Talk:Wafa Sultan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Syria Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wafa Sultan article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Please add new talk items to the bottom and not insert here. Please also add a content title so discussions can be organised.

Contents 1 Religion 2 General tone of opponents 3 Fame due to MEMRI 4 Criticism sources 5 Bias 6 answering christianity is a racist and anti-semitic website 7 Text 8 Hatred? 9 Messed up Talk Page 10 Link to a Muslim View 11 Status as a secular muslim reformer and activist 12 We should add quotes from Wafa 13 Islam=terrorism

[edit] Religion

Wafa Sultan is not a Muslim. She was raised as such, but she now refers to herself as a non-religious secularist. She also has stated that she lost faith in their (Muslim) God. From this we could infer that she is an Agnostic. She also is not much of a reformer; most of her lectures focus on attacking Muslim society, and she doesnt deal much theology.

WP:LIVING applies. She has not said that she is an agnostic AFAIK - for you to describe her as such is WP:original research and cannot be added to living people articles unless you can identify a notable source that can interpret her view as agnostic. Your edit attempt [1] also damaged the article presentation. I have reverted it. Ideally please use preview before committing changes and please read the relevant talk page sections and Wikipedia policies. Ttiotsw 10:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General tone of opponents

I think Wafa Sultan's opponents made their worldview abundantly clear when they defaced this article by calling her "Satan." I think it's also worth noting that when an individual Syrian woman expresses negative opinions about Islam on television, we get a firestorm of vile personal attacks in response. It's so hard to have respect for people who attack even the most benign and insignificant of their critics and threaten an innocent woman's life for having an opinion.

[edit] Fame due to MEMRI

The raise to fame of Wafa Sultan was due entirely to MEMRI, and therefore an important propaganda victory for this organisation. I believe that this should be included in wikipedia article, and so should be information that the video that made her famous was edited before being furnished with subtitles and sent out to the list of MEMRI target receipients. Eva Jlassi

See the New York Observer on: http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/07/a-denunciation-of-the-muslim-world-apparently-on-aljazeera.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eva Jlassi (talk • contribs).

That article simply says that what she says isn't a justification Israel in Lebanon. Her appearance on Al-Jazeera is dated from February isn't it? It predates that situation. Tying the two together isn't her fault, it's the New York Observer's. If you have links to articles from reputable sources criticising MEMRI for censoring the video, then provide them. But the article doesn't need "it was therefore an important propaganda victory" ...

Complete transcript of the program "the oposite direction 26/02/2006" can be found here http://aqoul.com/images/wafa_sultan.pdf and should be included in the article - the difference between the transcript and the video is of major importance - it shows Ms Sultan has been entangled in the propaganda exercise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eva Jlassi (talk • contribs). I'm sorry I didn't sign my postings - I'm new to Wikipedia Eva Jlassi 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism sources

Add relevant, reliable sources here so we can talk about starting a criticism section. - Kriskhaira 20:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The seductive and blinkered belligerence of Wafa Sultan - LA Times

• Quote: "My disappointment in and disagreement with Sultan turned into dismay. She never alluded to any healthy, peaceful Islamic alternative."
• It's worth nothing that this article was written by a rabbi at the Wilshire Boulevard Temple - Kriskhaira 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted - Answering-christianity.com

• Hi JJay, I really don’t know what your problem is. We should not be biased and let people see the arguments on both sides. Then we can let people determine, which side is the truth. If Wafa Sultan is the truth then you have nothing to worry about. Now please stop being biased and allow the link to be there.
• This link doesn't really seem credible. See the arguments below. Is answering-christianity.com a reliable source of info? - Kriskhaira 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reading through this info, he accuses Sultan of quoting verses from the Koran out of context, but then does the same against the bible. At one point, quoting Numbers 31:17-18, but not 16 to put a little bit of context to the passage (in this case, it's almost the exact same scenario as the one he is attacking Sultan on).--206.186.109.62 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• I added a note regarding accuracy of the source in the section below about the answering christianity site.

---

[edit] Bias

This article refers to her claims as if they were fact, it's her OPINION and not fact.

