Jihad Watch reader Eric sent me a link to the Letters to the Editor page of Crisis magazine, a Catholic publication. On it are various reactions to an interview with Dinesh D'Souza that ran in the February/March issue. I didn't see it, but in it I am sure D'Souza retailed his usual nonsense.
One letter caught my eye:
I have been reading pretty much everything I can get my hands on about Islam lately, and I have never read anything as enlighteningly sane and as spiritually bull’s-eyed as the Dinesh D’Souza interview, “Knowing the Enemy: Dinesh D’Souza on Islam, America, and the Left’s Responsibility for 9/11,” in the February/March crisis. Thank you for the light.Peter Kreeft
I knew Peter Kreeft many years ago. He is a good man, a superb teacher, and the author of some witty and useful books. He is also the author of a book almost as spectacularly wrongheaded as D'Souza's, and for almost the same reasons. Kreeft's is called Ecumenical Jihad, and in it he counsels alliances with Islamic groups with the same disregard of the realities of Islamic supremacism and dhimmitude that D'Souza displays. At least Kreeft's has the excuse of having been written sometime in the 1990s, long before 9/11.
Anyway, after another letter-writer recommends my books, along with those of Robin Wright, David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Daniel Ali, Andrew G. Bostom, George Grant, Steven Emerson, and Serge Trifkovic, D'Souza weighs in with his by-now dispiritingly familiar straw man tactics:
Writers like Spencer have made a career out of selective quotations, making it look like the whole religion is violent, and citing people of no consequence as if they are speaking for Islam as a whole.
I just sent this letter to Crisis:
In his response to various letters in Crisis, Dinesh D'Souza has charged that I "have made a career out of selective quotations, making it look like the whole religion is violent, and citing people of no consequence as if they are speaking for Islam as a whole."In this he demonstrates yet again that he has no familiarity with my work, and prefers to misrepresent it rather than take the trouble of learning what I actually say. If he read my books, he would discover that I discuss all the verses -- peaceful and violent -- relating to non-Muslims in the Qur'an, and explain how emphasis and preference is given to the violent verses not by me, but by mainstream Muslim exegetes including Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti and others. Nor do I cite "people of no consequence" to show that such violent interpretations are mainstream, not marginal, in Islam today, unless D'Souza believes that the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, whom the BBC some years ago called “the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims,” and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (of Al-Jazeera and IslamOnline fame), who has been called "the closest thing the Islamic world has to a pope," are marginal.
It is a pity that Crisis is giving such space to such an irresponsible and inaccurate writer as Dinesh D'Souza.
We'll see if they print it. I suppose in any case I should count my blessings: at least this time he didn't call me a Torah-thumping, fit-throwing hatemonger.
Ya know...
I really don't put much into what this guy says, and here's why...
...if for no other reason, it's the same methodology he uses that I so castigate the kook-fringe conspiracy nuts (like the "9/11 inside job" BS,forget the fact's long been dismissed)...
...but that aside, while many of his little factoids are, or appear to be, true, there's a problem with it. Much like the "all dogs are cats" example...
Factoid 1- cats eat meat
Factoid 2- dogs eat meat
Conclusion- all dogs are cats
That's nearly identical to the Modus Operandi of such nutcase frauds like michael moore, those fraud kooks that did loose change (I call it "loose cannons", especially since one of the authors isn't the military vet he claims, and simple search of their supporters shows an unquestionably mega-left tilt, above & beyond rational liberal-conservative, democrat-republican, or even tory-labour political engagement...absolutely beyond absurd)
Many of the faults and failings of society, in this case, ours, may prove true, but reaching the conclusions that Souza does goes beyond rational discussion and, for me, deserves no consideration for a healthy engagement.
Mr Souzas take, though most of the factOIDS are true, makes a leap that even Evel Knievel can't make, and only diminishes the message the rest of us are attempting.
I don't give that guy the time of day.
We've more important things to do than to have to waste time & energy engaging someone who reminds me of Pat Buchannan.
