| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Dinesh D'Souza has written a spectacularly wrongheaded and potentially immensely damaging new book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, in which he argues essentially that the jihadists hate us because we are immoral. It is, of course, already getting lavish attention from those who, out of political correctness and fear, as well as a miscalculation of the most effective ways to deal with the problem we face, have steadily ignored the jihad ideology and its influence among those who are waging war against the U.S. and its allies.
D'Souza showed up in a National Review Q & A with Kathryn Lopez yesterday, wherein he breezily discounted the possibility that they hate us because of imperatives arising from within the Islamic religion.
Lopez: On Islam: It has been argued that the Koran itself is violent. That moderate Muslims, in fact, have to distance themselves from more than Osama bin Laden. Is it possible that you are part of the not-understanding-the-threat-we-face problem by suggesting that line of examination be shut down?D’Souza: I’m not urging that any line of inquiry be “shut down.”
It's ironic that this question would even have been asked and answered, since, with the notable and noble exception of the articles of Andrew McCarthy, this line of inquiry has effectively been shut down at National Review. For reasons I do not know, after my 2005 skirmish with Rich Lowry over J. L. Menezes' book on Muhammad, NR has tended to shy away from considering the possibility that there might be something within Islam that fuels jihad terror -- Lowry, if I understand him correctly, thinks (as does D'Souza -- see below) that to do so alienates moderates. This is ironic, however, because by declining, at least so far, to enter into this discussion they cut the ground out from under those moderates, by pretending that nothing in Islam actually needs reform.
I'd like to invite Kathryn Lopez and NR to take D'Souza's words to heart and not shut down this line of inquiry. I'd be happy to debate D'Souza in the pages of National Review or at NRO on whether or not there is something about Islam that fuels today's jihad violence, and whether our immorality is the paramount cause of jihad. I contend that, pace D'Souza, that we could be the most moral people on earth and the jihad would continue nevertheless. The Qur'an (9:29) directs Muslims to fight Jews and Christians, not just immoral Jews and Christians. What has changed in the last 25 years is the material ability of Muslims to pursue the jihad imperative.
After all, Egyptian jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb was enraged by the immorality of the dancing at a church social in Colorado in the late 1940s; how immoral do you think that dancing really was, compared to today's standards? Yet despite its relative innocuousness, it still enraged him. He would not have been pacified by anything short of full Islamic separation of the sexes, and the covering of women. In other words, he would not have been satisfied by anything short of our islamization.
D'Souza continues:
I’m saying it’s foolish to blame Islam when Islam has been around for 1,300 years and Islamic terrorism has been a problem for the past 25 years.
I expect in this D'Souza is dating the beginning of Islamic terrorism to the Khomeini revolution in Iran in 1979. This suggests that he does not regard the relentless jihad against Israel as "Islamic terrorism"; that he doesn't regard the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood, the direct forerunner of Hamas and Al-Qaeda, in Egypt in 1928 as having anything to do with "Islamic terrorism"; and that he either doesn't know or care that the ideology held by Osama bin Laden and other jihad terrorists today is identical to that held by jihad armies of the past, which overwhelmed and islamized the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, and significant portions of Europe and Asia.
So is it even reasonable to blame Mohammad or the Koran? I realize that you can fish out this passage or that passage and make it sound like the Muslims want to convert or kill everybody. But that would be like taking passages out of the Old Testament to make Moses sound like Hitler.
Would it really? The question here is who is doing the fishing. D'Souza refers to Osama's communiques -- what about all the Qur'an quotes in them? Here's the one from November 24, 2002. Lots of Qur'an in it. As I have pointed out many, many times, jihadists quote Qur'an and Hadith copiously, and portray themselves as the exponents of "pure Islam." It is not "Islamophobes" who are "fish[ing] out this passage or that passage," it is the jihadists. Are we to avoid examining this phenomenon and discussing its implications because of fear of "blam[ing] blame Mohammad or the Koran"? Would it not be more prudent to explore it and try to formulate positive ways to deal with it?
After all, there is no body of Jews corresponding to the Islamic jihadists, quoting the Old Testament to justify Hitlerian genocide. And that's why D'Souza's analogy fails utterly.
