Serge Trifkovic, who along with me and Britney Spears causes jihad (at least in the mind of Dinesh D'Souza) responds brilliantly in "Dinesh the Dhimmi," from Chronicles (via FrontPage; news links in the original):
Nearly two years ago the Jihadist lobby in the United States made a concerted affort to have my book The Sword of the Prophet banned from National Review Online. Jihadi activists gathered around CAIR claimed the book defamed Islam and its "prophet." When it did not get immediate satisfaction from National Review, CAIR instructed its partisans to pressure the Boeing Corporation to withdraw its advertisements from the magazine. Faced with the loss of revenue National Review briefly took down The Sword, but then quickly reposted it, under pressure from mainly conservative quarters.It is now, perhaps inevitably, the turn of a phony conservative to join CAIR's ranks. In his latest book, The Enemy At Home, Dinesh D'Souza writes that,
"In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."
Two of the titles D'Souza finds so offensive that condemning them tops his list of "critical steps" are by my friend Robert Spencer, and "The Sword" is mine. D'Souza wants us, and presumably other similarly minded authors (Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Andrew Bostom, Walid Shoebat et al), to shut up.As my fellow offender Spencer has noted has noted, D'Souza assumes that peaceful Muslims will have a greater sense of solidarity with jihadists than with non-Muslims, which is indeed the case, but it makes hash of his entire thesis—that social conservatives should ally themselves with these "traditional" Muslims:
"For if these peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. But if such presentations will just drive them into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place? If they think "Islamophobic tracts" are more threatening to their religion than acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam, how ‘traditional' and moderate could they possibly be?"
It is noteworthy that D'Souza is condemning our writings as "Islamophobic" without further elaboration. Like the term "Islamophobia" itself—a classic product of the Hate Crime Industry—his technique is characteristic of the totalitarian Left. I remember reading, as a teenager in Tito's Yugoslavia, similarly worded condemnations of dissident writers and their "tracts" in the communist-controlled press. Once they were defined as "anti- socialist," "reactionary," or "nationalist," no further elaboration was needed and no debate allowed.
Furthermore, D'Souza uses "Islamophobia" with the implicit assumption that the term's meaning is well familiar to his readers. For the uninitiated it is nevertheless necessary to spell out its formal, legally tested definition, however. It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a lavishly-funded organ of the European Union. Based in Vienna, this body diligently tracks the instances of "Islamophobia" all over the Old Continent and summarizes them in its reports. The Monitoring Center's definition of Islamophobia includes eight salient features:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change. 2. Islam is seen as separate and "other." 3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist. 4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of civilizations. 5. Islam is seen as a political ideology. 6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand. 7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society. 8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. The implication that Islamophobia thus defined demands legal sanction is a regular feature of the Race Relations Industry output. It also routinely refers to "institutional Islamophobia" as an inherent social and cultural sickness of most Western societies that needs to be rooted out by education, re- education, and legislation. In reality, of course, all eight proscribed statements are to some extent true. As I have argued in these pages and elsewhere,
1. That Islam is fundamentally static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an orthodox school of thought capable of reflecting critically upon jihad, Sharia, jizya, etc. and developing new Islamic interpretations that Western liberals (and notably the 9-11 Commission's Final Report) keep hoping for. Attempts to reformulate the doctrine are not new, but they have failed because they opposed centuries of orthodoxy. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, "Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action." Huart's near- contemporary Sir William Muir, noted that «a reformed faith that should question the divine authority on which the institutions of Islam rest, or attempt by rationalistic selection or abatement to effect a change, would be Islam no longer.» A century later the diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are "distorting" Islam; the would-be reformers are.
2. That Islam is separate from our (Western, Christian, European) culture and civilization, and other than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if the West (Christendom, Europe) eventually succumb to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.