I don't see quite why you take this view, unless you are referring to the massacres by the Muslim Brotherhood, which I think are quite well-attested. Palmiro | Talk 16:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

maybe because of a section like this "scolding Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not recognizing the accomplishments of non-Muslim society, while using its wealth and technology." where the wording signifies what she says as fact, and not opinion?Elazul yagami 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, I think it's clear enough that this is simply what she was criticising Muslims for, whether rightly or wrongly is another question. I'd hate to see this article be disfigured with Wikipedia's "allegedly" blight like so many others. Palmiro | Talk 16:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, i and many others will think so. There's already a problem with Memri's translations as is apparent in this link : http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/03/aljazeera_trans.php#more and furthermore, no one in the western world questions what she says. It should be made obvious that her claims are HER opinions and not facts. That's all i'm saying, leave her claims, leave her words and scoldings, just make it obvious that it's her opinion and that there are and have been counters to her claims.Elazul yagami 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think the sentence makes it painfully obvious that it is her "opinions" since it starts by saying that she "spoke" and "argued". The article makes no claim that these are facts. -- JJay 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Most of Wafa Sultan's points are innacurate and misleading, which this article does not refer to. She does argue some her points as if they are fact and this article does not. This article should explain that many of her points are innacurate and based upon her opinion and not fact. I previously added two articles to the 'further reading' section, which were deleted. Why is Wikipedia afraid to list Wafa Sultan as a figured with a flawed speech? Please read and consider inclusion of the first article of which I wrote myself, and the second which clearly refutes her major points; Wafa Sultan and Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted.

• We should not be linking to blog posts. See WP:RS. Just add links to articles from major media or academic sources. -- JJay 04:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Linking "only" to major media or academic sources is not a wikipedia policy in subjects related to point of views. We should link to sites that present the other POV. Plus I see you permit a link (of Alt.muslim)that support her POV although it is not matching this criteria you put. / Dy yol 04:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the alt.muslim site was a blog. I've removed that as well. There are thousands of blog articles on Ms. Sultan. We need to avoid linking to articles that people have just posted to their blogs as a previous poster admitted above. Just link to the equally comprehensive coverage found through the major media. -- JJay 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• As mainstream sites are taking a "mainstream" view, the inaccruracies in her words are not being focused upon. In Europe where I am it has already been documented that the media is Islamophobic, therefore this suggests that not only "mainstream" views should be used if we are to attain accruracy. I assume that in Nazi germany, "mainstream" news sources supported Hitler's regime, and therefore if the rest of the world had based their information on these sources alone then I would probably be typing in German. This article fails to portray a true account of Wafa Sultan, as it does not include that her views are innacurate then it should at least link to sites that detail this.

• I have no idea what you mean when you say that "it has already been documented that the media is Islamophobic". If you have some proof in that regard, take it up on the talk page of WP:RS. Otherwise, your point about NAZI Germany is not relevant. AT the time, there were plenty of other news sources worldwide- like the NY Times. This is an international encyclopedia. If you have mainstream sources to add to the article then please do so. Nothing says you have to be limited to the Western media. However, self-published blog articles by unknown blog sites are not valid. -- JJay 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The proof is available as documented in various articles. The problem with this "mainstream" issue, is that many available sites will support her work. I previously added this site which is not a blog and it was deleted: Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted. The Wikipedia article here is selective in the quotes it uses. While quoting her in saying; "we have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant", it is ignored that she also said in the same excerpt; “The Jews have come 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…. 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.” This ignores the existence and actions of Israeli terror groups and particular incidents in the Palestine-Israeli conflict. Was Yitzhak Rabin not murdered by a Jewish person? Has Arial Sharon not been linked to massacres? This is but one point of the speech the article ignores, and many more of Wafa Sultan's points are also significantly one-sided, pro-Israeli and attempt to bring Islam into disrepute. Should she not be portrayed in this light? I noticed you failed to report on the rest of what I said, attempting to denote it as "not relevant" when it is evident that her arguement is flawed and any reporting on it without mentioning this is effectively assisting in promoting her propaganda against Islam. Read the article. The link is above, and I posted another from my blog in an earlier comment.

