Andrew McCarthy has already had enough of Dinesh D'Souza's massive apologia pro vita sua in National Review, but since I am one of the people he dubs "angry men of the Right," I feel it incumbent upon me to respond. In today's installment, Dinesh D'Souza writes:
Robert Spencer admits that “jihadists do use the depravity of American culture as a recruiting tool,” but then goes on to say that “this is more of a pretext.” Spencer fails to inquire why this “pretext” has struck such a resonant chord among traditional Muslims. Spencer knows as well as I do that by portraying America as an atheist, immoral society, radical Islam has found a receptive ear among traditional Muslims, and this has increased the recruitment of al Qaeda and other likeminded organizations.
In fact, there are many such pretexts. Different ones strike chords with different audiences. And Zawahri himself recently declared that Israel was the primary source of Muslim hatred of the U.S. He didn't say anything about Britney Spears.
D'Souza adds later:
Several of my critics, from Charen to Spencer to Kurtz to Berkowitz, have pointed out that Sayyid Qutb, the leading theoretician of radical Islam, came to America in the 1940s. Berkowitz writes, “Qutb famously was scandalized by the popular culture he encountered at a church social in America in the late 1940s, two decades, on D’Souza’s own account, before the emergence in the 1960s of the contemporary cultural left.” Berkowitz and others cite this point as though it were perfectly obvious and therefore evidence that I am manifestly obtuse. His reasoning is that radical Muslims like Qutb hated us long before the rise of liberal permissiveness, so clearly the cultural Left had nothing to do with the rise of radical Islam. Q.E.D.This is hardly the big point that these critics think they have scored. The fact is that most traditional Muslims did not take Qutb seriously in the 1940s and 1950s, and his reputation was confined to the precincts of radical Islam. Numerous scholars, from Bernard Lewis to Rashid Khalidi, have pointed out that America was quite popular in the Muslim world during that period, when American prosperity was seen as producing a decent society. Radical Islam had great trouble getting recruits during that era.
But Qutb has become increasingly relevant as American popular culture has grown increasingly permissive and shocking to the sensibilities of traditional people around the world. Qutb is read today against the backdrop of what Muslims see in today’s America, not 1950s America. In fact, he is now viewed as a kind of prophet, someone who decades ago foresaw the rot behind America’s shiny image. So Qutb now has “crossover” appeal to traditional Muslims, and rather than dismissing him as a crank and a fool, we should be studying him to better understand what we are up against.
Or, instead, we could just conclude that Qutb is a fanatic, just as are almost all Muslims, and then leave it at that.
To this, Jihad Watch reader Jeff Kantor has responded, far more eloquently and persuasively than I ever could have, in an email to Mr. D'Souza that Jeff was kind enough to send also to me:
I think you miss the point, Mr. D'Souza.I find the thesis of your book more intriguing than your treatment of it, I'm afraid.
It's not that we have to conclude that "Qutb is a fanatic, just as are almost all Muslims, and then leave it at that." It's that we have to evaluate the basis for the fanaticism in Islam before we can determine how plausible your theory is.
If the evidence shows that the Quran is not just incidentally and particularly violent (like the Old Testament), but that it repeatedly calls for sustained, aggressive violence against the world until the world submits to Islam; if the evidence shows all the classical schools of Islam insist on this reading of the relevant Quranic passages; if the vast majority of present day scholars of Islam continue to agree that adherence to these traditional interpretations is mandatory for Muslims, not optional; if the evidence shows that this aggressive behavior has been the norm for Muslims historically; if the evidence shows that more adaptive Muslims who try to question or change this norm today are relatively few and without a coherent theological or interpretive basis for their undertaking; if the evidence shows that Muslims become aggressive when they are strong and that the past decades of relative lack of fanaticism can be best explained by understanding Islam to have been in a quiescent phase due to subjugation by infidel powers...
...if the evidence shows these things, then your thesis, which certainly might appear plausible at the outset, becomes much more dubious.
I don't think any sensible person doubts that there are many sincere Muslims who are scandalized by loose behavior and that that can contribute in some way to resentment of the West. The question is, whether that is the primary motive force behind "Islamicist" aggression today or something that at best gives an additional impetus to it.
Wouldn't it be nice to think together on these issues and try to come to a common understanding? But the lack of civility you have pointed to in the conversation seems to have originated in your book's superficial treatment and contemptuous dismissal of Robert Spencer's careful treatment of the foundational questions I outlined above.
Why not start anew with a gesture of civility yourself? Why not begin by a careful re-examination of these foundational questions instead of treating them with offhand quips and debating strategies? You might find in the end that the thesis of your book is not as persuasive as you had hoped. Or you might find that your thesis survives notwithstanding and is strengthened by a deeper encounter with the texts, tradition, and historical practice of Islam. In any case, you will seem far more intellectually redoubtable and much less peevish than you have seemed of late. And you might in the end write a better--and better-received--book on this topic.
