
Dr. Khouly rebuts her argument with the classical adage that I have adopted myself: The actions of an individual or group of individuals does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the entire group that he is assumed to represent. He goes on to argue against the notion that Muslims are the ones causing trouble by arguing that the west, communists, and other political and religious extremists like Dubya Bush have wreaked even more havoc.
However, he argues further that the "war on terror" is cover for a war on Islam and Muslims. To a degree, I agree, but I don't think that Dubya Bush would want to attack Islam should his image falter. On the other hand, he argues that Muslim nations have been targets of interventionism for the past 50 years, and kudos for bringing that up. More kudos for him stating that the western powers are constraining Muslims from their rights to exercise power in the form of self-defense. He argues further that Muslims are being attacked by secularism, and secularism is not necessarily progress. And yes, I do agree with this, even though theocracies themselves do not mean progress as well. As I have said before, progress is an individual concept, not a societal one. Finally, he claims that Muslims are being forbidden from uniting with each other. The divisions in the Muslim community are enough proof of this, with the further fact that Muslims are not a homogeneous group to be painted with the same brush.
But obviously, like all other western pundits, Ms. Sultan is blind to the hypocrisy that is the West, and responds ignorantly with the same sentence:
"Muslims are the ones who initiated this conflict."Unbelievable. After all the statements that Dr. Khouly made, backing them up with examples and real events, she simply claims that Muslims are the trouble-makers? Let's see what else she has to say.
She claims that Islam calls for rejection and intolerance, as well as murder. Wow. What does self-defense have to do with murder? Murder is an act of aggression, and is forbidden by Islam, no matter who kills who and thus regardless of religious background... yes, Ms. Sultan, even Muslim killing Pagan senselessly. She further claims that the sheikh is turning a "blind eye" to Islamic teachings. Well, the sheikh obviously explained what those verses meant, didn't he?
I think Ms. Sultan is blind. Islam and Muslims are not.
Believe me: Islam respects and tolerates other beliefs, but does not call for Muslims to agree with other beliefs in that they should worship more than one god, for example, or practice other systems.
After an exchange, she argues in a "defensive" way... what the hell? She was the one arguing aggressively the whole time, but this is nothing new from the Islamophobic crowd: any defense of Islam is treated as an attack on Islamophobes. I pity her, really. Then she claims that one is free to worship what one wishes... Well, so do Muslims. She also claims that Muslims call Christians as "lost". Hey, Christians call our Prophet "false", even though we refer to Jesus as a human being, not a God. Which is worse, Ms. Sultan?
Tell me: when a Christian says that Islam is the "tool of the devil", do you agree with this? Don't you think that is "overstepping the boundaries" as you claim (even though the doc had every right to claim that you indeed did overstep your boundaries)?
Let's move on to the final part of the discussion.
Global Conflict and Western Designs
Khouly starts by arguing that Christians are also preaching like Muslims, and that Christians like Bush claim that they are on a "Crusade". Read above for my 2 cents on this, but nothing new here. Moving along...
After a little exchange, Ms. Sultan returns to her ignorance. She claims that Islam is fighting the rest of the world... How? Well, Islam is for one thing not fighting and killing. It's a religion, and religions don't fight. People sure do, but Muslims, after the rise of Islam, through their own share of fighting and battling invaders, also instated a civilization. She brings the example of Bibles and Saudi Arabia. This was quite an old legislation, and I agree that Saudi's government was quite radical before. However, this legislation has changed, and there are people who read the Bible even in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the MidEast. She claims, though, that Muslims do not allow for others to preach. This is false: Christians preach openly in Egypt and Lebanon, as well as several Arab countries. Muslims, on the other hand, preach the same way, but certainly not a lot of people preach Islam as openly as those in the south of the U.S. do.
Dr. Khouly rebuts her argument with the fact that Saudi Arabia is not representative of all Muslims, and by Islamic standards is "condemned". He further argues that Saudi Arabia is perverting Islam through its own legislation, and again I agree. He further stresses my point that concepts like "clash of civilizations and cultures" are oversimplifying the real issues at hand.
On to the next headline.
