---

Jeg havde tænkt på hvordan det gik dr. Sultan efter hendes optræden på al
Jazeera, og her er svaret - for dem der ikke har set hende på al Jazeera, så
tag et kig på Menri og søg på hendes navn.

En modig kvinde som siger det, der bør siges, og som man kun kan sige mod at
blive dræbt eller som minimum truet på livet, det er sådan nogen vi skal
støtte, og ikke kuweitiske klerke med slet skjulte trusler i ærmerne.

Læs den, selv dem der ikke er så stive i engelsk!


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sult
an.html?_r=1&ei=5094&oref=slogin

The Saturday Profile
For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: March 11, 2006

LOS ANGELES, March 10 - Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a
largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los
Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow
Muslims.

J. Emilio Flores for The New York Times

"I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our
holy book." - DR. WAFA SULTAN

Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on
Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international
sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by
others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than
a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of
thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the
Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she
believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran
for 14 centuries.

She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with
the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.

Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions
or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a
battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined
to lose.

In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned
her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark
threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out
loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in
the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.

"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and
teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a
Los Angeles suburb.

Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with
fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are
jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words:
"Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody
has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."

Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those
comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity.
Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the
tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their
knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their
crying and yelling."

She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a
German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a
church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."

She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning
down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path
will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what
they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind
respect them."

Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which
has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We
have been discussing with her the importance of her message and
trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish
leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the
organization.

She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in
Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced
her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than
the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service
reported.

DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that - if it is published - it's
going to turn the Islamic world upside down."

"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have
no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy
book."

The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a
Monster."

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in
Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour
drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout
Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical
student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that
time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try
to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen
of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the
university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is
great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god
and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point
of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to
leave. I had to look for another god."

She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of
David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas
finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children
(they have since had a third) settled in with friends in
Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of
Los Angeles County.

After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr.
Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the
exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do
within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station.
They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children
through local public schools. All are now American citizens.

BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American
life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing,
first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called
Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.

An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim
Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her
to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.

In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt
young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a
young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead,
go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion
is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which
that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."

Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began
appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew
exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21,
an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the
Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.

Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed
more than a million times.

"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."

She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human
being," she said.

The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian
professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked,
"Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking
or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the
Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.

Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a
religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received
numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.

One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She
received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said,
"If someone were to kill you, it would be me."

Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid
to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives
in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family
members here and in Syria than she did for her own.

"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like
a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and
hardest 10 miles."

---

Knud Larsen fortalte:

> En modig kvinde som siger det, der bør siges, og som man kun kan sige
> mod at blive dræbt eller som minimum truet på livet, det er sådan
> nogen vi skal støtte, og ikke kuweitiske klerke med slet skjulte
> trusler i ærmerne.

Gad vide hvad røvhullerne fra dansk PEN som har eller var ved at melde
sig ud, ville sige til hende? Ryste lidt på hovedet over den ufred hun
skaber?

Hun blev brat vækket. Hvad skal der til at vække selvfede
godhedsdanskere.

Hun var medicinsk student ved universitetet i Aleppo Syrien.

Pludselig kom bevæbnede folk fra Det muslimske Broderskab ind i
klasselokalet og dræbte hendes lærer. Han blev skudt med hundredvis af
skud mens der blev råbt Allahu akbar (Gud er stor).
Wafa Sultan fik et chok, og mistede sin tro.

Mvh
Martin
--
Befri DK

---

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:10:18 +0100, "Knud Larsen"
<larsen_knud@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Jazeera, og her er svaret - for dem der ikke har set hende på al Jazeera, så
>tag et kig på Menri og søg på hendes navn.
>
>En modig kvinde som siger det, der bør siges, og som man kun kan sige mod at
>blive dræbt eller som minimum truet på livet, det er sådan nogen vi skal
>støtte, og ikke kuweitiske klerke med slet skjulte trusler i ærmerne.
[...]