3. Whether Islam is "inferior to the West" is a matter of opinion. That it cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative and attractive polity is not. Whether Islam is "barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist" is at least debatable; but that its fruits are such is beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Islam is seen as "violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of civilizations" not because of an irrational "phobia" in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because of the clear mandate of its scripture, because of the record of almost 14 centuries of historical practice, and above all because of the timeless example of its founder.
5. "Islam is seen as a political ideology" because its defining characteristic is a highly developed program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready, even eager, to spill blood. The doctrine of Jihad makes Islam closer to Bolshevism or National Socialism than to any religion known to man. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by non-Muslim cultural, technological and economic achievements is hostility and hatred. D'Souza's alleged distinction between Islamic "extremists" and "moderates" is a Western liberal construct, of course. The difference between them may concern the methods to be applied but not the final objective: to turn every last square mile of Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand, they should be understood. Islam's chief "criticism" of the West—and each and every other non-Islamic culture, civilization, or tradition—is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.
7. A priori hostility towards Islam should not be "used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims." Quite the contrary, a comprehensive education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting, not because it is an offensive religion but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the fundamental values of the West—and all other civilized societies, India, China and Japan included.
8. "Anti-Muslim hostility" is not "natural or normal." The infidels' determination to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is both natural and normal, however, and must not be neutralized by the Eurocrats from the left of by D'Souza and his likes on the "right." They will deny that Islam, in Muhammad's revelations, traditions and their codification, threatens the rest of us, that it is the cult of war and intolerance, but the truth will out. Until the petrodollars support a comprehensive and explicit Kuranic revisionism capable of growing popular roots, we should seek ways to defend ourselves by disengaging from the world of Islam, physically and figuratively, by learning to keep our distance from the affairs of the Muslim world and by keeping the Muslim world away from "the world of war" that it seeks to conquer or destroy.
It is entirely possible that Dinesh D'Souza subscribes to some other definition of "Islamophobia" than the one provided above. If he does, he should spell it out so that those he singles out for criticism can defend themselves. Until and unless he does so, we'll have to agree with a recent commentator who concludes that D'Souza wants me and others "to lie about Islam, like himself, or to be silent":
"Now think how amazing this is. Has it ever happened in this country—I'm not talking about some totalitarian country but America—has it ever happened that a prominent "intellectual" called on leading writers on a subject of major importance to stop writing what they're writing, because it would "offend" someone? No, this has never happened before. It has never happened before, because it's only in response to Mohammedanism that Westerners adopt the posture of pre-emptive surrender, which Bat Ye'or calls mental dhimmitude. Of all the social, ethnic, religious, political movements in the world, only Islam has the ability to evoke this eagerly cringing attitude, only Islam has this faculty of inducing people to surrender psychologically to it even before it has any actual power over them."
Dixit. A man is defined, to some extent, by his enemies. Counting D'Souza and his ilk among mine casts an eminently pleasing glow on this drab January morning.
Robert,
Here is something i found this morning.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/27parl.htm
Two British MPs (Dhimmis) protesting against death sentence for Afzal Guru who was involved with the attack of Indian Parliament in December 2001 in which 13 policemen died.
FYI
Dinesh D'Souza is from the land of the dhimmi, India. India has more dhimmis than the rest of the world combined. Coincidence? I think not.
Well said, Serge.
I just finished cancelling my account at the Conservative Book Club, who is selling & promoting D'Souza's book. Last October I joined in order to take advantage of getting a free copy of The Truth About Muhammed. I now have three other books purchased through the CBC, two written by Robert and one by Serge. CBC - we're done.
Yeah, if you keep calling your enemy: a "prospective friend," then when the time is right, "he'll" kill you. Islam is violence; always has been. Cut your ties to Islam; it's like holding hands with a snake, and a snake has no hands !
Write to the CBC.
Tell them why you are quitting.
Tell them not to make that mistake again.
