Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan tells it like it is.

And on Al-Jazeera TV no less. Muslims around the world need to hear this message and take it to heart:

MEMRI TV – Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan: There Is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006

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 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. 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.


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.


Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don’t mind…

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: “I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger.” When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people’s beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the “People of the Book,” and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians “those who incur Allah’s wrath.” Who told you that they are “People of the Book”? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them “those who incur Allah’s wrath,” or “those who have gone astray,” and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others’ right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural…

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran…

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.


Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don’t throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people’s beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.


Wafa Sultan: The Jews have came from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. 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. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. 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.

Couldn’t agree more.

Kudos to Jody Wheeler of Naked Writing for the link.

66 thoughts on “Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan tells it like it is.

  1. Wow, maybe there is hope for the world. Maybe people will learn to choose communication and diologue instead of lashing out in irrational, self rightious violence in an attempt for ill percieved justice.

  2. Unfortunately, sometimes Jews are not the Nation of Law & Reason.

    I, among many Jews, believe that the Dome of The Rock/alAqsa Mosque will, ultimately, fall victim to such un-Jewish behavior, sooner than later, regardless of Shabak’s efforts.

    Cartoon riots?
    When alAqsa is destroyed, you ain’t seen nothin.

    This will happen soon.

  3. Least ye cast the first stone
    After doing a bit of research I discovered we Christians are at least as bad as, and perhaps worse than, Muslims in our conduct over the centuries.
    We’ve had four major Inquisitions over a five hundred year span. (1100-1600) if you take into account the events leading up to them, and the aftereffects, we end up with a thousand years of shame. (Actually it’s more like two thousand since a lot more was going on than just Inquisitions!)
    Our conduct during this time would serve as a good example for any Muslim extremists we so vilify today.
    Not only did we (The Church) ban books, we treated women as slaves and chattel, we kept the masses in ignorance and poverty to exploit and control them, we burned people at the stake. (Or if that could not be done we just boiled them in a pot.)
    We suppressed scientific truth and regulated morals that were not in accordance with the way we thought they should be! We told everyone that the only way to salvation, (which, by the way, was our own invention) was to bribe us with tithing.
    We started wars and killed hundreds of millions of people to further our own aims. We just plain “exploited” people whenever the whim grabbed us and, oh yes, sexually abused women and children!
    We very quickly became the most affluent and powerful corporation on the face of the planet and would do anything to hang on to that power. We lied, stole and cheated, all in the name of God, instead of who was really responsible, the Devil. (Metaphorically)
    There is only difference between us and Islam, WE GOT EDUCATED!
    Slowly, in the Christian world, people started a popular uprising against oppression and said: “Enough is enough!

  4. Moses/Moshe:

    I find your zeal for water conservation extremely disturbing.  ;-]

  5. Rob I have been told a number of times that I’m a pretty smart guy, but maybe they were all shitting me because I don’t have a bloody clue as to what your talking about!

  6. Good read. I agree with Moses that Christianity, the way it is practiced by many, is just as dangerous and antithetical to a free, modern society as is radical Islam. In this country we are likewise observing a clash of ideologies and mindsets that belong to different eras.

  7. To this excellent interview add the Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianismjust released.

    I have been thinking about all the art and musical instruments that suddenly appeared after the Taliban ran from Afghanistan.  All that stuff was hidden by people who, at heart, just want to live and be happy.  Now it is those Muslims who must not let the opportunity pass to reclaim Islam from evil.

  8. For many years now i’ve advocated what i call :The Dutch Model: when it comes to the matter of personal-public-expressions of religious, political, and any other individual beliefs.

    These should be kept out of the public forum of daily interaction; No crosses, no kippas, no shadours, and definitely no nothing that might identify you as being a member of this or that ideaology.

    Yes, uniform-style, state-issued jumpsuits might be necessary.  But, yes, just perhaps, we could allow different colors—only if these are not ideologically-abused by various social/religious/politico-factions.  Otherwise, a light-grey color should be enforced.

    There are suitable, civil arenas where such personal beliefs can be expressed, but public displays whilst shopping, schooling, and commuting should not be tolerated.  Do you want to discuss your atheistic plots, fundamentalist_christo/islami social goals, or your desire for a heterosexual-free-state ?  Fine.

    Just don’t do it in our faces.

    Detain, charge, and prosecute those who choose to expound their views at the expense of the public’s time and space.

    Keep the public sphere free of personal ideology, except where specifically designated (e.g., websites, meeting halls, and explicit political forums).

    Persoanl beliefs, by all accounts, clearly kill.
    Enforce Civil Peace, at all costs.

  9. Do you want to discuss your atheistic plots, fundamentalist_christo/islami social goals, or your desire for a heterosexual-free-state ?  Fine.

    Just don’t do it in our faces.

    Uh, ron, discussing them is what freedom is all about. Thats what the whole hubbub in Denmark with those cartoons was all about.

    It comes down to what we allow people to DO, and more specifically, to do (or force to not do) to others. In other word, Muslims or Christians or whoever can rail all they want against our western/liberal whatever moral shortcomings. I only have a problem when they call for violence, actually commit it, or force their own young and their own women to obey rules contrary to our laws. We have neglected enforcing our laws in some respects, because we tried to be tolerant.

    Then again, in the US, hate speech (even calling for violence) is actually allowed, so in your country, that part would not actually be against the law.

  10. Ingolfson, hate speech is not just allowed in the U.S., it is fast becomming the preferred mode of communication. Just ask any Dumbocrat or Repugnican!

  11. You know all those futuristic movies where everyone lives in a sterilized society devoid of personal expression or color where they spend their highly regimented days sleeping, working, eating, and socializing all under the watchful eyes of a supposedly benevolent super computer that’s a front for a totalitarian government? I’ve always wondered what type of person would allow such a society to develop.

    Now I realize it’s people like rob adams that would not only allow, but welcome such a society. Me? Not so much. Without conflict there is no growth, but that doesn’t mean the conflict has to be physical either.

  12. Now I realize it’s people like rob adams that would not only allow, but welcome such a society. Me? Not so much. Without conflict there is no growth, but that doesn’t mean the conflict has to be physical either.

    I’ve given up trying to figure out if and when rob.adams is serious and wouldn’t bet against this online persona being an elaborate practical joke.

    Not being allowed to express personal beliefs in public is in itself an expression of a personal belief – that such shouldn’t happen in public. Unless there’s an already established totalitarian regime to make it stick, I don’t see how it could be done without a public discussion of that very belief (a contradiction) and if it can be made to stick, it means that this particular belief is enforced in preference to all others (still a contradiction). Am I missing something obvious?

  13. Does sound like a lot of dry humour to me. But then, that’s what I’ve thought all along. Just read the conclusion smile. I’m sure if he were making a real point he wouldn’t have pushed for such an absurd-sounding conclusion. Same with the choice of colors.

  14. Rob Adams is a very devious and subversive guy. He bears watching, if “They” aren’t already doing so!

  15. Does sound like a lot of dry humour to me.

    That’s the way it sounds to me, too. Having said that, I have encountered some weird folks on the Internet that are utterly serious about even more outlandish claims. Heck, look no further than the YECs that come to SEB. I have more fun taking rob.adams literally than trying to figure out what he, she, or they really believe.

  16. That’s the great thing about the internet. You can be as irreverant as you want and get a kick out of things that don’t make it in normal social intercourse.
    But then you run into someone who you think is being weird and funny on purpose and find out they rally are crazy.
    Those people scare the shit out of me if for no other reason than there are sooooooooooooo many of them.
    The weirdest part is the people that are completely normal, functioning human beings, except this one little bitty area where they just seem to totally lose it. (i.e. well educated Islamic suicide bombers!)

  17. Let me just say, i am Rob Adams (and certainly no ron).  My persona is real, and not just online.  Indeed, my advocation for jumpsuits is (in)famous amongst those with whom i’ve worked or socialised.

    But, alas, arc_legion is clearly the discerning reader.  The last two sentences, and the comment about whether to allow different colors, should’ve found me out.  And, thankfully, no one embraced my whole position (which has happened before…eek!).

    That all said…
    Ideally, i *would* like to see society slowly gravitate to a mode where clothing is uniform, utilitarian—- and all this without force.  In many think-tank circles (the “They” that try to propagate such ideals in wider policy circles) have a term for this:
    “The Democratization of Clothing.”

    Identical uniforms eliminate the outward appearance of power, possition, and/or wealth by erasing any superficial indications the human might desire to display.  In essence, i’m anti-plummage.  For example, to see a classic demonstration of how clothing can be mis-used, merely visit a Western healthcare facility, or a public highschool lunch-hall.

    While the extremes in my post were meant only in jest, there are clearly grains of (enlightned!) truth in these dry-humour posts of mine.  The Discerning Reader should be able to sift these out, while still managing a smile.—>Pushing an ideal to the extreme reveals weaknesses and strengths of that position.

    So, yes, arrest the non-uniform !
    (or not)

  18. They tried the uniform thing already… in communist China! Led to the cultural revolution and killing all the intellectuals. Don’t think it will fly over here!

  19. They tried the uniform thing already… in communist China! Led to the cultural revolution and killing all the intellectuals. Don’t think it will fly over here!

    True, but it seems to be successful at a smaller scale like inside religious communities and even inside fashion groups…like rockers and rappers.

  20. I’ve worked (and lived) in more than one community where uniform, democratic-dress was the norm.  And, i don’t remember running around chasing intellectuals.  We have denounced a few people, but that was only for wasting food and electricity.  And we never killed them, that i was aware.

    How does unfirom dress translate into a pogrom ?

    Perhaps other, more nefarious motivations (than uniform attire) were the cause of the Cultural Revolution and the hunting of intellectuals.

    Mao’s Cultural Revolution

    “Between 1966 and 1968, Mao encouraged Red Guards to take power from the Chinese Communist Party authorities of the state and to form revolutionary committees. In the chaos and violence that ensued, many died and millions more were injured or imprisoned. Although the period after 1969 was less chaotic, the leaders of the Cultural Revolution proper remained in power and this is now widely considered to have been a period of economic stagnation.”

    The Gang of Four

    “The Gang of Four (Simplified Chinese: 四人帮; Traditional Chinese: 四人幫; Hanyu pinyin: Sì rén b

  21. In essence, i’m anti-plummage.

    From what I’ve seen here, many of the folks here are pro-garish hawaiian shirts.  Myself, I happen to like a bit of plummage, including but not limited to pinstripe silk boxers.  A point upon which I will not budge.

    I say NO!! to your tightey whitey world Mr. Adams.  My boys say NO!!! to your tighey whitey world Mr. Adams.  We shall be FREE!!  WE SHALL BE FREE!!

  22. I’m OK as long as the uniform consists of Rockports, Dockers with Coach leather belt, and solid-color Eddie Bauer signature twill.  Anything else and I’ll fight you for it!

    No wait, I wouldn’t want everyone else to dress like me.  My appearance is part of the brand.  It would be a trademark violation.  tongue wink

  23. Ideally, i *would* like to see society slowly gravitate to a mode where clothing is uniform, utilitarian—- and all this without force.  In many think-tank circles (the “They

  24. mmm……. Dress shirt, dirty, with sleeves rolled up; dress pants, frayed at the knees and scattered with debris; hard leather work shoes, worn through on the inside angles of the soles.

    I’ve never met anyone else who enjoyed wearing worn-down dress clothing. Can’t say the same about the shoes.

    Even so, I’m not sure that a uniform is what I’m after. Anyone got stats on private schools with uniform standards, or reasons why such statistics might be ineffective in addressing the validity of Rob’s statement? It seems like a cool sorta thing – people dressing how they need to to get about their day, not more.. sort of minimalist, in a sense (or maybe I’m misinterpreting it). I would question whether or not culture would provide the discriminations we avoid. Maybe we won’t discriminate based on dress, then – maybe on blonde hair or a different gait, or based on income or…. I mean, I think there’d be plenty or difference between people that could be used for a basis of discrimination.

  25. Nothing personal, Rob, but I find this statement [The Democratization of Clothing] terrifying. I for one see little positive in such a 1984-ish sentiment.

    Yes, yes.  From the looks of your avatar, i can see why you might be terrified.  But, take comfort in the fact that the future has a plan for people like you, too.

    Many Westerners (incorrectly) invest considerable effort and fantastic amounts of resources maintaining their physical appearence in the erroneous notion that this, somehow, establishes, maintains, and enhances their individuality.  When, in truth, individuality is a matter of consciousness and intellect.  It is largely grounded in one’s ability to think and exist independently, not some stylish piece of burlap or shiny bling.

    Individuality should not be manifested in our physical, superficial attire and appearence. Instead, our ideas, our works, and our play are the proper place for individual expression.

    Let’s remember, it is only recently in human history that people started collecting massive ammounts of clothing.  For the most part of history, and for most humans that have lived, the (single piece of) clothing you owned was purely utilitarian.  People who obssessed over their attire and appearance were, widely, considered corrupt.

    This bizarre habit of excessive adoration is an aberation of modern human civilization.  And, as we progress and embrace reason (and abandon emotion-based thinking), our clothing shall reflect this evolution of culture and ideals.

    In the meantime take note of the fashionable.
    They are a temporary historical oddity. And spread the understanding that it is *not* moral to dress like a clown and parade about the marketplace and forum. Dress simply—and with function.

    All else is bad, wasted excess.

  26. Individuality should not be manifested in our physical, superficial attire and appearence. Instead, our ideas, our works, and our play are the proper place for individual expression.

    Rob, in the outside chance you are serious;  “bullshit”.  If not; “well played”.

  27. How many humans are remembered beyond 500 years solely for how they dressed?  I can’t think of one.

    How many are remembered (and revered) solely for their ideas and creations?  Legion.

    In this, i am serious.
    History is my witness.

  28. Rob: How many humans are remembered beyond 500 years solely for how they dressed?  I can’t think of one.

    Meaning what, Rob – that one shouldn’t do anything unrelated to the opinion that hypothetical historians 500 years from now would have of them?

    No one will care tomorrow – or even today – what I had for breakfast this morning.  The choice was entirely for my own reasons.  That was enough.

    Hope I didn’t get the breakfast tzar mad at me raspberry

  29. I understand where Rob’s coming from, and I do think that to whatever degree, fasihion could be considered excess. That said, I think that reflects the demands of our current social system. Programmers can come to work wearing outright trashy clothing, sometimes – but people who make public appearance are expected to conduct themselves, in dress and otherwise, well at all times. I think fashion is utilitarian, to some extent. Whether or not it is ultimately detrimental, I’m on the fence about that.

  30. Thank you very much for your concern, Rob, but I plan on expressing my individuality in the manners of MY choosing, not yours. This includes not only my “ideas, my works, and my plays” but also how I choose to attire myself. Appearance is an integral aspect of one’s personality. Note that I did not say that it is the sole, or even most important, aspect. However, the way in which we do our hair or dress ourselves often reveals more about us as individuals than do our words or our ideas.

    And I regret to inform you that I will have nothing to do with whatever “future plan” you believe that “people like me” will find ourselves confronted with. I am simply myself, and I live my life the way in which I please. If my attire threatens you, then maybe you should reevaluate your own attitudes.

    You’ll understand if, based on your comments at this point, I regard you as a little bit of a nutcase.

  31. What is excess?  To a monk with his rice bowl, chanting on a street corner, it would be an egg.  He and I have the same amount, which is to say, everything we want.  For those who always want more, who am I to measure out their journey? Even Buddha was rich in one part of his life, and poor in another.  Could he have achieved enlightenment if he had been born poor?

    Mmmmm… Cheerios.

  32. Rob, I apologize if my last comment was harsh, but my sentiment still stands—it is no one’s business how anyone else chooses to dress in public (perhaps aside from wearing nothing at all). You can’t call this a free country if there is a uniform dress code that all citizens are expected to adhere to, regardless of whether or not such a policy is implemented through the use of force. Maybe your point was that in the future this country will NOT be free, and with the direction in which it is currently headed, I would say there is some truth to such a claim (hopefully, the pendulum will swing back to at least moderate before then).

    Somehow, though, I have a sneaking suspicion that this was not your point.

    By the way, the woman in the avatar is not me. However, I am pleased to tell you that I do dress like her quite often. I enjoy making my own clothes, mostly from colorful hemp products.

  33. I do not (seriously) advocate forcibly instituting this or that style of attire, or lack there of in the future, nor in the present.  I would never, seriously, support a regime or culture that did so, using force.  Indeed, it won’t be at all necessary to force anyone.  It shall be the logical, reasoned, moral mode of lifestyle for your children’s children.

    Its important for us, here and now amongst our mall-central-lives where we pleasure more than labour, to remember that resources shall not always be so plentiful as they are in this special, this truly extra-special era.  We are meta-fortunate to live in this, a bizarrely unique period of time, a profound anomaly of history, where supply and population, globally, are at an extremely favorable ratio—for a large percentage of humans on the planet.

    We’re so lucky, and living off the resources of future generations.  How many trashbuckets per-week do you put out on the curb??

    Consider yourselves incredibly lucky.  Future generations will look at your lives with utter awe, and severe, furious disdain.  Your children’s children wont have much respect for us.  They’ll see fat, bloated lifestyles, where frugality was not only shunned, but debased.

    Read your posts.

    As resources dwindle, as supply chains are disrupted by waged-wars-of-need, and as our ecology becomes less stable under the strain of supporting inefficient humans, norms, standards, and what is wrong-n-right shall fundamentally change—forever.  My views will seem conservative-n-tame in comparison to those future-contemporary politics.  Tame.

    When that time arrives your children will look back upon our collective history and’ll understand our ancient ancestors’ frugality——and their cold, calculated, sterile-like worldview.  And they’ll look at us with even more, academically researched disdain.

    Look at the photos of the almost-forgotten American MidWest’s Dustbowl, and you’ll see your children’s children point of view.  You’ll see their eyes and mentality.

    Human civilization, under resource-strain, shall be forced to mature, and your children’s children shall look at your fancy-burlap-bling-obessesion with complete incomprehension, and some with hate.  Your excesses will be as understandable to them as are my “nutcase” posts.

    And our contemporary dumps shall be their oil fields.

    “They were the civilization that cried ‘fun-fun-more-fun-now-dammit!’—- those crazy arseholes.”

    That’s my little prophecy for your mall-lives.

  34. And I agree with them. I’ve looked back on the ignorance of my parents generation, and call it for the incredulous argument that it is, but I can’t imagine the people of 2 or 3 generations down not looking at us with disgust and contempt.

    I sleep on a broken bed, with a sleeping bag as my blanket, and I keep all of my living goods able to be packed in small enough amounts that a small car will carry my whole household. I own no silverware, only 4 cooking dishes, and I reuse paper plates and plastics until they’re worn. I keep my jugs and bottles as portable containers for my drinks. I have only a weeks worth of clothing, often reworn, and no furniture whatsoever.

    My parents, and everyone I meet, insist that I should buy more more more more more, and I’ll agree that having some more, certain things, would be convenient (like a funnel – paper only works for dry things). But they ask this because they live the lifestyle of the consumer, and they want me (for various reasons) to live into the norm. Rob’s prediction may be going out on a limb, but it fits my experiences well. I agree completely.

  35. News at 12:

    The potential of amusing and frivolous thread drift reared its beautiful head mid-thread today.  That beutiful creature, thread drift, was laid to rest though.  She was shot repeatedly, and with surprisingly accuracy with guns wielded by a self-proclaimed hippie and what can only be described as doomsday tree hugger.  We shall miss you thread drift.  May you RIP until you raise your frivolous head again.

  36. I find Thread Drift to be quite entertaining. Think how much shorter many of the threads here would be without it.

    I suppose we could intentionally lure our friend Thread Drift back into existence by saying something like “I hate mayonnaise. What is your opinion of it?” That would just be silly, though, and it would probably piss Les off. wink

    Alas, until Thread Drift decides to rear her own head again, I’ll simply refer back to the original entry and say that Sultan is right on.

  37. Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don’t throw them at me.



    Any words I’ve added are superfluous.


  38. Rob: even in the most conservation-minded culture, conformity of dress has nothing to do with conserving resources.  Witness Sadie’s self-manufacture of clothes from hemp fibre – an ecologically sound product.  And just a friendly tip; using the word “shall” a lot makes you sound like a nutcase.

    If your bland jumpsuit is made of cotton, it used far too much water in its production.  If artificial fabrics, then oil. 

    Big environmental problems coming up?  Sure.  And it wouldn’t hurt most people to spend less on clothes, but that isn’t a style issue since most of the clothes in their bulging closets look the same.  Their sartorial excesses have more to do with personal insecurity than self-expression. Despite dressing for a professional job, all my clothing fits on about three feet of closet rail and one antique jelly cabinet. 

    Consi: Thread drift is not inherently frivolous; it depends on where it drifts to.  Issues of personal freedom, ecology, and historical vs. personal significance aren’t heavy enough for you?

    Arc_Legion: Cut the top off a 2-litre bottle.  Voila!  Free funnel!  Return the bottom to the recycle bin from whence it came.  No need to thank me, it’s all in a day’s creativity.

    Sadie: I am not fond of mayonnaise, but do use a similar product, Miracle Whip, when making turkey sandwiches after Thanksgiving.  tongue wink

    LuckyJohn19: I agree.  In fact, the whole interview is great and I hope a lot of Islamists can’t get it out of their heads.

    Would it be topic drift to discuss the possibility that Muhammed had a type of epilepsy that expresses itself in ecstatic visions?  Islamic scholars dispute this but it would explain a lot and has parallels in other famous religious leaders.

  39. I might add, does anyone have documentation from the era or something similar describing Muhammed as a lunatic, or having lunacy? The behavior we know as epilepsy has been linked to a belief that people were influenced by the cycles of the moon, and there might be other records suggesting the same. I agree that Muhammed seems to display a different type of epilepsy, but it would be interesting to see, all the same.

  40. not only the epilepsy, but we don’t have a copy of the Koran that can be dated back before about 1000 c.e. – three hundred years after the fact. Same as the Bible.
    Destroys the “literal word” bullshit.

  41. Personally, I think Rob Adams is the king of Thread Drift. If there’s some out-of-left-field connection to be made to a topic, no matter how innocuous it seems to be at first, he’ll find a way to make it.

    His comments always make for… perplexing, but somewhat interesting reading.

  42. Oh my, oh my…
    The now quickly aging “Topic Fundamentalists” are marching about, again.

    Cancel your posts!
    Shudder your questioning thoughts!
    Stick to the goddamn topic you, you oft-no-oppinion people !
    The stability of the web as we know it depends upon it !
    Silence is better than these, these evil off-topic-types !

    And, look, my over-zealous use of the word “shall” was merely my half-hearted attempt to appeal to the “Grammar Fundamentalists”, who occassionally let out their shreeks on this system.

    Let me point all you “T & G Fundamentalists” to the to the original post regarding such mentalities; (Hopefully, now the Fundamentalists in our midst are appeased, for at least a few more threads)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.