And also, Muslims don't want to "convert or kill everybody." That is a false oversimplification. Muhammad commanded Muslims to convert or subjugate or kill everybody. And that explains much of what D'Souza brings up next:
Besides, you have to look at what the Islamic empires actually did. There were Christians and Jews who lived under the various Muslim dynasties, from the Abbasid to the Ottoman. In fact, Jews were much safer in the Ottoman empire than in just about any of the Christian kingdoms, such as that of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain.
In fact, Jews as dhimmis were in Ottoman domains, as Andrew Bostom put it in an email to me, "subject to grinding persecution interspersed with massacres." Bostom says that D'Souza's contention that "Jews were much safer in the Ottoman empire than in just about any of the Christian kingdoms" is flatly false. In fact, "it was a cycle of going from Islamdom to Christendom to Islamdom -- the Almohads slaughtered and forcibly converted thousands of Jews whose survivors fled to Christian areas of Spain, like the Kingdom of Aragon, where they were welcomed. Then the descendants of these Jews fled the Inquisition for the Ottoman Empire, filling a void created by the slaughter and deportation ["surgun" in Turkish] of the Jews conquered by the Ottoman jihad against the Byzantine Empire."
D'Souza continues:
The Mughals ruled northern India for 200 years. They could have forcibly converted the Hindus or killed all of them. But they did no such thing.
Bostom: "BOTH were done, under the Mughals, especially Aurangzeb and their predecessors in the Delhi Sultanate, some of whom were known as killers of lakhs of Hindus, each lakh being 100,000. Indeed, not all Hindus were killed, although that was pined for by some leading Muslim ulema like Shah Wali Allah, who went so far as to invite a brutal Afghan invasion of 'his' country in the 18th century because the Afghan Muslims were more fanatical."
D'Souza:
So we have to be careful about simply describing a religion of one billion people as “violent.” This would be tactically imprudent even if it were true, but it is not true, so why repeat a canard that has the terrible effect of driving the traditional Muslims into the radical camp?
Although this idea is taken for granted by most analysts, no one has ever yet explained to me why describing Islam as containing elements that incite to violence will make otherwise peaceful Muslims become violent or begin to condone religious violence. Why wouldn't it lead them to begin much more active reform efforts? D'Souza thinks talking about the elements of Islam that give rise to violence is "tactically imprudent"; I think his avoiding doing so is tactically disastrous. He wants to foster the growth of an Islam that accepts the idea of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims by ignoring the elements of Islam that make this increasingly difficult in the modern world. Yet while D'Souza is calling upon us to ignore these elements of Islam, jihad terrorists are not ignoring them. They continue to use them to recruit and motivate terrorists. Thus in reality the only viable way to encourage moderate Muslims is to help them confront and reject these elements of Islam, so as to forestall such recruitment.
So how about it, Ms. Lopez? Mr. D'Souza? I am up for a debate anytime you're ready.
Posted by Robert at January 17, 2007 11:10 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
When will we hate them more than we hate ourselves?
Posted by: TheOmegaMan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 17, 2007 1:16 PM
Robert,
This Dinesh D'Souza was on The Colbert Report on Comedy Central yesterday and it made me utterly sick. He couldn't have been more wrong about what he was saying. You might be able to watch it on youtube.com or something like that. It was despicable. However, your posting just shows how much knowledge you have on this subject and how little Ms. Lopez or Mr. D'Souza. Maybe you and Hugh can do something like a tag-team debate on these two boneheads.
Cordially,
Patriot_1/17
at January 17, 2007 1:17 PM
Patriot:
They aren't boneheads by any means. In any case, I very much doubt they will agree to debate in NR -- I may get a chance to debate Mr. D'Souza elsewhere.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 17, 2007 1:20 PM
There should be a new category of dhimmwits called:
"Religious Relativists"
The religious relativist believes that Moslems are just basically Jews with different colored yarmulkas on. See the beard? See the fasting? See the communal prayers?
Moslems do act a little Jewish when they are in the minority. But as their numbers increase, well...
