Posted on 05/24/2006 9:32:07 AM PDT by Albion Wilde
Wafa Sultan:The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations.... It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete... [snip]
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?
Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
Ping -- I'll watch the video at home.
As I have mentioned here before: the Christians and the Jews have gone through their reformation, when the Muslims do it, it will not be pretty.
Ping!
Yes, and the question is, should we, and our troops, stay in the middle of it? Can we not?
It is a clash of civilization with non-civilization.........
Today we speak of First World, Second World and Third World Countries. These designations describe Economical, Social and Cultural differences. I believe that there is a time component to al these elements. You can visit the headwaters of the Amazon and observe Stone Age era tribes. Nigeria, with all its oil wealth is still a third world entity when you look beyond the ruling class. ..and let's not even try to describe Gaul today!!!
Yes the Arab Welt Ansaung is mid 7th Century which is okay with me as long as I can look to the sky for our next great adventure as the World's First's. Moon Base anuone?
Not even.
"Ages" can't clash. It's not like colors...
And the other impossibility: in order to clash physically the civilizations must both be contemporaneous (look it up).
One having died an imperfect death 1000 years ago, does not alter reality.
If current islam is any part of a civilization I fail to see any evidence of it. It has been said that the most numerous living things on the planet are termites, but I would never ever suggest that they are a "civilization"...
Today we speak of First World, Second World and Third World Countries. These designations describe Economical, Social and Cultural differences. I believe that there is a time component to al these elements. You can visit the headwaters of the Amazon and observe Stone Age era tribes. Nigeria, with all its oil wealth is still a third world entity when you look beyond the ruling class. ..and let's not even try to describe Gaul today!!!
Yes the Arab Welt Ansaung is mid 7th Century which is okay with me as long as I can look to the sky for our next great adventure as the World's First's. Moon Base anuone?
Yes, one of her opening points, and a great one -- that by definition, civilized behavior does not attempt to destroy others, but rather to compete. I was astonished at the bravery of this outspoken condemnation of Islamism.
Sounds like you haven't read the article. She is clearly saying that the Islamist societies aren't playing with the same cards as the civilized ones.
fwiw, PLEASE do NOT lump all Muslims together. my adopted daughter, "Tuna", is a Turkish national, a devout follower of the Prophet AND a wonderful LADY!
it's the ISLAMIST RADICAL fringe that is the problem! they are GARBAGE in semi-human form!
free dixie,sw
I think it's "Omnia Gallia in partem tres divisa est"
Interesting theory, if you believe that the West can or should impose a theocracy here. Clearly, mankind is not yet converted as a whole to God or to Christ, and only by choosing can the conversion be genuine.
She is defending the individual freedom to worship -- or not to worship -- as a hallmark of civilization, one which the Islamists are determined to stifle. Only freedom gives people the chance to choose salvation. Without that choice, we are not truly equipped to "endure to the end."
Totally agree in practice. However, the texts are what they are. The radical forms of government in the Middle East are the problem, in that they use Islam to defend their theocratic desire to subjugate or destroy infidels.
Hmmmm.
My memory says Omnia Gallia in tres partes... Now you've made me go look it up...
Nope. It's the truth.
I opt out.
Better men than you will defend your sorry butt.
I was watching a movie about Queen Elizabeth I the other day and the actions of the Pope and Catholics at the time, as well as the Protestants in other instances remind me of the Muslims today. I commented on how the Muslims are about 400 years behind in evolution.
let's hope the next video she's in isn't a beheading
Good point.
Hey! 45 years since Latin I with Ms Gormley! I do believe that the most common Caesarian phrase was, "..quae cum ita sunt!". As O'Reilly might pontificate, "What say You!"
I remember it as "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres."
But I am not familiar with the philology of the source artifacts.
Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists.:')
>>>it's the ISLAMIST RADICAL fringe that is the problem! they are GARBAGE in semi-human form!>>>
If it the 'fringe' as you call that is radical, why are 90% of 'muslim countries' radical? Are there not enough good muslims that want to not be associated with the radical or are they just not as vocal with thier obedience to Allah?
I don't buy the 'it's only the bad ones' crap people want to say about Muslims. If people were killing in the name of Christ the same way Muslims are in the name of Allah I would leave that religion or get rid of the 'bad ones'.
It is a clash between the 21st century and 13th century, and if these glorified goat herders running the oil rich countries can't get it together, we're going to have to replace them.
Thanks for the ping.
Of course I did.
The only novelty here is that it's a muslim stating the obvious...