End of story.
It's a real shame about Peter Kreeft. He gets many things spot on, but he seems to have a blind spot where it comes to islam. I think it may be because he sees the preeminent danger of the age to be moral relativism, and so is far less concerned about islam than he should be.
For those who think Robert just uses selective quotes. Please read the following about Danish linguist Tina Magaard:
Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions, concludes Tina Magaard. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. “The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," says Tina Magaard. Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths. “If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims themselves how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is," says Tina Magaard.
Pretty soon Dr D'Souza will be sending his meaningless diatribes to highlights for children where they will be immortalized in the memories of children with ear aches .A terrible fate indeed
jewdog,
Can you provide a reference to the Tina Magaard excerpt?
Looks like interesting reading and I'd like to read more.
As for DeSouza, I thought he went into hiding after his logic was found wanting and his ego couldn't deal with it.
Educated beyond his intelligence. I really wish he would just leave our country. Could you do that for us DiDi? That would be an enormous favor to us all especially our women. Oh he will say that this is his country as well but it isn’t, he has no idea what being an American means and never will. He came here to get rich off of us, well he has so why doesn’t he take his big fat wad of greasy money and get out? We have lots of his type living here (using us) these days and we are going to pay for it.
The problem is Mr. Kreeft and Mr. D'Souza both have been reading EVERYTHING they have been able to get their hands on about Islam.
In order to understand Islam, one does not first look in Islam at all as it is a neo religion based on an ancient order.
Until people get that point of where to look, they will be led around by the dolts spewing the same nonsense over and over.
Secondly, the misnomer of "Islam" is like the misnomer of Europeans who take in diverse peoples. One can never understand Islam by reading what some Lewis or D'Souza conjure up as Islam daily evolves by each imam, cleric and ayatollah "discerning" by their own prejudice what the Koran states.
Islamocommunists see it as a violent collective. Islamofascists see it as a violent force to be implied. Muslim Brotherhood see it as a political / violent force. Some are diety moon god bound and others are secular.
Until people actually read, study and understand the psychopahty behind Islam in the people speaking for it, they will come up with wrong conclusions. Read Zawahiri sometime from his entire thought process and key phrases start popping up to reveal what he is.
Islam will not reveal what a Zawahiri is or what he is up to. Only the people will reveal where they are taking Islam.
It is a shame that the Catholic press bothered with D'Souza when Pope Ben is light years ahead in understanding exactly what is going on. The current Pope should be the one Catholic Crisis is listening to as he knows things D'Souza is incapable of computing.
Interesting take...much like:
Why study to understand why a mosquito bites you?
And who cares? Call an exterminator.
One needn't study the islamic scripture or anything else like that to understand islamists.
Only one book need apply:
Sun Tzu: The Art of War.
The rest are incidental follow-ups.
Si' Vis Pacem Parabellum
Dinesh: the oppressor of all women. A man who agrees with Islam on the treatment of women. A man who will not rest until all women are subjugated to men, and preferably Islamic men at that.
Sarc off
I haven't read everything Dinesh has written but I think Dinesh simply has his facts wrong about Islam and what our response to it should be. At this point, I do not read all of his personal opinions into it. I don't know all of his personal opinions.
I do know of the debate between him and RS though. RS is of course correct, IMHO. And if Dinesh called RS, "a Torah-thumping, fit-throwing hatemonger." Then I can conclude that Dinesh has become a "horses ass" of sorts. But all of this "great oppressor of women," stuff seems largely unfounded. I could be wrong about that too though I suppose.
Sorry about the "horses ass" crack (d'oh!) but I couldn't think of any other term to describe what I had in mind. Perhaps I should have just said "idiot."
It is a shame that the Catholic press bothered with D'Souza when Pope Ben is light years ahead in understanding exactly what is going on.
Actually Pope Benedict views Islam more similarly to Dinesh than to Robert.