COMETH THE BEAST!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at January 17, 2007 1:24 PM
I also saw D'Souza on Colbert last night and he referred to the West's culpability in 9/11 by tracing it back to the 1979 Iranian revolution. His view seemed to be that Americans helped the Iranian revolution along by deciding to withdraw support from the Shah. We decided he wasn't good enough for us, only to find that the cure for the Shah's despotism was worse than the disease. In so doing, we (Jimmy Carter) unleashed a violent movement in and on the Islamic world. (Colbert didn't let him finish his argument, but went off in another direction.)
How do we argue with that? The Left complains that we support "right wing dictators", but whom do they support? Left wing dictators.
The difference is that the RWDs didn't seek our destruction and they weren't theocrats, unlike the LWD.
D'Souza is going to be on C-SPAN2's "In Depth" for three hours the first Sunday in February. Should be interesting.
at January 17, 2007 1:25 PM
Two questions I would like to ask Mr. D'Souza if I had the chance: (1)Which Islamic country would he, as a Catholic, like to live in on a full-time permanent basis? (2) I concede the that Western morals are lax, yet why do Muslims rape nuns in Egypt, behead Orthodox priests in Iraq and kill Catholic monks in Lebanon? Those people, whose lives were lived in the East, not the West, were also leading moral lives and yet suffered in the name of Islam.
Posted by: maryrose at January 17, 2007 1:25 PM
I would like to believe that the majority of people who preach the peaceful nature of Islam are doing so in good faith, but the more I read and learn, the more it sounds like dangerous ignorance and escapism.
Posted by: deseeded at January 17, 2007 1:26 PM
The comment: "Jews were much safer in the Ottoman empire than in just about any of the Christian kingdoms" -- Martin Kramer in his text Islamic Imperialism has a nice rejoinder -- I don't have the exact reference at hand -- but Kramer says it's always very easy to have "moderns" speaking on behalf of the subjects of Ottoman tyranny and exclaiming about what a fine time was had by all -- but the actual victims of the Ottoman Empire (now dead) may have a very different tale to tell.
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 1:28 PM
J.S.
Islamic Imperialism is by Efraim Karsh, not Martin Kramer.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 17, 2007 1:29 PM
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2
Moslems do act a little Jewish when they are in the minority. But as their numbers increase, well...
THIS COULD EXPLAIN WHY
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/
Posted by: shiva at January 17, 2007 1:31 PM
Anybody remember the Ionesco play "THE RHINOCEROS"? It was supposedly about Nazis, but maybe Ionesco was on to something bigger.
In Ionesco's theatre of the absurd piece, a nice little European capital experiences a growing phenomenon of rampaging rhinoceroses. Nobody sees a thing even as the situation becomes absurdly unavoidable.
Time to re-read this play.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at January 17, 2007 1:33 PM
"I’m saying it’s foolish to blame Islam when Islam has been around for 1,300 years and Islamic terrorism has been a problem for the past 25 years".
How can someone of his stature say something so blatantly ridiculous? I'd expect this from one of the peaceful ones or one of their lapdogs but this guy really should know better. Does he really believe that Islam was all peace and niceness for 1275 years and then all of a sudden it turned evil? Apalling to say the least.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 17, 2007 1:33 PM
Ynkedoodl2:
My comments in this FrontPage symposium may interest you:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25240
And your point is well taken. I would have thought D'Souza, especially after making the excellent point that freedom is an essential prerequisite for genuine morality, and hence the Islamic world is not as moral as it would like to think it is, would have been one of the last rhinoceri. Alas, I was wrong.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 17, 2007 1:35 PM
Yes! Quite right, it's Karsh --not Kramer (I don't have the text at hand) -- old age, sigh...
Oh, btw, did you hear about the "reform" and "secularism" of Islam meeting to take place? It was mentioned on Glenn Beck the other night.
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 1:38 PM
Yeah, those Russian schoolchildren were really asking for it weren't they.
Posted by: Celsius at January 17, 2007 1:41 PM
"On March 4-5, 2007, the first ever Secular Islam Summit will convene in St. Petersburg Florida." from secularislam.org
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 1:41 PM
I once thought very highly of Mr D'Souza back in the 90s when he was repudiating multuculturalism. God, what a disappointment he turned out to be.
Posted by: Cornelius at January 17, 2007 1:47 PM
The Mughals ruled northern India for 200 years. They could have forcibly converted the Hindus or killed all of them. But they did no such thing.