I wonder. I sat next to a very kind Muslim lady on the way from Chicago to Phoenix last night. She was not filled with the hatred of the barbarians we discuss, yet, as a devout follower of the Prophet, and, based on her unwavering faith, I would bet my last dime, that if told that the Prophet requires our conquest and our (non-Prophet-believers)"Dhimmitude" and slavery to the Muslim world, she would gladly participate in making us Dhimmis, simply to be a good and obedient Muslim. Watch out for those "peaceful Muslims". They may mean well (and I believe they really do mean well), but they are misguided in a very dangerous way, so don't kid yourself!!! We must watch our back. It is not a religion, but a cult, because the followers will not rise up (at least the moderates have not so far) and condemn the actions of the beheading blood-thirsty radicals. By the way, her version of Islam goes against everything I have been reading. For example, she was taught that Aisha was 16 when married and 19 when the marriage was consummated. Much of this goes on to get the "buy in", because so much of what's actually in the Quran is not acceptable to civilized society today. However, there is much other indoctrination too, as in about women and morals. For example, though she really believes about Aisha having been 19 (not 9) when their marriage was consummated, when confronted (by me) about Aisha having been 9, she didn't really seem horrified, but rather indicated that perhaps Aisha had already hit puberty and had been more mature than most girls of that age. Wafa Sultan has courageously pointed out these harsh realities about the "peaceful religion".
Great Ping!
That woman sure has guts . I pray that she is still a live today. What is says is true.
I have a lot of respect for her.
[Mrs T ]
They might say it, but that don't make it so.
Bacteria win, by many miles.
Was it the brilliant Bette Davis version? The more recent Cate Blanchett version barely comprehended the politics of the leader of the then-Free World.
Here is Google's take on it.
Out of your lips into God (of Abraham)'s ear.
To think that I learned it all wrong. My latin book had it as
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres.
Of course I did. The only novelty here is that it's a muslim stating the obvious...
She clearly states in the video that she does not adhere to any religion, but is a secular humanist; then she defends the individual liberty to make a personal choice what to believe.
This is, I believe, distinct from the fascist American Left that not only opposes religion, but uses its ACLU attack dogs to try to convert everyone else to their atheocratic point of view.
Guys, let's not fight. What I found interesting here is that this avowed secularist, in contrast to the typical American radical leftist secularist, firmly supported the individual liberty to make one's own choice whether and what religion to embrace, and generously gave credit to Jews and to Americans for contributing the majority of scientific discovery and civilizing influences to the world. America was founded on "E Pluribus Unum" -- "Out of Many, One" -- and this is an example of the best of that philosophy.
"Tuna", is a Turkish national, a devout follower of the Prophet AND a wonderful LADY!
As many Christians do I assume then that she is a devout follower of the Prophet for those passages in the Koran convenient to believe in and she must discount other parts.
Until I am convinced otherwise I don't see how one can be a devout follower of any religion and accept the existence of nonbelievers without conflict.
archival ping
"It seems to me a certainty that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of the Arab women are the outstanding causes for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have been developing." General George S. Patton
"It took me a long time to realize just how much a student of medieval history could gain from observing the Arab."
General George S. Patton
the actions of the Pope and Catholics at the time, as well as the Protestants in other instances remind me of the Muslims today.
To judge history by today's standards is not likely to shed much light on instances that took place centuries ago. The practices and standards of the 7th century were much different than today and chopping off heads and wading in pools of the blood of your enemies was normal in settling conflict. Some of grew out of those times and others didn't. I'd judge those who didn't by today's standards.
GALLIA est omnis divisa in partes tres,
bump for later
Americans have for over 200 years lived in a pluralistic society that does not persecute or call for the death of persons because of their religious beliefs. Conflict? Intellectual, moral or spiritual, perhaps, but not physical and violent. There's a vast difference.
This is the entire point of this video. She makes it clear that while terrible violence has been done to Jews in the Holocaust, churches have been burned and statues of Buddha destroyed by Islamists, these three groups did not respond by religious-based violence.
Excellent post. Christians and Jews are not known to burn religious monuments or threaten and kill people to avenge cartoons and verbal assaults to their religions. In fact, they will fight and die for the rights of people to criticize (peacefully) whatever they should choose, even though they may abhor the manner in which it is done.
I was trying to explain how this is central to the concept of freedom to the Muslim woman on my flight yesterday. They seem to look more to the hereafter than to our life here, so though the moderates do "lip service" to wanting all to be "free", they have a warped concept of what freedom is.
For one thing, the women in the cult of Islam do not really enjoy freedom even now. For another, in the ideal "Allah-centered" universe, theirs would have the freedom, and all others would be killed or enslaved anyway, so it is just the worthless non-believers who would suffer the lack of freedom as they see it, so what's the big deal? They do not share the "live and let live" philosophy that is a cornerstone of other religions.
One cannot discount that it is the leaders of this group who are now emboldened to utter things they would not have said even a few years ago, such as Quadafi (sp?) "Americans should adopt Islam or be at war with Islam." Ahmadenijad "Israel should be wiped off the map." (I know I am killing the spellings and even the exact wording of the quotes, but, you will agree that I have the essence).
These may be maniacal crazies, but they ARE leaders of state. Why are we not seeing more outrage from within this group? That is a question I asked last night and it is a question we must continue to ask of this group who think they belong to a "religion".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.