Jeg fik for et par dage siden et link til dele af interviewet med
hende, men vidste ikke hvem hun er før nu.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

--
Jens G
IP telefoni med www.musimi.dk - slet ikke så svært.

---

Knud Larsen skrev:

> Jeg havde tænkt på hvordan det gik dr. Sultan efter hendes optræden på al
> Jazeera, og her er svaret - for dem der ikke har set hende på al Jazeera, så
> tag et kig på Menri og søg på hendes navn.
>
> En modig kvinde som siger det, der bør siges, og som man kun kan sige mod at
> blive dræbt eller som minimum truet på livet, det er sådan nogen vi skal
> støtte, og ikke kuweitiske klerke med slet skjulte trusler i ærmerne.
>
> Læs den, selv dem der ikke er så stive i engelsk!
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sult
> an.html?_r=1&ei=5094&oref=slogin

> "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody
> has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."

Amen.

> An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim
> Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her
> to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.

Ti-fire til Al Jazeera.

> The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian
> professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked,
> "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking
> or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the
> Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.

Sikke en vilje til dialog. Der skal nok andet og mere end akademiske
betragtninger og hensynsfuld logik til at rette op på den mands
vildfarelse.

Fru Sultan selv skulle se sin professor blive pumpet fuld af bly, før
hun begyndte at se lyset.

Men mon ikke det alligevel kan klares med venlig rundkredspædagogik,
hvis vi nu sætter nogen stykker af velmenerne her fra gruppen til at
tage affære?

---

"HrSvendsen" <HrSvendsen@msn.com> wrote in message
news:srxeakh6xl9p.dlg@hrsvendsen.fqdn.th-h.de...
> Knud Larsen skrev:

>> The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian
>> professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked,
>> "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking
>> or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the
>> Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.
>
> Sikke en vilje til dialog. Der skal nok andet og mere end akademiske
> betragtninger og hensynsfuld logik til at rette op på den mands
> vildfarelse.
>
> Fru Sultan selv skulle se sin professor blive pumpet fuld af bly, før
> hun begyndte at se lyset.
>
> Men mon ikke det alligevel kan klares med venlig rundkredspædagogik,
> hvis vi nu sætter nogen stykker af velmenerne her fra gruppen til at
> tage affære?

Sådanne folk, som denne professor, er hvad alle muslimer, som kunne tænke
sig at tænke selv, og ikke bare holde det inde døre, ved de er stillet over
for. Og da fornuftige mennesker ikke har lyst til at blive martyrer og smide
livet væk lige som gakkelakkerne, så holder de fleste klogeligt deres
kæft, - som vi så også skal til at gøre, når EU og FN har været i aktion.

Som den mest indflydelsesrige lærde i sidste århundrede, Maulana Mawdudi
skrev så er det soleklart at en der har været muslim og som forlader islam
må henrettes som det er blevet gjort i 1300 år. Nu er det kun få stater som
henretter frafaldne, de fleste fjerner kun folks borgerrettigheder.

Mawdudi har en lang udredning om hvorfor man skal henrette en frafalden, men
som man kan se, så var man i Indien blevet blevet bløde i knæene, og mange
lærde var faktisk blevet overbevist af argumenter om at det var absurd at
gøre det, - så det KAN åbenbart lade sig gøre i visse tilfælde.


Et par uddrag for dem der gider:

Han opregner fire almindelige argumenter imod dødsstraffen, - jeg citerer
kun lidt fra de to første:


A. The Arguments of the Critics

The most likely objections against the execution of the apostate are these:

1. This idea is against the freedom of conscience. Every person should have
the freedom to accept whatever satisfies his heart and to reject whatever
does not satisfy him. As every person initially must be able to accept or
reject the way before him, similarly he should also have the option later to
remain on or abandon the way of his original choice. The person who is ready
to abandon the way he has chosen to follow is ready to do it because he no
longer believes in the truth of that way. Then how can it be right to offer
him the gallows when he has determined to leave that way because he no
longer believes it? Does this mean that if you cannot change a person's
belief by arguments, then you should force him to change his belief by
threatening him with death? And if he does not change, then do you punish
him because he did not change his belief?