Has Mr. D’Souza been asked -point blank- if he has in past received, is receiving, or been promised future remuneration (in any form) for his pro “religion of peace” propaganda campaign (it is nearly priceless to the jihadists). Has he in recent past or is he now engaged –to any degree- in discussions with anyone regarding his access to media and abilities to promote a “positive spin” on “the religion of peace.” -?- From recent activities, – i.e. the “American Conservative (in name only) Union’s annual conference – it is now clear that he is being given first rate handling and care by those with specific vested interests in perpetuating the “religion of peace” myth.
quote
Blogger Dean Barnett thinks I am “dangerously misguided and dangerously ignorant” for attributing 9/11 to religious and cultural decadence in the West. “The radical Islamic world doesn’t hate us because our TV shows are too racy or our women too provocative…Specifically, the haters at issue loathe us because we’re not Muslims.” This is just ignorant prejudice masquerading as scholarship.
end quote
The Closing of the Conservative Mind, Part II
Rethinking Islamic radicalism.
By Dinesh D'Souza
So we can use the D'Souza criteria to predict that conflict is at a minimum between Islam and the West when the West is most true to its own religion and fundamentalism, and conflict peaks when the West is decadent.
Thus Islam would welcome the Crusades as a sign of the West's return to fundamental values? The word Crusade should appeal to Muslims as opposed to Democracy?
Islam attacked the West in 633 AD. So was this a time of decadence?
Were the Barbary Pirates taking slaves because the West was decadent? Didn't that pick up after the Reformation? But America in 1786 was less decadent than today? Why were they taking Americans slaves in 1786? Also why did they take sailors slave? Sailors in 1786 worked hard didn't they?
Also, shouldn't they have tried to teach manners to Americans? If they think we are decadent, shouldn't they try to teach us better? Why do they take that as a sign to kill us (2001) or enslave us (1786)?
If they attack when we are decadent, isn't that because they think we are weak and we won't fight back? Sort of even true isn't it.
The D'Souza Hypothesis that Islam attacks the West when we are decadent doesn't hold up, except in the sense of timing for weakness.
What is the conclusion? We have to go back to the Middle Ages?
Let's assume that is correct. What did the West do in the Middle Ages? It went and conquered all it could of Muslim lands and converted them back to Christianity. Let's adopt the full D'Souza program. A Crusade proclaimed by D'Souza.
All of this rant re moral issues reminds me of Hitler and Nazi criticism of American "morals". It amazes me how these clowns narrow "morality" to matters of sex. The truth is that Islam is merely repressing a moral depravity re sex that will prove to be equal to other Muslim moral depravity when the controls are gone. They sense that. The real rot is in Islamic culture and they will go to the other extreme in sexual matters when controls are abscent.
Americans are very self-critical and I'll worry about the US when we are not so self-critical. Islam has delusions of grandure re morality-sexual and otherwise. So too with the Nazis.
First comes an argument between D'Souza and those who seem better educated. Next, perhaps, will be a broader recognition of the problem.
Would it be so terrible if millions of people were saying, "You know, Islam at its core is something fierce evil." War? Yes. Better integration of Muslims who would opt out of their tradition? Yes. A better long-term future? In this D'Souza's focus has merit, at least to the extent that an embrace of conservative social values will mean a demographic resurgence and an increase in steadfastness.
We need to accept a bedrock idea: it is better to know the truth than to believe misleading ideas about "the religion of peace" or "no compulsion in religion."
Ignorance or silence about the reality of Islam -- in particular, the reality of Islam with power -- is unlikely to help the cause of freedom, prosperity, or decency.
When dealing with a backward, stuck in the 7th century, insecure ideology that is Islam, the pretexts for attacks on the infidel are as numerous as the homicide bomber lining up to bomb the next Israeli pizza joint or Jordanian wedding reception. In D'Souza's first installment, he suggests that radical Islam has only been around since the 1920's. Does he forget the Barbary pirates that our third president had to confront or the Islamic invaders that Charles Martel had to confront centuries ago in France? He implies that Muslim extremists confined their post Cold War activities to their respective home countries. Does he forget the blind sheik and the first attempt on the WTC or the numerous examples of attacks on Israel? Is this what the Hoover Foundation is producing these days?
"Does he forget the Barbary pirates that our third president had to confront or the Islamic invaders that Charles Martel had to confront centuries ago in France"?
In fact, the US Navy came into existence because of the Muslim abductions of Americans during Washington's Administration. Washington requested and Congress voted $2,000,000 for ransoming the hostages, but the decision was made to go forward with the building of the Navy (USS Constitution, etc.). Jefferson opposed the Navy build-up but later realized how necessary it was because of the Muslim abductions of Americans.
When will D'Souza get into the thick skull of his that Bin Laden and all the other Islamic terrorists are against just about everyone... not just the so-called decadent West.
And, even if it were true, since when do we take our guidelines on morals from jehadists!