COMPLETE FUCKIN' NONSENSE!
The Mughals tried their best to bring India into Dar-ul-Islam. They did all they could - impose jizya, destroy temples, slaughter and behead noncombatatants and forcibly convert them into Islam - but they have failed miserably! This is despite all the bloodshed and misery brought upon the Hindus.
It is wishful thinking to assume that if Muslims had so desired, they could've really finished off (converted) the Hindus. They (Muslims) were here for 800 years (beware of misinformation folks... the Left thrives on misinformation... India was under Muslim rule for 800 years with the Mughals having a share of about 350 years i.e., from the First Battle Of Panipat (1526 CE) to the 1857 War Of Independance), tried really very hard to convert all Hindus but failed miserably. It must be one of the biggest failed conversion programs ever, something that Islamists simply cannot digest because everytime they think about it, it hits them hard in the groin, with the force of a 500 pound sand bag dropping from the 10th floor of a building.
They keep sending that Saudi petrodollar funded Islamist pig shit to bomb Indian cities in their quest to bring India under the Dar-ul-Islam because they are oblivious to the fact that they FAILED MISERABLY to convert the resilient Hindu for 800 years.
The time is coming when the world will break the back of the evil of Islamism forever. No more compulsory burkas, no more death fatwas, no more head severing, no more hand chopping, no more suicide bombing. The filth that Islamism brought into the world will be washed away until it meets and mixes with the sludge in the local sewer, which is its rightful place.
God help us!
An Indian and a Hindu.
at January 17, 2007 1:47 PM
HA! HA!
Islam was a problem SINCE MARCH, 624 SO WHAT IS THIS MUSLIM BASTARD TRYING TO SAY?!?
It all started with the first caravan attack on a Meccan convoy.
Where does the moron get the last 25 years being a problem?
What about the problems attacking the Armenians in the 8th century?
What about the attacks on the Byzantine Empire in 674 and 718?
What about the attacks on Jerusalem, Egypt, Carthage?
What about the invasions of Western Europe in 711 while the muslim occupation lasted 400 years before Europe got its head out of its butt and launched a counteroffensive that free that region?
What about the muslim occupation of southern Europe in the 1500's that lasted until the 1600's?
ISLAM HAS BEEN A PROBLEM AND CURSE ON THE PLANET SINCE THE 7TH CENTURY AND NOT THE LAST 25 YEARS!!
This guy should not try to tell the muslims have only been a problem for 2 decades because the history books tell me they have been a disease on humanity for 13 centuries.
at January 17, 2007 1:48 PM
I guess 25 years of terrorism includes almost a 100 years ago when Lawrence of Arabia wearing turbans as if Muslims caught him they would have chopped his head off and includes 500 years ago when Muslims were poisoning water with WMD's to kill Crusaders.
Yup just a 25 year old problem.....
I can't get a publisher, but a nitwit can lol.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at January 17, 2007 1:51 PM
"On March 4-5, 2007, the first ever Secular Islam Summit will convene in St. Petersburg Florida." from secularislam.org
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 01:41 PM
Hopefully, it will be the last one as well, with all the attendees of this one either deported or in jail (where many of them most likely belong).
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 17, 2007 1:55 PM
"On March 4-5, 2007, the first ever Secular Islam Summit will convene in St. Petersburg Florida." from secularislam.org
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 01:41 PM
Hopefully, it will be the last one as well, with all the attendees of this one either deported or in jail (where many of them most likely belong).
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 17, 2007 1:56 PM
D'Souza continues:
"I’m saying it’s foolish to blame Islam when Islam has been around for 1,300 years and Islamic terrorism has been a problem for the past 25 years."
25 minutes of existence is too long to have to deal with the "problem" of Islamic terrorism, in my opinion.
"In Ionesco's theatre of the absurd piece, a nice little European capital experiences a growing phenomenon of rampaging rhinoceroses. Nobody sees a thing even as the situation becomes absurdly unavoidable."
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at January 17, 2007 01:33 PM
Ynkedoodl2,
I never read that play, but it sure mirrors the fact that Islam appears to be the "giant pink elephant" in the middle of the room that no one wants to talk about.