• I don't know how many times I have to say this. Just find some valid sources that make whatever points you want to make and add them to the article. If you can't find any newspaper that has discussed these ideas then we should not be putting them in our articles. This is a reference work. It is not a blog. It is not a forum for debate. I have no interest in debating you. Why? Because I don't care. For better or worse, Ms. Sultan has received major international attention. Therefore she qualifies for an article. If she has been criticized by sources that qualify under WP:RS then all the better. Add them to the article pronto. But your link is ridiculous. It is a page that some unknown person set up. We do not use links or sources of that type. And we are not here to promote your blog. -- JJay 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

well said.--CltFn 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The fact is that the points made in the article I provided are valid.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/wafa_sultan.htm

This is one of the worst proposed links I have seen in a long time. If what Wafa Sultan says is all that outrageous then surely there must be some better alternative. Not in your wildest dreams are we linking to this website. Palmiro | Talk 16:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] answering christianity is a racist and anti-semitic website

Why does the article on Wafa Sultan have a link to a radical Islamist website that preaches anti-semitism?

This one?

The website has several racist and anti-semitic articles:

here

quote fom article:

"Also, according to the Noble Quran, MOST Jews are evil doers"

This is an anti-semitic statement. In many countries in Europe , anti-semitic statements are legally classified as hate-speech and are against the law.

here

Makes blood libel against Jewish people.

here

Anti-semitic canard

There is much more nauseatingly hateful propaganda on this site. It does not have any scholarly merit or value. Why is this linked in the Wafa Sultan article? At best, it should be qualified as a link to a biased site known for making anti-semitic statements.Netaji 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• As an example for the accuracy of the source, compare:

from http://www.answering-christianity.com/nonjews_in_talmud.htm

"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals." TALMUD: Sanhedrin 74b.

I don't see any evident connection to the content of 74b as listed here:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_74.html

---

I have removed that link to answering-christianity.com as it doesn't advance the Encyclopedia nature of Wikipedia as it's not even a clear criticism. The target link page even says "She does not even deserve my time to refute her." so it's not exactly very focused criticism of her anyway !. That site is basically a anti-Christian, anti-Islam apologetics site which kind of rambles on a bit. Ttiotsw 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text

There was a lot of text here which was copied from another web site. I have removed that text as it is unclear what the copyright is and it is not relevant to the Talk page. Please don't copy stuff like that unless you wrote the original transscript. Ttiotsw 00:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hatred?

It is this personal event that is thought to be the catalyst of her hatred towards Islam.

Has she said she hates Islam? There's not enough in the article for me to determine if it's as passionate as that, and not just a deep critical eye from being so familiar and disappointed with it. --4.254.118.214 04:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messed up Talk Page

I had to revert the talk page as someone cut+paste the article into it. I also removed a large block of copyright text which was a transcript. I think you can do little bits to prove a point but pasting the whole lot simply makes no point. Also in the main article I've removed that link to answering-christianity.com as the general consensus is that its a crap criticism of Wafa Sultan (it may be an "OK" criticism of Christianity, Israel, Jews etc and whatever turns that guy on but from the first paragraph he calls her "ignorant" and "foolish", "She does not even deserve my time to refute her", and "she is becoming too famous for her own good" and then spends pages (and some time) on what truthfully is a very unfocused criticism of this Doctor. Ttiotsw 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to a Muslim View

I dont see why the Muslim point of view cannot be put there, the link to answering - xtianity was removed because it was so called racist etc, but this has no such problem and the link deserves to be there to give both sites of the story.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.246.216.98 (talk • contribs) .

There are millions of Muslims in the world, why is that website notable? Who is the author? I suggested you explain why he was notable, or why that website is notable, and you haven't. If we don't link to NOTABLE responses to Sultan, then we'll have to link to every response on the internet. - BalthCat 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

yes if we start removing all not so notable responses then we have to remove half the responses on the net. There is no muslims side of the story at all in the entire page.