D'Souza also states that "radical Muslims are not against modernity". That's rich! Radical Islam is nothing if not against modernity... they can shoot an AK47 but can't make one.
Just because they use certain modern technological advancemenst OF THE WEST to plunge the world back into the dark ages, doesn't mean they are modern. Modernity is more than using cell phones and taking flying lessons and Zarqawi wearing American running shoes on the shooting range. It's about embracing one man one vote, freedom of speach, rule of law, seperation of church and state, capitalism, equal rights for women. Perhaps Mr. D'Souza can name the last technical gizmo or medical procedure developed in the Islamic world. The weakness of this statement is
borne out everytime some rich American/Israel hating sheik heads for Tel Aviv or New York for a life saving medical procedure or sends his kids here for an education.
On forums like JW/DW, we've already beaten to death the issue of what's wrong with D'Souza's thesis. D'Souza keeps soldiering on, only because he doesn't realize how badly he's been mortally wounded. OK.
But the debate has been a healthy one. It has forced us to re-examine the basic axioms underlying a society--freedom vs. virtue and so on--and how radically societies differ in their approach to these axioms.
If the Muslim world hated America for its "immorality," they would be singling out its secular components for special denunciation--Hollywood and Las Vegas and so on. They would be excusing orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as rare exceptions to the general run of American immorality and atheism. BUT THEY DON'T. Instead, they call us "Crusaders" (meaning militant Christians), not "Atheists" as they used to call the Soviet Union.
The problem is that America comes from a Western tradition that considers freedom and equality of opportunity for all human beings to be the highest moral good--an unalienable right of Nature. The constraints that we place on ourselves are then voluntarily reached through Rousseau's idea of a "social contract." Jefferson summed up these ideas explicitly in our Declaration of Independence.
But the Muslims simply don't believe that. Someone else pointed out that the German Nazis didn't believe that either. To them, the kind of freedom we cherish here in America is ipso facto immoral or irrelevant. Thus America would be viewed as immoral by them even back in the days of Puritanist and Calvinist morality.
President Bush had claimed that the desire for freedom (as we in the West understand the term) is universal, even in the Muslim world. He went so far as to claim it was "racist" to suggest otherwise. That theory underlies our whole strategy in the Iraq War.
Well, I think we can now safely conclude that Bush's theory has been refuted along with D'Souza's. And therefore, the entire theoretical underpinning for Bush's version of the Iraq War has collapsed. Some other President may salvage something out of the Iraq mess, hopefully. But it won't be what Bush wanted.
Jonah Goldberg on D'Souza:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1332/article_detail.asp
and other comments here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Aside from arguments about what is the root of Jihadi campaigns against Thai, Israelis, Indians, Lebanese Maronites, Egyptian Copts, et al, the lack of symmetry in DD's arguments is on display elsewhere as well. If the decadence of the West, mainly driven by the Left, had angered traditional Muslims and caused 9/11, why does that not ripple into other communities. After all, there are a lot of US hating Leftists in Europe, Asia, South America, non Islamic Africa, et al who, aside from resenting the US for its prosperity inspite (rather than because, in their twisted view) of a much more recent foundation, and in all these countries, there are also a lot of traditional Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Confucians... who would be just as repulsed by the likes of Paris Hilton and Hugh Hefner.
Which then brings up the next question - why doesn't Kahane Chai, Shiv Sena or any other militant organization associated with their particular religions plot terror attacks against the US, just as al-Qaeda does? Wouldn't traditional Jews/Hindus cheer such moves out of disgust with the West, just as traditional Muslims do?
Robert, when you debate DD today, please point out to him that NO COUNTRY, not even Indonesia, has 200m Muslims (India's Muslim population is ~130m, according to their current estimates). Also ask him why there aren't militant Hindus or Buddhists who are out organizing terror or conversion campaigns in the US, Canada, Britain, Continental Europe, Australia or any other places, since traditional Hindus/Buddhists should be just as offended by skimpy clad women as traditional Muslims are. Also ask him whether he thinks that societies in which honor killings, for instance, are the norm (such as Pakistan) are morally superior to the Paris Hiltons or the Britney Spears antics, and a model for us to emulate.
Muslims never met a pretext they didn't like. It's all pretext, hyperbole, shreiking and arm waving. They really should be careful with all the hysteronics or they'll end up like the boy who cried wolf.
A rose is a rose is a rose...and an infidel is an infidel is an infide.
I submit that any self respecting jihadi type would take just as much pleasure in beheading Rosie Odonnel as they would in shooting a Catholic nun in Africa. The pretext is superfluous.
Just wondering aloud....does D'Souza attend the "Wednesday Meeting"? He does exhibit signs of influence by Grover Norquist.
Speaking of GN, this is the reason I will not vote for Newt Gingrich for President, he is too close to GN. We do not need another President who is influenced by that man.