"Oh, btw, did you hear about the "reform" and "secularism" of Islam meeting to take place? It was mentioned on Glenn Beck the other night."
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 01:38 PM
J.S.,
Yes, I did, and I look forward to all 40 or so participants in it. Maybe 50 if Beck himself takes the nice lady up on her offer to attend.
at January 17, 2007 2:02 PM
D'Souza continues:
"I’m saying it’s foolish to blame Islam when Islam has been around for 1,300 years and Islamic terrorism has been a problem for the past 25 years."
25 minutes of existence is too long to have to deal with the "problem" of Islamic terrorism, in my opinion.
"In Ionesco's theatre of the absurd piece, a nice little European capital experiences a growing phenomenon of rampaging rhinoceroses. Nobody sees a thing even as the situation becomes absurdly unavoidable."
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at January 17, 2007 01:33 PM
Ynkedoodl2,
I never read that play, but it sure mirrors the fact that Islam appears to be the "giant pink elephant" in the middle of the room that no one wants to talk about.
"Oh, btw, did you hear about the "reform" and "secularism" of Islam meeting to take place? It was mentioned on Glenn Beck the other night."
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 01:38 PM
J.S.,
Yes, I did, and I look forward to all 40 or so participants in it. Maybe 50 if Beck himself takes the nice lady up on her offer to attend.
at January 17, 2007 2:06 PM
Thanks Robert for another good exhaustive write-up to expose the "tiny minority" deception broadcast over and over again. A timely article too since earlier today I had been researching the effects a politically correct language in society. I recommend the site History of Jihad to other readers in response to the nothing-wrong-with-Islam crowd.
Also relevant:
How Many Islamists?
Major Religions of the World
Want to really quantify Islam's aggression? Islam the Religion of Peace believe it or else.
at January 17, 2007 2:07 PM
It is surly not the fault of the cultural left for Islamic terrorism but I still blame them for their delusional belief that Christians and conservatives are a bigger threat to them. They don't even get that we are fighting for, among other things, the right for them to even exist. They should learn a little about just how much gays and women are prospering all over the Islamic world.
Posted by: Charles the Hammer at January 17, 2007 2:27 PM
Awake,
40 attendees?!! wow, that's a lot (just joking)...Yeah, I think they'll get about 10 speakers and the audience will be all non-Muslims. The ones most anxious to hear about "reformed Islam" are non-Muslims...(not Muslims)...that's my take. But, you know, it's a start...
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 2:30 PM
Robert again hits the nail squarely on the head. While pessimistic about the possibility, I hope that the NR folks take up his challenge of a public debate.
Posted by: Stendec at January 17, 2007 2:35 PM
I’m saying it’s foolish to blame Islam when Islam has been around for 1,300 years and Islamic terrorism has been a problem for the past 25 years.
I spent all that money on his book and now I find out that Dr. Bostom is a big fat liar.
at January 17, 2007 2:39 PM
I sincerely wish D'souza would have guts to face Spencer. It is interesting to see how politicians and their stooges are fighting each other just to grab power or headlines or attention while the medieval values are threatening the free world.
Posted by: pagan at January 17, 2007 2:41 PM
This D'Souza is a world-champion in shallowness. Don't bother, he doesn't deserve the light of day.
CNN is much more damaging: Christiane Amanpour, one who really should have learned a few lessons by now. Instead, she still peddles the same BS and keeps asking Islamic 'scholars' - instead of reading the Koran herself.
What a disaster - ruined a perfectly good dinner.
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/01/17/is-cnns-christiane-amanpour-on-the-take-also/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 17, 2007 2:43 PM
Maybe D'Souza's right, maybe we should start blaming dhimmis like him who enable the bloodshed to continue without blame. The muhajideen are just doing what the deathcult tells them. But all too many Westerners who should know better, turn a blind eye or even rationalize the barbaric behavior of terrorists. As a result, those of us who do know better are forced to live in a world that is a lot less safe. Partly due to the drivel of leaders and pundits who can't (or won't) connect the dots.
Posted by: Kevin Weakley at January 17, 2007 2:58 PM
An islamist cheerleader.