2. In any case the faith which is thus forcibly changed or the faith which
people maintain because of the fear of death cannot be a genuine faith. This
faith will be manifestly hypocritical, chosen to deceive in order to save
one's life . . .

....

Externally these objections appear so strong that one Muslim group,
conceding defeat before them, had to resort to the old policy of a subdued
people, i.e., when your opponents gain the upper hand in a dispute over a
problem in your religion, then tear it out of the rule book and clearly
state that the matter under dispute has nothing whatever to do with your
religion. A second Muslim group, finding it impossible to reject the truth
like the first group, acknowledged the reality of the issue. Nevertheless
its inability to formulate a rational response to these intellectual
criticisms left even the staunchest Muslims convinced that, while doubtless
the order to execute the apostate is found in Islam, supporting it
rationally is difficult. I remember well about 18 years ago when on one
occasion a terrible agitation arose in India over the problem of executing
an apostate.[1] It called forth a downpour of objections from everywhere. At
this time even so true a Muslim as the now deceased Mawlana Muhammad Ali
capitulated to these arguments. Numerous distinguished persons among the
religious leaders ('ulama') on this occasion represented the true legal
aspects of the problem very competently. But the arguments they presented to
refute the intellectual objections were feeble enough to make one wonder
whether they themselves perhaps felt in their hearts that the matter lacked
rational support. The effects of that weak defence remain until now.


Så utallige ulamaer havde argumenterne for dødsstraf i orden, men efter
Mawdudis mening var deres forsvar svage, men manden røg åbenbart i galgen.
Mawdudi døde iøvrigt i 1979, - man siger han er DEN mest indflydelsesrige
lærde muslim, eller en af de TO mest indflydelsesrige af slagsen, - den
anden er den egyptiske Qutb, som blev henrettet for sine synspunkter (de
hygger sig rigtigt i den muslimske verden).

....

Similarly, there is no reason why he should be able to choose to follow a
way on which he fixes his hope for salvation in the other world and not have
the right to choose a new way as his hope of salvation and abandon the
previous way. Thus, if the nature of Islam is simply the nature of religion
as it is understood these days, nothing could be more absurd than that Islam
keep its door open for those entering but station an executioner at the door
for those departing.

In fact, this has not at all been the nature of Islam. It is not only a
"religion" in the modern technical sense of that term but a complete order
of life. It relates not only to the metaphysical but also to nature and
everything in nature. It discourses not only on the salvation of life after
death but also on the questions of prosperity, improvement and the true
ordering of life before death. It establishes a dependence of salvation
after death upon the true ordering of life before death. Granted that it is
nevertheless only a belief. Yet it is not a belief which is concerned only
with some remote phase of life. Rather, it is that belief on whose
foundation a plan for the whole of life rests. It is not a belief whose
existence or change has no noticeable effect on the great and significant
ramifications of human life but a belief on whose continuation the
continuation of civilization and the state depend and the changing of which
means changing the order of civilization and state. It is not a faith which
a person may choose with only the concern of the individual in mind. It is
that faith on the basis of which a society of people establishes a complete
order of a civilization in a particular form and brings into existence a
state to operate it. A faith and idea of this nature cannot be made into a
game for the liberties of individuals. Nor can the society, which
establishes the order of civilization and state on that faith, make way for
any brainwave to enter, then to be displaced by another brainwave, to come
and go at will. This is not a game or picnic intended to entertain a person
in a totally irresponsible manner. This is a terribly serious and extremely
delicate work whose fine balance affects the order of society and state. Its
success and failure affect the success and failure of thousands and millions
of God's servants. Its outcome is a matter of life and death for a very
large company of people. When in this world was such a faith and membership
in a society holding this faith made the toy of individual free wills? Does
anyone suggest that this is Islam's expectation?
¨

osv osv, men altså, en person kan ikke bare vælge at forlade islam, da det
vil påvirke hele samfundet og derfor ikke er en privatsag, - islam er ikke
noget vi leger, det er dødsens alvor.