I read Jonah Goldberg's commentary in the link that StillBreathing provided, and there are some problems with his conclusions, although not as ridiculous as Dinesh himself:
If Jonah Goldberg disagrees that Islam is the problem, there are two things he needs to do:- Explain why the more Islamic a country/people are, the more prone they are either to Jihadist activity, or internally, to some of the most retrograde social practices on display today;
- Explain why there is such a strong co-relationship between what Islamic theology and jurisprudence prescribe, and what Islamic countries and/or movements practice. Even if the latter were to be eviscerated, how could one possibly guarantee that the former wouldn't be the ideological fountainhead of a resurrection of the Jihadi insurrection.
On the question of labeling collaborators as 'Dhimmis', he misses out the fact that it's mainly used to describe useful idiots, such as Leftists, who support Jihadis despite their ideological shift in polarities. Ann Coulter actually once summed it up pretty well: "The Left support the Jihadis because they are anti-US. Normally, they'd be opposed to them, since they (the latter) are anti Woman, anti Gay, anti Animal Rights, et al, but since they are also anti American, the Left supports them." To an extent, the usage of 'Dhimmi' to describe such Muslim apologists is unfair to the people in Muslim lands who actually have to live survile lives just to avoid being persecuted more than they already are: it's not like they voluntarily support their Islamic overlords, even though many of them may suffer Stockholm syndrome even after they are out of such situations.Goldberg also ignores the support and respect these 'Right Wingers' have for those who have jettisoned Islam when he says that we 'aren't near the point where a respectable conservative says "the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim,"'(thanks for small mercies): if, as we say, Islam is the problem, the solution isn't just for Muslims to drop dead, but also for Muslims to apostatize out of Islam (if they determine that they'd rather be on our side than that of the Jihadis). Who's ever heard of people on the right ever condemn the Walid Shoebats, Nonie Darwishes or Wafa Sultans (or, for those who've heard of them, the Ali Sinas and the Ayaan Hirsi Alis)?
This problem can't be made bigger than it is - unless you have people theorizing that all major Islamic countries have nuclear weapons. The fact that unlike with WWII and the Cold War, where the enemy was Germans from Germany and Russians from the Soviet Union, in this case, not only Muslims from dar ul Islam, but 2nd or subsequent generations of Muslims in bilad ul Kafir, as well as Muslim converts in the West (John Walker Lindh, John Allen Mohammed, Richard Reid, David Hicks, Jose Padilla, Ibrahim Hooper, Abu Abdullah, Yvonne Ridley, et al) ensure that this can't just be a clean war between the West (and parts of the East, such as Ethiopia, India, Phillipines and now Thailand) on one had vs. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Syria, Egypt, Somalia et al on the other. Instead, Infidel governments genuinely interested in curbing the Jihadi threat would have to take on Muslims within their countries, as well as their Jihadi enemies abroad.Goldberg is right that while Communism was antithetical to, say, traditional Russian society, while Islam is the basis of tradition of Muslim societies. However, that doesn't imply that the West can't or shouldn't try getting rid of Islam. Instead, while there is a case to be made for containing Islam to Islamic lands (something I don't endorse, as opposed to eviscerating Islam altogether), there isn't a case for not declaring that Islam is an ideological cult hostile to Infidel societies and values, and therefore cannot be legally practiced in Infidel lands.
Bottom line: Mr Goldberg's analysis comes down to Close, but no cigar.
@Excommie: "Now they have a mass of legal residents and paracitizens (foreign origin population assuming citizenship for the purpose of changing the society according to another country's ideology)"
Excommie is right on the money.
Unfortunately, Islam only has to adopt a "wait and grow" policy to defeat any democracy. Once there are enough like minded voters, anything can be changed...including the Rule of Law and Constitution. (We have the same power to stop it, if we use it.) Islam has one job right now: populate, convert, and increase propoganda. Our survival depends on calling a duck a duck...
An example, Americans tolerate the application of law enforcement surveillance of LCN types looking to make a buck, more than they do of known radical mosques seeking to kill them and/or take their freedoms. Why? Most Americans listen to the propoganda which says we are intolerant if we think otherwise...instead of asking why would we tolerate it. Intolerance to evil is good...
Glenn Beck was pandering to D'Souza last night to make his point about the democrats being responsible for losing the war in Iraq. He hates Clinton so much, he used D'Souza to assist in bashing her and her fellow Dems, contrary to the last time they met, when Beck ridiculed his theory that the cultural left caused 9/11.
No mention this time of the ridiculous central thesis of D'Souza's book, just another shameless plug.
Transcript from last night's show below:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/12/gb.01.html
Beck is so clueless about the war in Iraq, it actually hurts to listen to him speak about it.
Kantor's response to D'Souza is spot on.
In summary D'Souza's thesis in incorrect and it is nothing but a distraction to the media to think about.
The bottom lines is for those who have not spent time thinking about Islam is it leaves them with one more _WRONG_ thing to think about and confuse them.
The fact that Muslims in Malaysia are busy shooting harmless Buddhists in the head (who are the most decadent people on the planet, right?) destroys this thesis.