Hugh took to me to task a few weeks ago for mentioning that Dinesh is Catholic, when various posters here assumed he is Hindu. But Dinesh's Catholicism is relevant. His Catholic beliefs explain his favorable view of Islam better than his Indian background. That's why Dinesh's stance towards Islam is shared by famous Catholic writers like Peter Kreeft..and even by Pope Benedict:
Benedict XVI admires in Islam the certainty based on faith, which contrasts with the West where everything is relativized; and he admires in Islam the sense of the sacred, which instead seems to have disappeared in the West. He has understood that a Muslim is not offended by the crucifix, by religious symbols: this is actually a laicist polemic that strives to eliminate the religious from society. Muslims are not offended by religious symbols, but by secularized culture, by the fact that God and the values that they associate with God are absent from this civilization.
Also, recall that Benedict's secretary of state condemned the Danish cartoons, indicating perhaps that the Holy See thinks civil authority should curb offensive free expression:
It is necessary to defuse the anti-Islamic grudge nettling in many hearts, despite the endangering of the life of many Christians. Furthermore the steadfast condemnation of forms of derision of religion – and here I am also referring to the episode of the irreverent satirical cartoons that inflamed the Islamic masses at the beginning of this year – is an essential precondition for condemning the exploitation of it.
In short: Most Catholic leaders are probably more inclined to distrust Oriana Fallaci than Dinesh's Grand Mufti of Egypt. I hope Robert can help reverse this. But these are the facts on the ground.
I remember Mr. D'Souza from back in my college days. Back then, he seemed to be a conservative. I think he argued against affirmative action in college admissions among other things. The conservatives I hung around with back then, including myself, all supported him. I can not believe he has turned out like this. I never would have thought it. But, as they say 'seeing is believing'.
I have much respect for a woman like Oriana Fallaci. Would that there were more of them today. A Feminist? Perhaps but she began to really grasp the effects Islam is having on the West today. And yes, she was called a racist for it.
This does not speak well of the Catholic church.
And if Dinesh called RS, "a Torah-thumping, fit-throwing hatemonger....."
Posted by: Pere des lumieres
That is outrageous and must not go uncondemned. I was once called a "Bible humper". Meaning that I have sex with the Bible. The person who said that to me never has apologized. I do not think it would even be condemned in today's world.
I disagree Pere. I do not think Oriana was a feminist. At least not like the ones today. She believed in Italians retaining their own unique identities and how Islam was threatening that. On those terms, feminists today would even call her a racist right along with Moslems.
Here is one piece from the WSJ about her;
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tvaradarajan/?id=110006858
To see what I mean about todays feminists look at this, not by a Moslem, but by a western feminist named Judy Harris. It is these types of feminist I despise!
"In recent years, Fallaci moved sharply to the right, and became an obsessive, xenophobic racist, producing three short, incendiary post-9/11 books.."
Read it all if you have the stomach;
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10983
I wish Oriana was still alive today.
I don't know anything about Peter Kreeft, except for his letter, and, from that, he clearly has a blind spot when it comes to Islam.
Tragically, it's a blind spot shared by some very intellegent people in the Western world -- especially in the academic and political worlds, where it can do the most damage.
I would like to make excuses for these people, but find that somewhat difficult in light of the ample evidence available to them as to the true nature Islam. How do they manage to ignore that evidence -- evidence that stares them right in the face and demands to be recognized?
The answer I think is that they want desperately to believe that their ideological and moral view of the world is shared by everyone else on the planet, that it is not possible that there other people that might not share their love of democracy, Interpret human rights differently than themselves or live by a moral code diametrically opposed to their own.
There's nothing new in this tendency of politicians and academics to retreat into fantasy worlds in order to avoid facing reality. The British and French did it at Munich, praising the monster sitting accross the table from them as a reasonable man who wanted nothing more than justice for the German people -- despite the ample evidence Hitler provided to them as to his true nature. Academics in American universities made excuses for, and even praised Communist countries, for the social justice they were delivering to their inhabitants, ignoring the thousands of escapees from those asylums who provided them mountains of stories and evidence as to what really went on in those paradises.