Mange muslimer ved jo, at den klassiske - og korrekte - straf for frafald
er døden, og de er parate til at gøre Allah den tjeneste at aflive de
formastelige, hvis staten ikke vil træde til.

Profeten: "Enhver der ønsker en anden religion end islam, - dræb ham" - som
Mawdudi også citerer.

---

Knud Larsen skrev:
> Jeg havde tænkt på hvordan det gik dr. Sultan efter hendes optræden på al
> Jazeera, og her er svaret - for dem der ikke har set hende på al Jazeera, så
> tag et kig på Menri og søg på hendes navn.
>
> En modig kvinde som siger det, der bør siges, og som man kun kan sige mod at
> blive dræbt eller som minimum truet på livet, det er sådan nogen vi skal
> støtte, og ikke kuweitiske klerke med slet skjulte trusler i ærmerne.
>
> Læs den, selv dem der ikke er så stive i engelsk!
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sult
> an.html?_r=1&ei=5094&oref=slogin
>
> The Saturday Profile
> For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats
> By JOHN M. BRODER
> Published: March 11, 2006
>
> LOS ANGELES, March 10 - Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a
> largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los
> Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow
> Muslims.
>
> J. Emilio Flores for The New York Times
>
> "I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our
> holy book." - DR. WAFA SULTAN
>
> Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on
> Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international
> sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by
> others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.
>
> In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than
> a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of
> thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the
> Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she
> believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran
> for 14 centuries.
>
> She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with
> the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.
>
> Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions
> or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a
> battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined
> to lose.
>
> In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned
> her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark
> threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out
> loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in
> the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.
>
> "I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and
> teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a
> Los Angeles suburb.
>
> Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with
> fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are
> jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words:
> "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody
> has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."
>
> Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those
> comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity.
> Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the
> tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their
> knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their
> crying and yelling."
>
> She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a
> German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a
> church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."
>
> She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning
> down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path
> will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what
> they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind
> respect them."
>
> Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which
> has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We
> have been discussing with her the importance of her message and
> trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish
> leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the
> organization.
>
> She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in
> Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced
> her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than
> the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service
> reported.
>
> DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that - if it is published - it's
> going to turn the Islamic world upside down."
>
> "I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have
> no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy
> book."
>
> The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a
> Monster."
>
> Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in
> Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour
> drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout
> Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.
>
> But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical
> student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that
> time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try
> to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen
> of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the
> university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.
>
> "They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is
> great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god
> and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point
> of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to
> leave. I had to look for another god."
>
> She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of
> David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas
> finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children
> (they have since had a third) settled in with friends in
> Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of
> Los Angeles County.
>
> After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr.
> Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the
> exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do
> within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station.
> They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children
> through local public schools. All are now American citizens.
>
> BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American
> life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing,
> first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called
> Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.
>
> An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim
> Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her
> to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.
>
> In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt
> young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a
> young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead,
> go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion
> is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which
> that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."
>
> Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began
> appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew
> exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21,
> an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the
> Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.
>
> Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed
> more than a million times.
>
> "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."
>
> She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human
> being," she said.
>
> The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian
> professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked,
> "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking
> or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the
> Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.
>
> Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a
> religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received
> numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.
>
> One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She
> received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said,
> "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."
>
> Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid
> to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives
> in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family
> members here and in Syria than she did for her own.
>
> "I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like
> a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and
> hardest 10 miles."
>

Hendes "tilfælde" viser ihvertfald, at det er farligt at bilde
sig ind, at problemet med islamismen ville forsvinde, hvis blot
vi indførte en "blasfemi-paragraf" for at undgå sådan noget som
Muhammedtegningerne.

Der er tydeligvis tale om, at man ikke vil acceptere *kritik*.

Hendes kritik af især islam, men også religion generelt, er helt
klart meget skarp - men det har den også lov til at være.