Dinesh takes a short term view of Islamic radicalism. Is he that ill educated?
Islam has always been radical. Mohamed was the first Muslim radical, first Muslim terrorist and first Muslim Jihadist. What can be more radical than conquering innocent populations? Subjugating them and taking their women for sex slaves and breeding machines?
Submit to Islam or die or if you're lucky you can live and pay Jizya. That's pretty radical to me
**** Jihad goes quiescent from time to time but Jihad is the default mode of Islam. Dinesh thinks it's the other way around
Let it go, Bob.
The man's your intellectual inferior, and by a wide margin.
You, you're a leader, an important leader; he's a mere opinion celebrity, a Finishing School cachet with no contents inside. It's all packaging with people like him.
"The use of the word 'dhimmi' is a good example. Muslims use this term to describe non-Muslims who agree to live under the yoke of Islamic rule and Sharia law."
-- from comments by Jonah Goldberg, in which he attempts to defend Dinesh D'Souza
"Muslims use this term to describe non-Muslims who agree to live...."
"Agree to live"? You mean, they had much of a choice? They could have disagreed, and still stayed alive, or remained as non-Muslims? The wording is most peculiar, and so too is the mind that thinks such wording adequately meets the case.
One, among many such telling details.
Doesn't anyone think it's strange that someone who is allegedly a "conservative" has such obvious contempt for American culture. Think about it - here's a guy who actually thinks we're so depraved that we eelicit terror from jihadis. That's really a Left position through-and-through. Or it's at least very anti-American.
Hey DD - go back to India, NOW!!!
I just tried to read installment # 2 by Dinesh and could barely get through it.
It seems that he is attempting to re-focus his point on the need for the US to form an alliance with 'traditonal' Muslims to deter the spread of Muslim 'radicalization'.
It sounds like the "myth of the moderate Muslim" to me. Can someone who has read the book or knows more please tell me if he actually tried in his book to define 'traditional' as opposed to 'radical' Muslims at all? Also, does he attempt to differentiate between 'traditional' and 'radical' Islam as well?
I am interested in the difference in Dinesh's opinion, and how to tell the difference between the two, if it is even possible.
Thanks in advance,
awake
Razdan wrote:
"since when do we take our guidelines on morals from jehadists!"
I think that's the bottom line here. D'Souza, like most right-wingers, believes that moral values are traditional values. This belief is almost definitive of the word 'conservatism'.
However, genuine moral values are not about tradition, they are about what is right and what is wrong.
As D'Souza, the so-called 'Christian' right, and other conservatives, believe in the traditional values put under threat by modern 'permissive' society, let us remind ourselves what traditional values exactly are.
Traditional values = e.g. mass illiteracy, child labour, slavery, racism, torture, general commodification of women, etc. (The last point is interesting, because in present-day Muslim traditional societies, all marriages are business arrangements between (or within!) families, they are never the result of love. Thus prostitution is generalised in Muslim society, whereas it is a rather specific, minority interest in the modern world. Of course, this is largely the case in all traditional cultures, including that of the West, in the past, when it was traditional, a time the D'Souzaist right hark back to.)
Modern values = e.g. mass literacy, legal protection from exploitation, equal rights irrespective of race or gender, romantic and/or sexual relationships based on free choice and love (not on business arrangements, i.e. the generalised prostitution of historical traditional 'Western' society and present-day Islamic society).
I believe that modern values are moral, and traditional values are immoral.
(To paraphrase and adapt Joyce) Tradition and history are an immoral nightmare from which the modern world is an awakening.
I wonder how Britney Spears feels to know that she is the cause of all the terrorist attacks in the world? That must be really upsetting
schmegel, I disagree with your opinion of "traditional values". The values of my Grandparents were not evil. The importance of family, supporting the children that deserve a stable upbringing.
Do you really think "hooking up" is an admirable change in US culture? I believe people should be able to do what they want to....no imposition of religion...but the left shouldn't be free to rip the rug out from under the traditions that established this country as a great nation. (Or are you so left that you believe the US is an evil nation?)
I wonder how Britney Spears feels to know that she is the cause of all the terrorist attacks in the world? That must be really upsetting
No wonder the poor girl shaved off all her hair :-)
Carolyn2 - None of the traditional values I mentioned apply to your grandparents' generation (and I didn't say anything about family values being evil, quite the opposite. In fact, I said prostitution is immoral, and that traditional societies generalised it). Obviously I was going back further in history. You're grandparents were already modern.
It is not 'left' to hold the absurd belief that the US is an evil nation. Imperialism, US or otherwise, is the target. The 'right' has been anti-American in various forms, e.g. the Nazis, the present-day jihadists. The founding father of the American state were revolutionaries, not conservatives.
It seems that D'Souza and his ilk regard the sixties as some kind of watershed when traditional 'moral' America suddenly became decadent and immoral, as a result of some kind of left-wing spell being cast on it. However, I believe America is much more moral after the sixties than before it. Prior to the sixties there was legal racial segregation and discrimination, women were discriminated against and economically suppressed, etc.