So Mr. D'Sousa
Where Americans demonstrating Islamophobia when 9-11 occurred or even months afterward? But we did see and read about Muslims all over the world praising and celebrating the attacks on the twin towers on that day.We read about American Muslims celebrating the attack on the twin towers from Dearbornistan,Michigan and several other places in America. Have you talked to that Group of Muslims in Jackson Heights, New York called the Islamic thinkers who call for Islam to take over America?
Very few Americans had a clear understanding of the tenants of the Islamic religion prior to, or after 9-11. But Mr.D'Sousa you are apparently going to buy into giving these poor moderate Muslims victim status. It appears that some of the masters of taquiya, and kitman got to you before you learned enough about Islam in America and throughout the EU.
How many mosques in America have you researched? Have you read Steven Emerson? Have you read Bat Yeor? Serge Trifkovic? Have you read Robert Spencer? or how about Nonie Darwish or Ayaan Hirsi who had to finally leave the Netherlands because of constant death threats by Muslims. How about the threats made over a few cartoons, or the threats directed at the the leader of the Catholic religion over a request for a critical dialogue with Islam?
And of course I could go on and on for pages, but of course it is all America's fault that those Muslims refer to us as the great Satan and that they need to kill or subjugate all of us infidels,kaffars, Jews and any other religion that gets in their way for world domination.
Just how big is that minority of radicals? Apparently nothing to be concerned about for Dinesh D'Sousa?
I disagree that it's never before happened that intellectuals have called on people not to write things lest they offend people. What about the huge reaction to _The Bell Curve_? Everybody was saying exactly that: Basically, that the research in the book didn't matter, but that we shouldn't even consider in print the possibility that racial differences have any genetic component at all. This would "offend" people.
My point is that PC squelching of intellectual discussion unfortunately predates PC squelching of criticism of Islam. And it paved the way for it. Intellectuals have been tiptoeing around various group-related issues (female/male differences being another) for many years now lest they "offend," and the whole "Islamophobia" thing has just played on the same hyper-sensitivity and refusal to discuss unpopular questions.
What is somewhat different here is that the hush-hush stuff is coming from someone previously deemed squarely conservative. _That's_ news, and alarming news at that. I do think conservatives have self-censored in some of these areas already, but they've done so without this much fanfare, just de facto. Here D'Souza is expressly calling for self-censoring, which is bad news.
I'm glad his book seems to be getting universally panned. Anybody know any conservatives who like it?
There is always someone around who is intellectually bankrupt enough to make excuses for others bad behavior.
I didn't know I was an Islamophobe until now. I thought I just had a rampant case of Fascistophobia.
Apparently the symptoms are identical.
Some so-called conservatives have dark aspects of their own personalities that they've not explored. they equate 'conservatism' with superego values and repression. I'm betting Dinesh has a deep, dark masochistic streak and craves being whipped and humiliated for his 'sins' and inner 'decadences' whatever they may be.
I'm joking but I'm not. There are those left and right who crave 'punishment' - primitive brutal Mohammed style! - for our 'naughty' civilization.
In rebutting the second myth about "Islamophobia" -- 2. Islam is seen as separate and "other." -- Trifkovic misses a chance at wielding a cogent (rather than a specious) tu quoque riposte. He rebuts thusly:
2. That Islam is separate from our (Western, Christian, European) culture and civilization, and other than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if the West (Christendom, Europe) eventually succumb to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.
What Trifkovic should have added to this rebuttal is the fact that Islam practically invented the concept of "the Other" -- the Infidel -- who is to be hated, not tolerated, subjugated and attacked. The division of all Mankind into Believers and Infidels, and the incessant inculcation -- institutionally and sociologically -- of xenophobia in Islamic rituals, laws and culture attains a depth and breadth of unprecedented prevalence and intensity not seen by any other culture in history (perhaps China would rank as a close second behind Islam).
And this is not merely a xenophobia, but also a misoxeny -- a word I coined denoting "hatred of the Other".
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)
Every day I have to read of new Orwellian institutions created by the [oh-so freedom-loving] UNELECTED European Left.