Man har lov til at være anti-religiøs. Og at give udtryk for det.

Artiklen kan også ses her:

http://essayus.blogspot.com/2006/03/muslims-blunt-criticism-of-islam-draws.html


--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

---

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 07:59:04 +0100, Mogens Michaelsen
<momi@stofanet.dk> wrote:
>Knud Larsen skrev:
>> "I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like
>> a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and
>> hardest 10 miles."
>
>Hendes "tilfælde" viser ihvertfald, at det er farligt at bilde
>sig ind, at problemet med islamismen ville forsvinde, hvis blot
>vi indførte en "blasfemi-paragraf" for at undgå sådan noget som
>Muhammedtegningerne.
>
>Der er tydeligvis tale om, at man ikke vil acceptere *kritik*.

hvis vi giver efter for pres fra muhammedanere vil vi ikke få fred

tværtimod, det vil øge deres pres


den der sælger friheden for at få fred
mister begge dle

>
>Hendes kritik af især islam, men også religion generelt, er helt
>klart meget skarp - men det har den også lov til at være.
>
>Man har lov til at være anti-religiøs. Og at give udtryk for det.

ja så længe det endnu varer

>
>Artiklen kan også ses her:
>
>http://essayus.blogspot.com/2006/03/muslims-blunt-criticism-of-islam-draws.html

---

Mogens Michaelsen skrev:

> Hendes "tilfælde" viser ihvertfald, at det er farligt at bilde
> sig ind, at problemet med islamismen ville forsvinde, hvis blot
> vi indførte en "blasfemi-paragraf" for at undgå sådan noget som
> Muhammedtegningerne.

Nemlig, for det ville jo netop bare være knæfald for denne afskyeligt
selvhøjtidlige teokratiske totalitarisme.

> Der er tydeligvis tale om, at man ikke vil acceptere *kritik*.

Ja?

Men hvordan skal man dog NOGENSINDE kunne "føre dialog" om noget, hvis
det i udgangspunktet slet ikke anses for "tilladt" overhovedet netop at
KRITISERE modstanderens synspunkter?

Det er dér, jeg har alvorligt svært ved at få øje på, hvad det er for en
ellers nok så umådelig søgt "dialog", man vil have, hvis dèt skulle
forestilles at være præmisserne!

Det ville nok lyde noget i retning af:
"Ja, du har selvfølgelig helt ret!", gentaget ad infintum, over for een
eller anden afsindig helligkrigertype, der således i princippet ville
kunne prædike død og ødelæggelse over een som vantro, uden at man
overhovedet måtte modsige det!

Dèt opfatter jeg i al væsentlighed som MONOlog...

Nok skal man som kristen kunne ta' en proverbiel lussing stående og
vende den anden kind til (og dèt muligvis for kækt at demonstrere at man
ikke derved er knægtet!), men mig bekendt er det altså også
magtpåliggende at man i det mindste imødegår folk _verbalt_, ISÆR da når
det drejer sig om religion: Det ligger for mig at se i selveste
Missionsbefalingen at man som kristen faktisk BØR "prædike Kristus" i
sådan en situation, hvad jeg da også praktisk mener ville være det
absolut mest gavnlige for modparten. Vedkommende kunne jo - for sin egen
skyld - forhåbentlig blive omvendt til den sande tro derved!

> Hendes kritik af især islam, men også religion generelt, er helt
> klart meget skarp - men det har den også lov til at være.

Jeg må sige at jeg har oplevet dèt, der var væsentligt værre. Vel at
mærke fra andre troende!

> Man har lov til at være anti-religiøs. Og at give udtryk for det.

Ja?

Jeg håber da ikke at du mener at der overhovedet burde være noget som
helst at diskutere i dèn henseende, for så vidt vi da blot ikke ligefrem
er ude i trusler?