Nothing seemed to phase them, just as nothing will phase Mr. Keeft or Mr. D'Sousa or all the other appologists for Islam. They prefer the comfortable bubbles they live in, and there's very little that can burst those bubbles. Theirs is a sel-induced, willful ignorance. Period.
D'Souza is a legend! Not the good kind either. He has to win this years Dhimmi award. I know it so hard to pick them from one year to the next (so many dhimmis) but come on it would give Mr. Spencer a smile seeing D'Sozua in cartoon with head down holding his just award.
A true legend! I just hope Carter stay quiet until then because he is the only one who can win it every year if nominated. I always is good from something stupid each year.
I = He
With that last post I should get the anti-spellcheck award of the year...jeeze!
stay = stays...
Nevermind...
greatcomet,
You said it! Spelling errors notwhithstanding.
re: Dinesh DSouza. The sooner he fades away into oblivion the better. He should be ignored whenever possible.
re: Oriana Fallaci. If she is considered a feminist then I am that type of feminist too! RIP
I am familiar with Peter Kreeft from his excellent arguments against moral relativism, which can be listened to online here:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism.htm
But how does a Catholic moral absolutist become an islam apologist? Peter above comments: "I think it may be because he sees the preeminent danger of the age to be moral relativism, and so is far less concerned about islam than he should be." That seems intuitively right as an explanation from where Kreeft is likely coming from but rationally his position makes no sense whatsoever. How could one defend just any form of moral absolutism on the grounds that it is superior to moral relativism? If different absolutist beliefs are viewed as equally legitimate, how is that any different from moral relativism? That is an incoherent position.
It might be useful to email D'Souza and ask him what he has to say to Robert Spencer's response above.
The Hoover Institution, where Sidney Hook and Robert Conquest and many others have worked, where the archives of so many, including the unrivalled material on 20th century Russia, including the papers of Mark Vishniak and Kerensky and Victor Serge and Boris Bekhmeteff and many others (I may be wrong about a name or two, but another dozen could be put in their stead).
And if the Hoover Institution was possibly the best place in the world to study twentieth century Russian history, including the Revolution and Civil War and the victory of the Bolsheviks, and then the period of Stalin's rule and the Thaw and then the 17 years of Brezhnev, and then finally the collapse, it may wish not to rest on that past but to become the best place to study Islam in the West -- study it without the distracting presence of the professional apologists and the ignorant. And Dinesh D'Souza fits both of those categories. He is not helping the reputation of the Hoover, and they hardly need him for any reason. One wonders if the place where clear-headed Sidney Hook and Robert Conquest both worked will be able to endure the embarrassment of D'Souza much longer. The Hoover Institution did nothing to deserve him, and they owe themselves getting rid of his continuing embarrassing presence as soon as they can.
I have always been a Torah thumper and a fit thrower but I didnt know I was in such good company until I read the article above.
I always thump on my Bible and whisper--"Your within and I want to know you more and more".
I admit it, I throw a fit every time a school girl, priest , principal, pastor, housewife, etc. is either raped and or beheaded by this "peaceful" cult known as Islam.
I also know that neither Robert or myself are hatemongers. In fact, we rather LOVE all those who dont know the One who rose from the dead. If they "knew" Him as we Know Him they wouldnt do the things they do. We certainly dont love the "things" they do. Monger means "pusher". We aint the ones pushing hate--They are!
Have you ever noticed that what a person is doing themselves is what they tend to accuse someone else of doing.
It seems Dinesh be de one throwin de "fit"!!
LONERANGER - Google "Tina Magaard" and you should come up with "Fjordman" - a Scandinavian pundit who appears frequently in Faith Freedom International, Ali Sina's apostate website where I first read about her. I like her scientific approach.
BTW - I also thought D'Souza was done for, but I guess you can't keep a good fool down.
Hey, I'm a feminist and I would never, NEVER, agree with the aforementioned "Judy Harris" 's liberal, PC remarks about Oriana Fallaci.