All those non-notable responses on the net are still there, out on the net. And can easily be found. They are, however, not in here, cluttering up a relatively small article. If notable responses can be found, some one could write a small "Criticisms" section, explaining how the notable response replied to her criticisms (and not how the editor responds to her, or how some blogger responsds to her). So far no one has yet found a notable response, and no one has yet written a small criticisms section. (Aside from calling her Satan, which was fairly small.) I'm surprised no one has found a notable response yet, to be honest, and I expect that eventually some one will, and some one will add a reasonably sized Criticisms section. - BalthCat 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Its just a link given to a review of her interview by a Muslim, we are not cluttering it with millions of links, you guys seem to have removed other links on one pretext or the other giving lame excuses , hence that link deserves to stay.we need the Muslim side of the story as well. anyway it was a typo in the last post, i mean there are many such links in wikipedia, its the view that matters not the notability.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.37.91 (talk • contribs) .

I have quite a bit of trouble imagining you can't find a notable muslim scholar, imam or political personality responding to Sultan who isn't a nobody blogger. As it stands now, I can't remove the link (which I would remove) without breaking the WP:3RR rule. It isn't a "muslim view point" it's a link to a non-notable blog. If I write a blog post about how Sultan is wrong, should *I* get to link to myself because I need to add a Canadian viewpoint? - BalthCat 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it the site is not a Blog as you claim it to be. It is a view from the other side, you asking for notability is like asking all Wikipedia authors to be "notable" which is defenitely NOT the case. and according to your very own logic, it makes Wikipedia less notable due to the notability factors of the authors here. hence your view does not stand. 125.22.32.124 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for opinions, and so it isn't the place for "views from the other side" only articles which explain the views from the other side, as demonstrated by people of note. Your logic play is not relevent because I'm not discussing the notability of Wikipedia editors, I'm talking about the notability of that website, and that website alone. MY opinion of Wafa Sultan hasn't been linked to the article. I remain certain that a response notable enough to include should come from a notable person. You have not yet explained why Ebrahim Saifuddin or the True Call website are notable, and so I am having trouble believing he is notable. He may BE notable, just show me that he is. Otherwise, please, find a notable muslim commentator to link. This is not unreasonable. - BalthCat 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont see why you are harping on the notability factor, it does not really matter, there are millions of links in wikipedia, as long as they contain info/opinion thats all that matters, i am not going to dispute each and every notability of the link, nobody does that. nor does it go againt any wikipedia rule. 125.22.33.42 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia: Notability (people), Wikipedia:External links. - BalthCat 22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good you brought those links up. Please care to read the links again, 1) The Notability it talks about is the notability of Articles in Wikipedia 2) Also it tells that "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. 3) What might be notable to you might not be to others. 4) Also the link on external Links says this "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link: WHICH IS ALLOWED. Hence this is another point of view which deserves to stay. Unless someone finds a better alternative to it.