How long has slavery existed in the world? What, longer than 1300 years you say? Well who are we to denounce an institution that has those credentials?
at January 17, 2007 3:03 PM
he Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, in which he argues essentially that the jihadists hate us because we are immoral.
And just exactly HOW are WE immoral? Immoral compared to THEM???!!!!
Puhleez..
And WHAT IF WE ARE? They do NOT have to live among us.
GTFO. And goodbye.
Posted by: MeanieMo at January 17, 2007 3:04 PM
Dinesh D'Souza: "It’s foolish to blame Islam when Islam has been around for 1,300 years and Islamic terrorism has been a problem for the past 25 years"
Oh I had no idea they killed the Jews of Khaybar a mere 25 years ago. Maybe I need to go to college like this Dinesh fellow here.
at January 17, 2007 3:06 PM
D'Souza:
So we have to be careful about simply describing a religion of one billion people as “violent.” This would be tactically imprudent even if it were true, but it is not true, so why repeat a canard that has the terrible effect of driving the traditional Muslims into the radical camp?
Tactically imprudent *even if* it were true? So basically he is telling us to lay down and give up! He KNOWS it's true.
The sooner we label it for what it is - the sooner we can take effective measures to protect ourselves from this menace.
Posted by: MeanieMo at January 17, 2007 3:13 PM
I think that I have a miserable knowledge of our history, but I am still amazed at how much less others know. Over 200 years ago our nation paid millions in "tribute" to the Islamic Ottoman Empire, to keep their terrorist/pirates from attacking US interests abroad. This was a problem that Jefferson inherited when he took office. It was also our 1st war abroad and it gave rise to the part of the Marine Hymn "shores of Tripoli" I wrote a bit more about it in a post I titled Jefferson's Koran.
There are a few more links in the post, but really just Google Barbary Powers, Barbary Pirates. And as you are reading the stories that claim these guys were just pirates, ask yourself this: If these guys were just pirates then why did we pay tribute to the Ottoman Sultan to keep them at bay?
Convert, pay tribute, or fight. I'm glad Jefferson chose to fight. Wish more people made that choice today.
Posted by: Wally at January 17, 2007 3:15 PM
Yeah, those Russian schoolchildren were really asking for it weren't they.
Posted by: Celsius
Those immoral Russian kids. /sarc off
at January 17, 2007 3:17 PM
s_sgt7,
you're absolutely correct: "Until the pigs decide not to behave like pigs - that is when things will change."
The secular Islam conference will include speakers such as Ibn Warraq (author of the "Why I am not a Muslim"), along with other critics of Islamic practices...(http://secularislam.org/blog/post/summit/3/Speakers)
I think Dinesh D'Souza should be in the audience -- maybe he might learn something...then, again, he's probably already been bought 'n paid for by the Saudis.
at January 17, 2007 3:18 PM
D'Souza: "The traditional Muslims are our best bet. Besides, they’re not asking us to live like them. They’re asking us not to attack their religion, which conservatives do with depressing regularity. They’re asking us not to force secularism and separation of church and state on their society, another foolish cause to which some conservatives subscribe. And they would feel a lot better about America if they could see the “other” America, which is say, Red America, the America they don’t see on television, where people go to work and look after their families and subscribe to traditional values and go to church. Bush should project more of this America to the rest of the world, especially to the traditional cultures of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East."
So, if the Christian Conservatives and Neo-Cons would just align themselves with traditional Islam, peace and harmony will reign?
The placations of Uriah Heep come to mind. Traditional Muslims will stop attacking Christians in Colombia, Turkey, India and Indonesia? Algeria, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Islamic-dominated nations will stop killing and imprisoning Christians?
No, traditional Islam will allow no such tolerance of Christianity. Only Islam will reign supreme. The religious preferences and individual liberties of Christians in hostile, Islamic countries will continue to deprive non-Muslims of their rights to practice any religion but Islam.
D'Souza knows this. He is simply hoping that NR and the rest of the conservatives and Christians in America are so misinformed. His lip service to tolerance and shared ground with Christianity is an olive branch in the end of a rifle. Take the olive branch and the gun remains.