What this commission basically did is list all valid critiques of islam, sum them up neatly and make them illegal.
What drugs are they taking????????
Damn, those Europeans sure hate themselves!
I'm glad his book seems to be getting universally panned. Anybody know any conservatives who like it?
------
It's hard to say. Amazon.com has two editorial reviews that are tepid, at best. The first calls his argument "lucid but unconvincing". The second says only that "This is an interesting perspective on the hostilities between the West and the Muslim world, particularly in light of the ongoing declared war against terrorism."
Given that they're trying to sell a book, you'd think Amazon could find one glowing review from SOMEHWERE. Maybe there are none to be found.
Reader reviews were overwhelmingly negative.
And this twerp D'Souza will perhaps be instrumental in forming an alliance between the Christian Right and the uberconservative Islamists, and will get morality laws passed around the US. Abortion will once again be criminalized, divorce will be restricted, strip clubs, pornography and anything of that ilk will be banned, and gays will lose every right they have, and then some. It's Sharia law under a different name.
I may be wrong but just watch what's going on in this country. Watch how our leaders will react when disasters of unspeakably huge proportions (be it a terrorist attack bigger than 9/11, or even a natural disaster) shake the country and bring Americans to their knees. They will say God was unhappy with them and they will pass morality laws to enforce piety in the country.
Remote
How exactly do you distinguish the meanings of 'xenophobia' i.e. irrational fear of the other, vs 'misoxeny' i.e. hatred of the other? Is it based on whether the attitude in question is a response to something, vs. an original attitude in its own right?
Also, given how 'xenophobia' usually is used in the context of foreigners, how does the word you coined apply to people who aren't exactly foreigners, but don't exactly fall into the club in question?
From the original article, since D'Souza blames Brittney Spears, along with Spencer and Trifkovic, it should be pointed out that she isn't from the Left: she is pro-GOP, and wanted to perform for the GOP convention in 2004, but the party wouldn't have it. But that doesn't make her a Leftist, although I suspect that the above 2 gentlemen probably never expected to one day see themselves 'defending' Brittney Spears.
Wrathofasma re "sharia law under a different name", yes that worries me too. But I think American women, are too strong for such nonsense. As are the men who have come to appreciate strong, independent women.
D'Souza:
"In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. . . . "
COMMENT:
What are "traditional Moslems?" Ones that do not believe in the koran? Or in the "violent parts" of the koran? Is it the Moslem who hasn't yet decided that giving to "Islamic charities" (that go into the coffers of jihadists) is not doing enough and that he starts to "help" the jihad in other ways?
Or does he mean "moderate" Moslems, the ones who never stand up for America? (Because one of their co-ideologists could cut them down.)
Moslems would love it (just ask CAIR) if we let them have their way and "stop attacking Islam" and if we "cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims."
Mr. D'Souza should be asked if Islam is not to blame for the behavior of radical Moslems, then who is? Bin Ladin? Does he manufacture the reason for waging jihad?
Has Mr. D'Souza read the koran or is he now on the other side--against us who see the holes in this arguments?
The question is rhetorical, the answer is in his words.
Infidel Pride,
"How exactly do you distinguish the meanings of 'xenophobia' i.e. irrational fear of the other, vs 'misoxeny' i.e. hatred of the other?"
Well, xenophobia can also include hatred, but it doesn't have to. A person with a phobia about spiders usually doesn't hate spiders, though his irrational fear of them will often lead him to try to "deport" them (eject them from his house) or attempt "genocide" against them (squashing them wherever he can find them or hiring an exterminator). The coinage of misoxeny functions to make sure that the hatred component is solidly communicated and reflects an institutional and sociological entrenchment of the attitude. If Muslims only had xenophobia of non-Muslims, they could learn to get over that (perhaps through the wonders of a Bush-instigated Neo-Wilsonianism, or through the glibly inevitable process of Friedman's "Lexus & Olive Tree"), and that learning process wouldn't go against the grain of their divinely literal texts and traditions.