Just like to point out that I removed the link to answering-christianity.com a few weeks ago as it was a crap criticism of Wafa Sultan not because the site was racist (It may be that too but that's not my concern). Looking at Ebrahim Saifuddin site it too is also truthfully a very unfocused criticism of this woman. It starts out with a strawman about what does and doesn't constitute a knowledgeable Muslim then continues with saying outright that she's not a knowledgeable Muslim and thus using that to refute the spirit of what she says. He closes by saying that "She has not come forward with anything new that would be worth analyzing" (yet spends time to analyze) and that he takes "her nothing to be but an attention seeker who craves to be another Salman Rushdie". The real clincher is this "Muslims are advised not to try to threaten her at all." and truthfully that refutes all he says regarding knowledgeable Muslims: if they were knowledgeable Muslims then they would not need to be advised to not threaten someone. As with the personal attack approach to criticism on answering-christianity.com the site on www.thetruecall.com is equally an obnoxious example. I'm all for non-notables to have relevant comment linked in to Wikipedia but this isn't it and reflects poorly on the Muslim world. Come one there must be at least ONE non-misogynist, non-hateful, critical site in the zillions of sites out there !. Ttiotsw 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not an Ebrahim saifuddin site, he is just an author over that. And it is a critical analysis of her and her talk, The review points out to important infomation she tends to ignore. So what if he advises muslims not to threaten? How does that make the review a hate/misogynist propoganda???? Also he points out why she is not a knowledgeable Muslim. Plus Wafa herself spills out hate in her speech. Its funny how you support her there. There is no hate statement in any of the statements you pointed out. Its a critical analysis and there is nothing wrong with it and it deserves to stay. Cause we need a POV from the other side. Its funny that you are ignoring the hate spewed by Wafa but have a problem with the site . 203.101.54.182 07:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it could stay except it is refered to as a Muslim point of view. Given that Ebrahim Saifuddin questions the authenticity of how knowledgable a muslim that Wafa Sultan is, is this commentary by Saifuddin from a personal point of view or as a knowledgible muslim ?. He himself has raised the doubts as to what a knowledgable muslim constitutes and as such that you can be a muslim but not a knowledgable muslim and this discounts what you say. I suggest that the link stay but it be retitled to "A Review of the Al-Jazeera Interview with Wafa Sultan" by Ebrahim Saifuddin as it is unclear if what he says represents the point of view of all Muslims both moderate, indifferent, ignorant or knowledgable. That way then he would appear as a Wiki link and then people can add content to show how notable he is. Unless he is under a different spelt name at the moment he doesn't appear at all. This is what's given us doubts as to his notability. Ttiotsw 09:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is bothering to see how some people claim that they hate censorship but they themselves do it here. There should be a link here to the opposite side's view. Answering-christianity is one of them. I cannot see how it is anti-semitic, even more important, I cannot fathom your humanity and pluralism while it seems it is okay for you and others like you to be anti-muslim, but brainwash the rest of us about any criticism of jews as anti-semitic. Certainly I see a lot of anti-islamic views here but somehow I don't say they should be removed because they are anti-islamic. I will re-establish that link under the title "Muslim Response," and welcome others to make other relevant links under the same heading. regards, -Lugalwiki

This is primarily a biographical article about Wafa Sultan. If notable figures have offered arguments against specific points she has made, I see no reason why those shouldn't be included in the article. However the link you have added is extremely POV and represents a self-published opinion. That does not fit with Wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources (WP:RS#Self-published_sources), which discourages linking to self-published material. I have not myself removed the link, but anyone familiar with Wikipedia policy will most likely do so shortly. EdJohnston 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, everybody makes the so-called rules that suit them best, right? Then I wonder why there is a link to criticism of Islam? I wonder why you don't apply that seemingly NPOV view to the fact that this article does spread hatred toward muslims, hence there should be a link for those who are interested in hearing the other side's response. regards, Lugalwiki 71.106.148.109 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the answering-christianity link is of quite poor quality as a criticism of what Wafa Sultan has said or even the spirit in which she has said it; quoting the link the reviewer refers to her "lies" and that "She does not even deserve my time to refute her.".

When so-called "Muslim" rebuttals of other peoples views stop referring outright to "lies" and belittling the person's views then that would be a review that would be of encyclopaedic quality. Until that time we too have "little time" for such reviews. This Wikipedia article also doesn't "spread hatred toward muslims" but I feel in some respects that it says that people should be able to reform what they see as wrong. Other mainstream religions have reformed and we allow those moderate voices to be heard without hatred against them. I'm not saying that Wala Sultan is a Martin Luther but eventually there will (should?) be a reformation. This is an aside though as we must simply record what has been said from reliable sources and since September last year (see previous talk) the quality of answering-christianity has not improved as a external link. Ttiotsw 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status as a secular muslim reformer and activist

Wafa Sultan is not a Muslim, as the original article stated. 66.42.111.218 Marcus, Nov. 17th, 2006