Society has progressed morally. People are more free. Freedom is the essence of morality; without free choice there is no morality. A moral agent has to be a mature adult with freedom of choice, not someone forced into a mode of behaviour by tradition or Sharia law or whatever.
oops - should read, 'founding fathers'
I am beginning to wonder which will happen first.
Will D'Souza's publishers pull him off the promotion circuit to prevent any more sales-killing disasters like the Colbert show or this NRO series?
Or...
Will we just ignore him until he goes away?
Steven L. Wrote: "President Bush had claimed that the desire for freedom (as we in the West understand the term) is universal, even in the Muslim world. He went so far as to claim it was "racist" to suggest otherwise. That theory underlies our whole strategy in the Iraq War."
And:
"Well, I think we can now safely conclude that Bush's theory has been refuted along with D'Souza's. And therefore, the entire theoretical underpinning for Bush's version of the Iraq War has collapse ..."
That theory you speak of is Wilsonian--that is, leftist/liberal theory--not Bush'es. It underlies the Afghan war as well, by the way.
What Iraq proved is that multi-culturalism is a bunch of tommy rot. What Iraq proved is that the leftist/liberal does not care one whit about uplifting oppressed peoples, those poor victims of past colonial sins. What he cares about is power at any price--the fate of foreigners be damned. What Iraq proved is that leftist liberals, when given a golden chance to prove their marxist theories about how downtrodden people will relish freedom and love us once their economic situation has been raised up--those liberals will instead sit on their hands and stab the President in the back with rank contrarianism at every turn.
The President's biggest mistake in Iraq, after his fatal misunderstanding the nature of Islam, was this: he embraced Wilsonianism, to try to coax the left into join him in common cause, on noble principles supposedly all Americans--especially liberals--share.
The left has been treacherous at every turn, practically cheering on the Muslim fascists to defeat their demonic enemy Bush. So sad. So contemptible.
D'Souza was attempting to fault the left for animating Muslim attacks on civilization. The left did not motivate those attacks--loose morals was just a pretense--but the left has certainly been running interference for the Muslims. That is the story D'Souza should have written his book about. He couldn't because he himself does not understand the nature of Islam.
Bush is also supremely guilty of running interference for the Islamic penetration of the west. But his guilt is borne of ignorance, naivete, and wishful thinking. The left's involvement in this shameful debacle is borne of machiavellan treachery.
You know, there is just ONE question that everyone needs to hammer on when debating DSouza.
"Why aren't Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, , Taoists, Shinto followers, animists, pagans, atheists, wiccans, Bahai's etc etc etc" going around killing people. WHY ONLY Muslims/???
Lame Cherry to Mr. Kantor:
D'Souza can not start a re examination of the questions because on the field of intellectual battle, D'Souza is unarmed.
*Apologies to G. Gordon Liddy for utilizing his wonderful quote in an expansive manner.
schmegel,
Thanks for your response.
When I hear anyone say the US is "imperialist", I have to laugh. If we were an imperialist nation Japan, Germany, Iraq, and..... would be the US. When we wage war against anyone, they come out very well off (aid, aid, aid) we rebuild the opposing country to the detriment of our own citizens' pocketbook.
Don't get me started on foreign aid. Grrr
"Spencer knows as well as I do that by portraying America as an atheist, immoral society, radical Islam has found a receptive ear among traditional Muslims, and this has increased the recruitment of al Qaeda and other likeminded organizations."
Is D' Dsouza saying that if Muslims believe America to be an atheistic, immoral society, that al Qaeda has the right to kill teachers in Thailand, or fly planes into buildings in New York city?
Since any thinking person knows Islamic societies are unjust, oppresive and immoral, does that give us the right to kill them off?
If we were an atheistic and immoral society, wouldn't that be our business?
Doesn't he understand the most basic principles liberty and freedom?
“Traditional values = e.g. mass illiteracy, child labour, slavery, racism, torture, general commodification of women, etc”
“Modern values = e.g. mass literacy, legal protection from exploitation, equal rights irrespective of race or gender, romantic and/or sexual relationships based on free choice and love…”
Wow!!!
How about “bad dental hygiene” for a traditional value and, for example, “carburettor ” for modern one?
I think schmergel would better consult a dictionary for the meaning of the word “value” before he lets off such comical tirade.
One of these days D'souza's going to get his bag of potato chips from these peace lovin people, practicing that ole time religion and he will be surprised.
You know that guy HECK that kept warning Robert Spencer about D'Souza the other day? I have a theory it WAS D'souza who was calling himself HECK.
I think he should remember that great quote of Ronald Regan. Love it or Leave IT. Apparently we were decadent before you got here, so go home where things are so much better. We don't want to change to suit you.
I'm going to go eat some LAY's potato chips. BTW is Lay a jewish name?
If atheist communist guerillas from South America, or India start attacking christian right groups or US because of capitalism, would D' Souza advice pursuade Americans to give up religion and capitalism? Are not so called leftist liberals or atheists or immorals, citizens of US? Or D'Souza has dehumanised them to be sanitized?
D'Souza:
D'Souza:
D'Souza does not seem to realize, in his constant railing about "atheism and immorality," that Zawahiri, Bin Laden, et al, quite often cite the fact that the West and America in particular are--in their view--Christian. The fact that the U.S. is predominantly Christian makes it, in the eyes of the jihadists, atheist (or more accurately kafir) and "immoral" (or more accurately, un-Islamic; see below). Because these Christians are not under "protection" of the dhimma, and because there is no penalty in Islam for killing such unprotected Christians (or Jews, or anyone else who is not property of the Muslim state), Bin Laden et al believe they have carte blanche to kill Christians for whatever minor or major violations of Islamic laws they wish. They've also called the U.S. polytheist, perhaps in reference to the passage in Sura 9 which states that the Christians take Jesus as a son of Allah (9:30; there are other verses like this in the Koran which accuse the Christians of ascribing partners to Allah, particularly in relation to their belief in a divine Jesus). Zawahiri complained about those "Christian fanatic" Canadian soldiers fighting the jihadists in Afghanistan. We hear the jihadists talk about the "cross-worshippers," "Romans," "Crusaders," etc.
D'Souza doesn't understand the jihadist and "traditional Muslim" vocabulary. He thinks that the word "Christian" does not mean, to a jihadist, something like atheist or polytheist (i.e., a disbeliever in the oneness of Allah). D'Souza is mistaken in this respect because he is using a western notion of atheist and he assumes that jihadists are using the same concept. (If the jihadists were truly upset about atheists in the western sense of the term, they would be targetting that 1%-5% of Americans who are genuinely atheist, but they aren't; at least, not specifically). For the jihadists, and indeed the Koran itself, Christians are put into the category of disbeliever. The Koran states that disbelief is the worst crime; one of the major sins that is generally listed ahead of murder in the sahih Hadith. Whether atheist, Christian, Hindu, or whatever, all are considered disbelievers in Islam. D'Souza seems to be deluded by the "religious, therefore good" myth.
He also doesn't seem to realize that the jihadists and his friends (who he, in his delusion, claims share his core values), the "traditional Muslims," generally do not use morality per se. They follow Islamic divine commands and halal/haram rules, whereas modern Christians generally follow moral principles. Thus, D'Souza mistakes some superficial outward resemblances of morals for morals. The immorality of the jihadists and traditional Muslims (who want sharia law) is a consequence of their following Islamic divine commands and halal/haram rules. They are actively trying to pursue their goals and we (non-Muslims) are getting in their way. The U.S. is at the top of their list (literally) because it presents the biggest obstacle preventing them from implementing their Islamic imperialist and supremacist goals.
The bottom line to be addressed to D'Souza is this: They attacked us on 9/11 because they are immoral.
Carolyn2 said
Do you really think that people didn't "hook up" back in our grandparents' day?
And contrary to what might be inferred from watching Jerry Springer et al, most kids today are not having casual sex with random people they barely know.
I think sexual mores are pretty constant over time. I think what changes is our ability to talk openly about what has been happening all along.
I probably disagree with many here, and surely with D'Souza, when I dispute that the past was a time of moral purity and today is a time of decadence. I disagree with the whole premise.
I've just finished listening to the debate between Dileep D'Souza and Robert Spencer on the Al Cresta show and (as expected) Robert calmly tore all of Dileep's ridiculous arguments to shreds.
Razdan
What's with the re-naming of D'Souza as Dileep? He seems to go by 'Dinesh'. Initially, I thought it's a typo on your part, but now I see you did this two days in a row. Is there a buried joke underneath this that we might like be aware of?
Thanks for pointing this out and keeping me from continuing to make a fool of myself. If you could see my face.. its beet red. I guess I must be suffering from alzhymers. There was, incidentally, a fellow by the name of Dileep D'Souza with whom I've had frequent heated online discussions in the past.. which is probably why my hand insists on inadvertently typing Dileep instead of Dinesh.
Infidel Pride, anybody who debates Left-wingers in Indian circles knows that Dilip D'Souza is a snotty 20-something idle-rich brat who plays the game of bleeding-heart liberal, race-baiter, and just about everything else that ultra-leftist demagogues do:
http://dcubed.blogspot.com/
Find the most repulsive, smarmiest, manipulative, deceitful left-wing debator and writer you can find, and Dilip will exceed him by a thousandfold.
Thanks, Sanman
Razdan
Was he worse than Rohan Oberoi - the usenet thug who batted as well as he could for both Mohammedans and Leftists, while pretending to be right wing himself?
D'Souza, continuing to beat his dead horse long after his stick has broken and the carcass has begun putrifying, said
So Muslims today admire Qutb for criticising the U.S.A. in the 1950's, when the moral purity of the time was in sync with the Muslim world's, because Qutb, in writing about the 1950's, was actually writing about the decadent 1960's and 1970's (and I'm sure, beyond) that hadn't yet occurred? Why resort to such tortured logic?
Qutb would have criticized the decadence of the U.S.A. in 1776, 2007, or anytime in between. Muslims would have agreed with him in 1776, 2007, or anytime in between. The U.S.A. has never been in sync with Muslim culture or Muslim religious values. Never.
If that makes America "decadent", okay. If that makes Dar al Islam "fanatic", okay. It's just namecalling between two incompatible belief systems and cultures, there's no substance to it. But what offends is D'Souza's recommendation of replacing our culture with theirs, in order not to anger them. I don't intend to go along with them "the easy way" (D'Souza) or "the hard way" (OBL), I intend to stay right here, doing the same things the same way I've always done them, thank you very f'ing much. I'm just not interested in what they're selling. I don't need someone in Abu Dhabi or Islamabad or Tripoli, telling me how to run my life.
I listened to most of the debate today. Robert was calm and efficient. Dinesh was verbose, as usual, using the same tired slogans like the sign he saw in India that read, modernization, not westernization. He is limited in his points but relays them well due to excessive repetition.
Robert needs to keep hammering home the point that OK, so what, so conservative or more traditional cultures in all different theological societies tend to frown on American decadence as revealed through our popular culture. So what? Then why is it that only Muslims feel so aggrieved that they kill because of it.
I also don't really like the way D'Souza has seemingly successfully identified Islamic jihad as "Bin Laden type radical Islam", but I understand that D'Souza won't debate the contents of the Qur'an directly with Robert, because he can't. In fact nobody can, because the text historically, and as applied today, speaks for itself.
I missed the end so I don't know if Dinesh said he felt like a "mosquito in a nudist colony". He is clever and disarming however, semmingly agreeing with Robert on parts of nearly every point he made.
Dinesh D'Souza: Ask him for the time and he'll tell you how to build a watch, while simultaneosly blaming the American cultural left
for the need for timekeeping anyway.
Good job today Robert and remember, it is not who is victorious in the battle, but rather who wins the war.
Regards,
awake
SpecialGuest:
In your grandparents' day, "shacking up" was considered scandalous, not the norm. Out of wedlock pregnancies were dealt with with discrete adoptions or hasty marriages (ever hear of shotgun weddings?)
Social norms demanded that children be raised by both parents.
Carolyn2 said
Do you really think "hooking up" is an admirable change in US culture?
Do you really think that people didn't "hook up" back in our grandparents' day?
Of course they did. But you have to admit it is on a massive scale now. Look at the birth rates for unmarried girls these days. It is worse now.
But I do not think in any way that our being a more liberal, sexualized society has anything to do with the attacks on our country. After all Qubt was here in the 50's, for Pete's sake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
PS
And from what I have seen personally, I do think young people view sex like a handshake. Not knowing someone's last name before sex is pretty darn casual.
TheVeiledThreat said
Carolyn2 said
People back then had sex outside of marriage too, they just didn't talk about it. And when the inevitable pregnancy occurred, the shotgun wedding followed, and the child was born into a happily wedded family.
Our grandparents didn't live as cloistered nuns and priests until the day of their wedding. They smoked and drank and hit each other and cussed and coveted and everything else.
The behavior hasn't changed, the society's reaction to it has. As TheVeiledThreat said, back then, it was "scandalous", today, it's not as much of a big deal.
Really? I mean you see this yourself, and it isn't some friend of a friend telling what they heard? Are you sure?
After that smackdown from Kantor, D'Souza should give up. D'Souza the grown-ups have spoken, you had better take that ball and go home. I'm sure at this point that the likes of Spenser and Hugh would be embarrassed to debate him further - it's like stealing candy from a kid.
In the above, it should have been "Spencer and Hugh". Thanks
Khaybar Oasis -- Right On! D'Souza views American tolerance of nasty lyrics, pornography, secularism, etc., as a reason morally traditional Muslims could support the mass killing of innocents. Seems an odd definition of morality to me.
Really? I mean you see this yourself, and it isn't some friend of a friend telling what they heard? Are you sure?
Posted by: special_guest
High schools have nurseries to care for the babies of students now. A doctor friend of mine told me about delivering a baby to a 10 year old girl. Things are worse now.
I do not know how old you are special_guest, but in my lifetime I can see the difference.
Infidel Pride, don't get me started about Rohan Oberoi. I've debated that SOB all over the internet. I'm the reason why that mofo has to now at least make a pretense of acknowledging the rationality of conservative arguments. He's another 30-something idle rich brat, who's been around a little longer than Dilip.
Anyway, I'd always figured that one day Dinesh would waver from his conservative facade and turn hypocritical. Now that his conservatism is faltering, I say good riddance to bad rubbish.