To "Aussiegirl" - Yes, we are the Oriana Fallaci-type of feminist! Can't get much prouder than that!
So, would appreciate all feminists not being painted with the same brush. Thanks.
Back in February I e-mailed D'Souza commenting on his Washington Post article. I mentioned: honor killings, FGM, forced marriages of young girls to old men, polygamy, rape, incest, domestic violence, stoning, acid-throwing on females, forced black curtains for clothes, apostasy punished by death - and guess what?
NO RESPONSE! WHY? BECAUSE HE COULD NOT REFUTE A SINGLE THING I SAID - ALL FACTS.
I've noticed that when you confront Muslims with facts (and D'Souza is a Muslim sympathizer), they get quiet. Real quiet. The hypocrites!
The D'Souzas of the world are getting outrun by the facts of Islamic terrorizing of non-Muslims. I have two people in my life who are the very definition of moderation. After conversations with both of them this week, they admitted that I've been right about Islam all along and are coming around to my views on what needs to be done, which are so extreme I dare not post them on Jihad Watch, mainly out of respect for the moderators wish to keep the site free from material that can be cherry-picked by our enemies.
D'Souza reminds me more and more of the "moderate" voices in the 1930's who cautioned against opposing Nazism and Commmunism, because it would be: A) very difficult and dangerous and might-start-a-war-we-didn't-have-thepower-to-win; and: B) would alienate those within each movement who would otherwise be our natural allies.
Those '30's fools were shown to be delusional and suicidal.
As this fool is being shown to be.
There is no such thing as a "moderate" Koran.
He fails to understand this fundamental fact.
All else that follows from him is thus blithering bilge.
When I was a child, I used to like to visit the monkey house at the zoo. As an adult, I take little pleasure in watching monkeys chatter and swing from one precipice to another vantage point.
So, it is with amnesiacs, like D'Excusa. His amnesia with regards to the inherent violent teachings of Schizlam neither amuses nor captivates. He may chatter and swing from one exuse to another, but his machinations cannot obfuscate the obvious.
D'Excusa will not engage in a point-by-point discussion of the meanings and practical application of Schizlam. Nor, will he admit that
Islam is at the root of the current violent jihad that is sweeping Asia, Africa, the Middle East and encroaching on Europe and America.
Caroline, you say:
"But how does a Catholic moral absolutist become an islam apologist? Peter above comments: "I think it may be because he sees the preeminent danger of the age to be moral relativism, and so is far less concerned about islam than he should be." That seems intuitively right as an explanation from where Kreeft is likely coming from but rationally his position makes no sense whatsoever. How could one defend just any form of moral absolutism on the grounds that it is superior to moral relativism? If different absolutist beliefs are viewed as equally legitimate, how is that any different from moral relativism? That is an incoherent position."
And you have nailed the logic so well that I just had to repeat what you said. Congratulations.
BTW, I haven't seen a post from you ij a while. Where have you been??
Hi Texan - just a change in my workload the past few months that has had me bringing work home when I used to enjoy posting in the evening.
Dinesh needs to move and live in an islamic country for awhile...... preferably saudi arabia or libya....
As a Catholic, I too have concerns about "moral relativism" but D'Souza's inability to put such concerns in perspective/context reveals a lack of critical thinking in my view.
Is "Good" better than a relativistic morass? Sure. However, a relativistic morass is better than "Evil". Jihad is evil---defeating evil has to be the highest priority.
You should not knowingly invite a murderous psychopath into your house to remove an insect problem or to fix a plumbing leak.
D'Souza states in the same letter in CRISIS magazine's February/March issue in which he accuses you of having "made a career of selective quotations":
"These issues are discussed at length in The Enemy at Home. Briefly, there have been many Islamic empires, and none of them has forced Jews and Christians—or Hindus for that matter—to convert or be killed. None has “imposed” Islam..."
That makes him equally guilty of "selective quotations" or, rather' "selective NON-quotations", doesn't it!