I have moved the above statement to this new section. Please add new items to the bottom of the talk not the top. I have reverted your edits as WP:LIVING very much applies and you can't add content that contains statements without them being verifiable nor remove stuff that she has said i.e. she self-describes as "secular". She is a muslim reformer and "activist" based on consensus view of editors. Ttiotsw 10:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Using the timeline in March in the interview she says she is not a christian, muslim or jew but a secular human being who didn't believe in the supernatural. In May she says she is a muslim. Given you can have "secular jews" (and atheist jews but I will say outright that simply stating that you don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean you are an atheist as atheist is a term specific to believe/no believe in god/gods and she has not said she doesn't believe in god ergo she is not an atheist), so logic would indicate that she is now a "secular muslim" i.e. goes with the traditions/lifestyle but has issues with certain stuff. Ttiotsw 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "secular" should be removed. In the Time magazine article, she is quoted as: "I even don't believe in Islam," she says, "but I am a Muslim." Since she calls herself "a muslim" that should be good enough for wikipedia. If we are going to start playing judge and jury as we seek to qualify her religious identity, we need a better qualifier than "secular". --JJay 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why secular (as she has described herself twice in the previous interview) and muslim are mutually exclusive. Obviously saying you are muslim cancels christian/jew but not secular. Ttiotsw 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good point. It's not very clear based on the various interviews whether she is affirming or renouncing her religion. The current description may be best for the time being, unless she makes a clearer statement in a future interview. --JJay 23:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I see the link where she said she's a Muslim? She's giving confusing statements. If she's said she's stopped practicing Islam and is searching for a new God and that Quran is full of "violence, mysogny and extremism", she's definitely not a Muslim. I'll see if I can get her email. --Matt57 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly confusing, she says in the link to time online at the top of the article - "I even don't believe in Islam," she says, "but I am a Muslim." [2]. It may be worth contacting her as you suggested on my talkpage to clarify. Wikipidian 03:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats confusing. I know she's not a Muslim. She says she is, to perhaps give an impression that she's a former Muslim or to gain a stronger effect on Muslims. But in any case she should say openly if she's an athiest or not. If she's a muslim, she has to believe that Mohammed is Allah's chosen prophet and Quran is the word of God. Obviously she doesnt believe in that otherwise she wouldnt say the Quran is full of extremism and violence. I'll try to get her email and ask her.--Matt57 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We should add quotes from Wafa

I dont want revert wars. Why should Wafa's quotes not be added to this page? For example:

"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."

"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."

“I don’t believe you can reform Islam,” says Wafa Sultan, who contends its scriptures are riddled with violence, misogyny and other extremism.

and a lot of other stuff like that. I want to make a wikiquote section for her, and also we should have some of her prominent quotes here as well. The "others" as usual will try all they can to stop this from happening. --Matt57 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be better in WikiQuote, per normal policy regarding extensive quotes? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam=terrorism

She has nicely explained that Islam is terrorism itself. We commend her courage and hope that she does not get butchered.

I restored the following.

She believes that Islam is essentially equivalent to terrorism as it is the methodical teaching thereof,

“

It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity[1]

”

--Patchouli 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, she has rejected Islam altogether and is not a reformer.--Patchouli 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "Islamic clergy" are not reliable sources as to who is a Muslim or not so I must restore the Muslim description as she has described herself as that in the Time interview. As I have argued before I see no problems with how she's self-describing herself yet i.e. Secular and Muslim can fit as well as Secular and Jewish. She is no Martin Luther but to me she's a reformer if she pisses off some misogynist cleric. Ttiotsw 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Koran 58-5: "Those who resist Allah and his messenger will be humbled to dust."
• Koran 9-5: "slay the idolaters where ever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush."
• Koran 8-12: "I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

--Patchouli 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an is a primary source; don't see the point here. I could equally quote old testament with similar violent sections. Given the OT is the basis for Christianity that still wouldn't give me a reason to plaster Christianity related talk pages with that "fact". Ttiotsw 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FACT: There is NO Wafa Sultan registered as either a physician or psychiatrist in The State of California. The Medical Board of California readily documents this by their online verification records at ([3]) Likewise the American Medical Association lists no Wafa Sultan as a licensed physician in the United States ([4])

This seems like a very legitimate criticsm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.186.44.179 (talk • contribs).

No, this seems like original research. Who says that she has a current license in CA? Licenses need to be renewed once in a while, or maybe she is licensed somewhere else. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)