"Also, given how 'xenophobia' usually is used in the context of foreigners, how does the word you coined apply to people who aren't exactly foreigners, but don't exactly fall into the club in question?"
With Islam, the xenos in question is simply anyone who is not a Muslim -- whether or not that non-Muslim is a foreigner, a neighbor, a fellow citizen, a boss, the government, the authorities, a supposed friend; even one's brother or sister who has decided to leave Islam and must be hounded out or hunted down like a venomous spider. (Interestingly, the Greek word xenos means a stranger in a context of considering that stranger as someone one would show hospitality to -- which Muslims in their taqiyya apologetics claim is their traditional attitude toward the non-Muslim, but which we know is a lie.)
Atanu Dey,
You say that India has more dhimmis than the rest of the world combined.
India also has excellent Islam-exposing websites that were there long before 9-11 woke up a lot of Americans.
Indians have had close contact with Moslems for more than a thousand years: some have been beaten down by the constant onslaught of Moslems on what the founder of the ideology made "kufar," and thus declared open season there for conversion or death. Many, however, have withstood Islam--and this with Moslems in their midst. The Indian govt.--like all govts.--appears from here to be dhimmified. Perhaps I am wrong in this, but that's what it look like.
Mr. D'Souza does not typify an "Indian." His dhimmification is caused by a sudden realization that "we are to blame" for them (Moslems) attacking us, but more likely as has been suggested here, the open expression of sexuality in the society bothers him.
If he joins with our enemies--the Islamics--in condemning us for our lack of legally regulating morality--as the koran does--he is not on our side. His dhimmitude is his own, not genetically inherited from his Indian roots.
Wrathofasma re "sharia law under a different name", yes that worries me too. But I think American women, are too strong for such nonsense. As are the men who have come to appreciate strong, independent women.
posted by Lilli
Speaking of that, that reminds me. I better check out laws for handgun ownership. I also better advise my Mom to start target practicing again.
I may be wrong but just watch what's going on in this country. Watch how our leaders will react when disasters of unspeakably huge proportions (be it a terrorist attack bigger than 9/11, or even a natural disaster) shake the country and bring Americans to their knees. They will say God was unhappy with them and they will pass morality laws to enforce piety in the country.
Posted by: wrathofasma at January 27, 2007 05:32 PM
You're wrong. The last thing our gutless leaders would ever do is pass morality laws. Didn't you know that moral judgements are verboten! Where have you been? Moral relativism is the new national religion, enforced by political correctness. Multiculturalism and diversity are demi-gods; worshipped, adored, and promoted by politicians, academia, bureaucracies, MSM, and much of the indoctrinated public. These issues are not even open for debate; they are inflexible, immutable mandates imposed arbitrarily by our elitist superiors. Anyone who complains or disagrees is a racist, bigot, islamophobe and xenophobe; the ultimate scum of the earth.
The only people that would like to pass morality laws are the muslims, and their definition of "morality" is a far cry from mine. Don't worry about enforced piety because the Constitution forbids the government establishment of religion. Worry about the muslims, whose fondest desire is to abolish the Constitution and implement Sharia.
Yes Susanp, but the tide can change, and needless to say, there will be no atheists and moral relativists after a massive terrorist attack or massive natural disaster. And the fundamentalist Muslims will perhaps be part of the coalition, that will consist of Christian theocrats such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, to do away with much of the Constitution and try to please God. If you think I'm leaning towards Conspiracyville here, well then Google what these two Pharisees (yes, Robertson and Falwell are Pharisees just as much as the ones at CAIR), have said. Remember Falwell's remarks about who caused 9/11? Remember those words because he will say them again after the next disaster. And remember that these two Pharisees have great power in Washington DC.
I'm a Christian by the way and I too am sick of moral relativism. Good is good, evil is evil. I don't like the argument of tu quoque (sp?) when it comes to dealing with jihadist atrocities. But I DO NOT like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.