Freedom of Expression and Violation of Sanctities
Ms. Sultan argues that respect is earned, not gained. This is true, but then she continues with the most utter bull I have seen her spew out in the argument. She speaks of Jews "emerging from tragedy" and forcing the world to "respect them... through science....". She claims that Jews have done great things, etc. etc. However, she treats Jews, like Muslims, as a homogeneous group. Moreover, as I have asserted before, achievement and progress are individual aspects, not societal ones. In that sense, Einstein made much contributions to science as an individual, not because he was a Jew or representative of one (I think he's actually a deist, but an ethnic Jew). She speaks of Jews who have not blown themselves up or destroy churches or object to anything by murdering people.
Again, she treats them as a single group. Does she not know about Israel and its terrorism? Israel, in my humblest opinion, is not representative of the Jewish community. However, most Israelis are Jews. And yes, during the 1948 wars, Jewish soldiers destroyed mosques in their invasion of Palestinian towns, and yes, they have blown up (not necessarily themselves) hotels and restaurants as well as HOMES, perhaps the only building that has a significance to individual humans. She also forgets that Israeli soldiers have responded to peaceful protests by murdering the protestors (1967, protests in many Palestinian towns were quelled and several people murdered in cold blood).
She goes further to argue that "Muslims reduced three statues of Buddha to dust." Well, first off, the Taliban are not representative of Muslims and are by no means Islamic in their acts of terrorism and oppression. On the other hand, I have seen Hindus destroy mosques and churches in India and force their worshippers to worship their gods. She goes on to say that Muslims
"defend their religion by burning churches, murdering people and tearing down embassies"This is another overgeneralization. The response to the cartoons, albeit by no means proportionate, was also in a way understandable. Refer again to my "Cartoon controversy" post. She further argues that Muslims have not respected mankind. Aren't Muslims human beings?! Have you noticed the dictatorships supported by the west that were butchering Muslims all over and hindering the perceived "progress" that you've been waiting for, Ms. Sultan? Ever heard of Suharto? The Shah? What about Saddam and other Arab leaders? What about "Israel" and the U.S. itself? Don't you think that the West has somewhat reaped what it sowed? You claim that the Danish cartoons were freely expressing their opinions. How come anti-Semitism in the form of David Irving is quelled by imprisoning the person, but anti-Islamism in the form of the cartoon is lauded as "free speech"?
She claims that Muslims are the ones responsible for this whole mess. Why doesn't she stop hacking at the branches and strike at the roots? She also claims that jealousy breeds contention. Muslims are by no means jealous of the West: many Muslims would rather live in their own countries than in the West. We as Arabs and Muslims are happy with the freedoms we have. We have already seen the "freedoms" brought about by the West and other nations intervening in the Islamic world. We don't want it and we don't need it, but if the west just stops bashing Muslims, perhaps we wouldn't have had such fringe radicalization.
Dr. Khouly, though, responds beautifully, and ends the argument once and for all. He claims that such cartoonists should be ignored, and that my friends, is the Islamic way to respond to such ignorant Islam-bashing. He claims that it is indeed elements from those outside Islam who are forcing Muslims to follow what they want, not the other way around.
Before we know it, the show ends.
So it all comes down to this: the "clash of civilizations" concept holds no water, and oversimplifies the situation. It also smacks with racism when it deals with "backwardness". Islam, furthermore, is obviously not what Ms. Sultan thinks it is, and she is obviously owned in that argument, contrary to what many rightwing pundits claim. Moreover, the mistranslation on MEMRITV, that Dr. Khouly called her a "heretic", was unfounded, and that he responded with all clarity and with facts. All what Ms. Sultan was doing was heaving nothing but the same old lame old ignorant trash thrown around by Islamophobes. SO, in that sense, she is no here, but a zero.
People, stick to the politics of the situation. The unfounded arguments like "clashes between civilizations" and whatnot hold no basis in politics. It was also kind of surprising: I watched the MEMRI TV version at first, and thought that the sheikh was a complete asshole, second to Ms. Sultan, who now turned out to be the bigger asshole in this argument. Sorry, Ms. Sultan, but your emotive arguments are not convincing me one bit.
Salaam, from
Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment