A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam

by Wafa Sultan

  About two years ago the mosque in Anaheim, Orange County, California, held a children’s Koran-memorizing competition, with prizes for the winners. I was stunned. The American government exposes its troops to danger in Iraq and Afghanistan on the grounds of combating terrorism, yet increasingly both the government of the United Sates and the American people turn a blind eye to the fact that American children are imbibing terrorism right here at home. A few weeks after the September terrorist attacks, an Islamic center in Los Angeles contributed a set of books entitled The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an to the Los Angeles United School District; however, after an urgent meeting between local Jewish and Muslim leaders, the books were withdrawn from the schools and returned to the Islamic center because some of the teachings they contained offended members of other religious denominations. The Los Angeles Times reported the story on February 12, 2002, in an article entitled, “New Version Will Replace Pulled Koran.”

  The article mentions that Mr. Dafer Dakhil, head of the Omar Ibn Al Khattab Foundation, e-mailed a reaction to the Times, in which he wrote: “The purpose of our gift was to promote a greater understanding of Islam and Muslims at a time when misconceptions and interest about Islam and Muslims are at a peak, and to provide educators and students and opportunity to use Quran alongside the Bible and scriptures of other faiths.” Mr. Dakhil had already apologized as follows: “We didn’t mean to hurt the feeling or cause discomfort to members of other faiths.” Salam Al-Marayati, spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, explained: “In the interest of good faith and goodwill and being sensitive to people’s concerns we agreed that the books should not be used.” According to the Los Angeles Times article, “Mr. Al-Marayati and other Muslims at the meeting agreed to work with the school officials to find another version of the Quran as soon as possible.”

  Then, as now, I am filled with questions about what happened: What other version of the Koran do they mean? How would Mr. Al-Marayati interpret for us in his new version the Koranic verse quoted on page 148? Would he tell our children that this verse is no longer applicable in the present day? Ever since then I have followed the news closely, but I have never heard that Mr. Al-Marayati has managed to come up with a different version. Nor do I know how long he meant when he said “as soon as possible.” The article says that the meeting took place behind closed doors. Why did the debate not take place publicly? Has Mr. Al-Marayati explained to all Muslims, both here and in Muslim countries, the actual reasons why that version of the book was withdrawn from Los Angeles schools, and has he tried to have it removed from schools throughout the world? What is morally unacceptable in Los Angeles should be morally unacceptable elsewhere, even throughout the Middle East, as morality does not vary with time or place. Why did Mr. Al-Marayati withdraw the book from schools in Los Angeles while allowing others to distribute it as a prize to Muslim children who excelled at memorizing it at the Islamic school affiliated to the mosque in Anaheim?

  This is not the only incident, unfortunately, of a Muslim saying one thing to an English-speaking audience and something else entirely to an Arabic-speaking one. In the wake of the September 11th attack, a study event was held at which the main—and only—speaker was a public speaker from the Muslim community. After he had finished speaking, those present began to ask questions, and I asked him: “Doctor, do you believe that the Islamic books we have will contribute to the creation of a peaceable and nonviolent generation?” The speaker was well aware of who I was and of my contributions; he, therefore, replied: “Absolutely not!” implying that Islamic books need to be altered or looked at more carefully. However, when asked by a publisher of a Los Angeles Arabic-language newspaper if it would be okay to quote his answers word for word, he objected. I heard him say, “No, don’t do that, but I have no objection to your writing, ‘some of these books require re-examination.’ “ The publisher tried to get the speaker’s agreement before printing his views, because deep down he realized that what the speaker had said in a private forum was different from what he was prepared to say publicly.

  Why do countries in the West allow Muslims, who live among them, to pretend to be moderates when they speak in Western languages, but don’t criticize them for their radical Islamic views when they address the Muslim world in their native languages? This story is just the tip of an iceberg, which represents the increasing Islamization of the West and, especially, of the United States.

  * Al-Jalalayn is one of the most significant tafsirs (commentary) for the study of the Koran.

  9.

  Islam Is a Sealed Flask

  ISLAM IS A sealed flask. Its stopper allows no ventilation. In order to safeguard itself and guarantee its continued survival this ideological system holds its people in an iron grip and has created an oppressive and despotic relationship between society and the individual. The individual has no freedom within his society, and no privacy. He has to submit to his society and has been deprived of his ability to express his opinion, especially when that opinion is not the prevailing one. Islam has deprived its followers of the most basic form of freedom—the freedom to express oneself. And it has killed their desire to enjoy this freedom. In order to ensure its control over the individual, it has interfered in all aspects of his life, large and small, and has planned it out for him in every particular. It micromanages his every activity and regulates the most private moments of his life—to the point of commanding him to put his left foot before his right when he gets into the bath.*

  Relationships between individuals within this society are organized in such as way as to make each member of it simultaneously a master and a slave. In relationships with those weaker than himself he is a master; when the other person is stronger, he is the slave. The nature of the relationship between God and Man in Islam is no different from the relationship between the ruler and his subjects, between man and wife, between father and son, and between master and slave. It is an oppressive relationship that does not permit any straying outside the boundaries of what the supreme authority has permitted. Woman is the property of Man, a child is the property of his father, a slave is the property of his master, and a laborer is the property of his employer. All of these are the property of the ruler, who governs by divine decree.

  As long as the slave continues to acknowledge the rights of his master and refuses to violate their sanctity, this oppressive pecking order will survive and be perpetuated. All social institutions in Muslim society are founded on oppressive proprietary relationships. Muslim society has been a slave society since it came into being and has remained so ever since. A researcher or human-rights activist has only to live in a Muslim society to be convinced of the truth of this. If he does so, he will fully experience the nature of the relationships that create the fabric of that society. When you watch how people in Muslim society relate to one another—even in a one-on-one relationship—you see a master and a slave. Simple obser-vation will enable you to observe what takes place between the two parties.

  The human mind is programmed to feel inferiority or mastery in accordance with the status of each party. When two parties meet, each of them recognizes in some imperceptible way which of them is the stronger. The weaker party discards all his cards, while the stronger takes control and begins to impose his conditions. In Muslim society very few relationships are founded upon mutual respect. Even at the level of personal friendship, each party is well aware of the other’s weaknesses and strengths. When two people meet, each recognizes by a simple process of calculation which of them is the stronger, and each will naturally incline to play the role of either the master or the slave.

  I even saw the truth of this when I watched people’s behavior at social gatherings. So-and-so meets So-and-so, and each of them knows within a few minutes of meeting what the other does, who his family is, how well off he is, and what religious denomination or tribe he belongs to. This initial encounter defines how each of them will behave toward the other. However small the difference between the two part
ies may be, one will always dominate while the other submits, with no half measures.

  A person may be a master in one relationship and a slave in another. The strength of the other party in the relationship determines which of the two roles he plays. One of my relatives used to work as an aide to a high-ranking officer in Syrian intelligence. When I went to visit him at his office I was able to observe his behavior firsthand. Within the space of several minutes I saw him play the role of supreme master and abject slave. When his telephone rang and he realized that his superior officer was on the line, he rose to his feet and signaled to the other people in his office to be quiet. He started to sweat as he said, “Yes, sir. You give the orders and I am your faithful servant. I shall carry out your orders to the letter and apprise you meticulously of all the details.” After he put down the phone he turned to a man standing at the office door and shouted at him: “Listen, you son of a whore, I’m sending you on an assignment, and you’ll carry it out to the letter. If you don’t, it’ll be a black day for you!” The man replied, “Yes sir! You give the orders and I am your faithful servant.” While one might imagine such an incident taking place in an intelligence apparatus anywhere in the world, it really does embody the reality of Muslim societies. Anyone who reads Muslim history as related by Arab sources becomes aware of the oppressive nature of relationships between any two parties within that society.

  In the months following the American army’s entry into Iraq I followed news reports in both the American and Arabic press. In one of the reports on the situation in Iraq I read an interview in the Los Angeles Times with an American soldier. “I can’t understand the Iraqis at all,” he said in the article. “People come to apply for a job. I do my best to help them stand in line, but they crowd round in a disorganized manner and won’t follow instructions. But when an Iraqi soldier comes along and hits them with his stick, they wait their turn properly. I can’t understand the way they think! The only thing they seem to understand is the use of force.” Yes, indeed, every interaction requires a strong party and a weak one to regulate the relationship.

  When you speak calmly to a Muslim, he perceives you as being weak. The American saying “speak softly and carry a big stick,” is, unfortunately, of no use when dealing with Muslims. It would be more appropriate to say (until we can change this way of thinking), “speak forcefully and carry a big stick”; otherwise you will be the weaker party and the loser. Democracy cannot spread in societies like these until the people who live in them have been reeducated, for they cannot function unless they are playing the role of the master or the slave. People in these societies, who are always prepared to assume one role or the other, have to learn how to function as human beings without having to enslave themselves or anybody else. They have to learn that in a proper relationship each party respects the other, recognizes the other’s rights and responsibilities, refrains from infringing upon the other’s rights, and does not try to avoid the claims of mutual responsibility.

  Muhammad, to impose his authority, sowed unease in the hearts of his followers by linking obedience to God with obedience to himself. Then he added a third party to this “holy duality” in the form of the ruler, through whom he could control the rest of his flock.

  Muhammad understood that the ruler was the link between himself and the populace, and so concentrated on the need to obey the ruler, saying in a hadith: “Whosoever obeys me obeys God, and he who obeys my emir obeys me. Whosoever disobeys me disobeys God, and he who disobeys my emir disobeys me.” In confirmation of this, a verse rolled down from the moun-taintop, as follows: “Obey Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you” (4:59) “Those in authority among you” means, according to works of Koranic exegesis, “your rulers.”

  In order to ensure that Muslims would obey their rulers implicitly and without reservation, Muhammad told them in a hadith: “Obey your emir even if he flogs you and takes your property.” Fearing that some Muslims would rebel against such unquestioning obedience, he justified it by saying in another hadith: “If a ruler passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision is the right one, he is rewarded twice. If he passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision turns out to be the wrong one, he receives a single recompense.”

  Muhammad was trying to persuade Muslims that the ruler spent time in deliberation and reached a decision only after profound thought. His decision might be right or wrong, but, whichever it was, God would reward him, because he had reached the decision he firmly believed best served Muslim interests. When he made the right decision, God recompensed him doubly, and when he made the wrong one, he gave him a single recompense.

  When Saddam Hussein scorched the Kurds of northern Iraq with chemicals and annihilated the Shia in the south, he committed no crime under Muslim religious law. According to the Sharia, he, as ruler, reflected at length before reaching the decision to burn and exterminate. His only punishment under Muhammad’s law was that God recompensed him only once. That is, if he made the wrong decision—but who can tell? Perhaps it was in the interests of Islam and the Muslims to burn and exterminate Iraq’s Kurds. Never in the history of Islam has a Muslim cleric protested against the actions of a Muslim ruler, because of the total belief that obedience to the ruler is an extension of obedience toward God and his Prophet. There is only one exception to this: A Muslim cleric of one denomination may protest against the actions of a ruler who belongs to a different one.

  How can a Muslim escape the grasp of his ruler when he is completely convinced of the necessity of obeying him? How can he protest against this obedience, which represents obedience to his Prophet and therefore also to his God? He cannot.

  Islam is indeed a despotic regime. It has been so since its inception, and remains so today.

  Is there a relationship more representative of the ugliest forms of slavery than that between a ruler and a populace whom he flogs and whose money he steals while they themselves have no right to protest against his behavior? The ruler acts by divine decree, and the people obey him by divine decree. The United States did not create the dictatorships in the Muslim world. I have no doubt that it supported some of the most despotic Muslim regimes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, but it did not give birth to him. Saddam Hussein was conceived in the womb of Islamic culture. He was sired by the Muslim people, which creates its leaders in accordance with Muslim religious law and in accordance with the master they require. No ruler anywhere in the world can oppress his people unless that population is educationally, culturally, mentally, and psychologically prepared to be oppressed. In the Muslim home oppression starts as soon as a child first sees the light of day, and the acculturation process continues throughout life to the point that, should the subject find himself confronted with his ruler, he will be overwhelmed to the point of being utterly unable to function.

  In Islam, children are property, not a responsibility. Islam defines the relationship between child and parents and emphasizes the necessity for blind obedience to them.

  A boy’s relationship with his father reflects upon his relationship with all other adults in his environment. He takes this relationship with him from his home into the street, the mosque, his school, and all other institutions in his society and uses it to construct similar relationships in which he regards himself as obliged to obey anyone older or more important than himself

  The child is the slave of his teacher, his neighbor, and his relatives—and when he grows up he is the slave of his boss and every other authority figure in his environment. Consciously and unconsciously he accepts this slavery, which represents obedience to God, his Prophet, and those who have authority over him. A boy leaves home and goes to school oppressed and deprived of the basic ability to protest, or just say “no.” At school he hears every day what he has heard at home: that God has decreed that parents and those in authority must be obeyed, and he behaves as he has learned to do at home. Everything he learns is instilled in him in a manner that brooks no questio
n that may contain even the hint of a threat to the legitimacy of that obedience. Islam concerns itself with fathers’ responsibility for their sons only where religious obligations and duties are concerned. Muhammad said in a hadith: “Teach your children to pray at the age of seven and beat them if they don’t at the age of ten.”

  Here, once again, we see the oppressive relationship manifesting itself even between Man and God: If Man does not pray voluntarily, he has to be forced to do so! I have a Muslim Irani an friend who lives here in the United States. He suffers from severe depression and a number of other psychological disorders which none of the currently available treatments can relieve. He once discussed these issues with me and he told me: “My childhood still haunts me. When I was a boy of seven, my father used to wake me at five in the morning for the dawn prayer. We had no bathroom, and he used to force me to go outside in subzero temperatures to perform the ritual ablution in the waters of the well near our home. I remember that once I just dipped my arms into the pail of water I had drawn up from the bottom of the well then ran toward the house in an attempt to convince my father that I had washed as prescribed, but he was watching me from the window. He took his leather belt and beat me unmercifully while my mother looked on from afar and cried, because I was screaming so loudly.”