--
Mvh
Anders Peter Johnsen

---

Anders Peter Johnsen skrev:
> Mogens Michaelsen skrev:
>
>> Hendes "tilfælde" viser ihvertfald, at det er farligt at bilde
>> sig ind, at problemet med islamismen ville forsvinde, hvis blot
>> vi indførte en "blasfemi-paragraf" for at undgå sådan noget som
>> Muhammedtegningerne.
>
>
> Nemlig, for det ville jo netop bare være knæfald for denne afskyeligt
> selvhøjtidlige teokratiske totalitarisme.
>
>> Der er tydeligvis tale om, at man ikke vil acceptere *kritik*.
>
>
> Ja?
>
> Men hvordan skal man dog NOGENSINDE kunne "føre dialog" om noget, hvis
> det i udgangspunktet slet ikke anses for "tilladt" overhovedet netop at
> KRITISERE modstanderens synspunkter?
>

Vi skal føre dialog, også med islamister. Men vi skal fastholde
vore egne gundlæggende værdier, som demokrati og ytringsfrihed.
Det skal vi fordi de er de rigtige - også for den muslimske
verden. Men at bilde sig ind, at disse værdier kan udbredes til
den muslimske verden ved hjælp af *krig* er tåbeligt og giver
bagslag (Irak). Vi skal gøre noget der ligner det Wafa Sultan gør
på Al-Jazeera (det må vel siges at være et lyspunkt at en arabisk
TV-kanal *tør* bringe det?).

> Det er dér, jeg har alvorligt svært ved at få øje på, hvad det er for en
> ellers nok så umådelig søgt "dialog", man vil have, hvis dèt skulle
> forestilles at være præmisserne!
>
> Det ville nok lyde noget i retning af:
> "Ja, du har selvfølgelig helt ret!", gentaget ad infintum, over for een
> eller anden afsindig helligkrigertype, der således i princippet ville
> kunne prædike død og ødelæggelse over een som vantro, uden at man
> overhovedet måtte modsige det!
>
> Dèt opfatter jeg i al væsentlighed som MONOlog...
>
> Nok skal man som kristen kunne ta' en proverbiel lussing stående og
> vende den anden kind til (og dèt muligvis for kækt at demonstrere at man
> ikke derved er knægtet!), men mig bekendt er det altså også
> magtpåliggende at man i det mindste imødegår folk _verbalt_, ISÆR da når
> det drejer sig om religion: Det ligger for mig at se i selveste
> Missionsbefalingen at man som kristen faktisk BØR "prædike Kristus" i
> sådan en situation, hvad jeg da også praktisk mener ville være det
> absolut mest gavnlige for modparten. Vedkommende kunne jo - for sin egen
> skyld - forhåbentlig blive omvendt til den sande tro derved!
>
>> Hendes kritik af især islam, men også religion generelt, er helt
>> klart meget skarp - men det har den også lov til at være.
>
>
> Jeg må sige at jeg har oplevet dèt, der var væsentligt værre. Vel at
> mærke fra andre troende!
>
>> Man har lov til at være anti-religiøs. Og at give udtryk for det.
>
>
> Ja?
>
> Jeg håber da ikke at du mener at der overhovedet burde være noget som
> helst at diskutere i dèn henseende, for så vidt vi da blot ikke ligefrem
> er ude i trusler?
>

Indtil for nogle år siden var det jo ikke noget særligt problem
her i Danmark, at man gav udtryk for at være ateist eller direkte
anti-religiøs. Det er det heller ikke i dag. Men tingene er så at
sige blevet *globale* - det drejer sig ikke blot om at beskytte
vore egne værdier "inden for Danmarks grænser" men om at forsvare
dem i en global værdikamp. For eksempel skal vi aldeles ikke gå
ind på en begrænsning i ytringsfriheden her i Danmark (i form af
en blasfemi-paragraf eller lignende) uden at stille krav om
reformer i de muslimske lande i retning af ytringsfrihed.
Populært sagt: hvis en arabisk ambassadør f.eks. vil snakke om
begrænsninger i den danske ytringsfrihed, så skal man tage imod
mødet - og bruge det til at snakke om "ytringsfriheden og dens
evt. begrænsninger" i begge lande.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/