The separation of Islam from its status as a religion should be established. Islam is an anathema to American democracy and religious freedom. Like a thistle it chokes out all other religions wherever it transplants itself.
at January 17, 2007 3:21 PM
Terrorism, as the word is commonly used in contemporary parlance, was not a tool available to Islamists until recently.
1300 years ago, you couldn't fly jets into buildings hoping to get footage of it that would send shockwaves throughout the world, while having the most influential "intellectuals" blame the victims for provoking you, and being able to count on all of Europe to send out subtle and not-so-subtle messages saying, in effect, "We hate them as much as you do. Spare us!", nor did you have a billion frustrated coreligionists nursing the wounds of chronic failure in a world they once dominated.
You did have horses and swords, poisons, ships, arrows, spears, all that good stuff, which you were only to happy to use subjegating half the planet in about a week and a half.
You go to Jihad with the weapons that work, not the weapons your enemies wish you used.
Posted by: Snippet at January 17, 2007 3:24 PM
This immorality bit really GALLS me! Who are THEY to tel US about morality?! We do not want or need them in our lands.. We support them in too many ways.. WE send the money and physical aid to THEIR earthquake and tsunami-stricken areas - INSPITE of their continuing hostility and violence toward us. And they DARE label US immoral?!
The fat SOWdis didn't give nearly a dime for in disater aid. I am sure the bin Laden family is way to busy trying to buy WMD for them to be bothered releasing funds for disaster relief.
Western countries have so far been giving money to the "palestinians" and this mornign I heard them on NPR bleating about the lack of aid from us.
Why don't their moslem brothers the SOWdis step in and pay them aid?!
oh NO.. they'd much rather spend their money on mosks and on madrazas in OUR COUNTRIES while WE spend OUR money on feeding the "palestinians". so ultimately our "immoral" selves lose doubly in this little gambit.
THE ONLY THING THAT IS IMMORAL HERE IS THE ABJECT AND CYNICAL EXPLOITATION OF OUR **MORALITY**
THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO BUSINESS CALLING US IMMORAL!!
And by the way.. I find THEM immoral. But unlike them I don't care what they do - at home in their countries.
Furthermore - we HAVE the right to be as immoral in our countries as we want to be. We will hash out our acceptance of immorality in our societies amongst ourselves, thank you very much!
MoFoes do NOT define our morality!!!
Posted by: MeanieMo at January 17, 2007 3:28 PM
Correction to: "The religious preferences and individual liberties of Christians in hostile, Islamic countries will continue to deprive non-Muslims of their rights to practice any religion but Islam."
The religious preferences and individual liberties of Christians in hostile, Islamic countries will continue to be deprived simply because they are non-Muslim. Traditional Muslims in these countries do very little to tolerant or defend the religious freedoms or liberties of any non-Muslims.
at January 17, 2007 3:30 PM
I used to respect Dinesh D'Souza on some issues. Still do actually. But this doesn't sound like the D'Souza I used to know at all. Especially this:
"I'm saying it's foolish to blame Islam when Islam has been around for 1,300 years and Islamic terrorism has been a problem for the past 25 years."
Incredible!
at January 17, 2007 3:36 PM
First of all, Dinesh is an Indian , Goan Catholic and most important - he is a Marxist. Needless to say, Red and Green are strange bedfellows. The Marxists support the Islamists - wait till the Islamists get you.
About "The Mughals ruled northern India for 200 years. They could have forcibly converted the Hindus or killed all of them. But they did no such thing."
It has to be noted that the darkest chapters of Indian History was when it was under Islamic rule - however much the Indian History texts written by JNU's Marxist historians would want us to think that "Islam contributed a lot to Indian culture" - Pig shit and bo**kks ...
What part of Indian History did you selectively forget Dinesh ?
Aurangzeb massacering Hindus ? Ethnic cleanisng of Pundits for the last 4 centuries in Kashmir ? Conversion of Hindus in Coorg and Kerala by the Moslem Bastard Tipu ? What more do you need as proof ? How many temples were razed to the ground every year under Aurangzed the 'Zind Pir [Live Saint to the Muslims ]' but worse than Dracula to us the Hindus. The demand by INdian HIndus to get back just 3 of those temples which have been taken away - Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura has caused such hue and cry amongst the communists and islamists .....
What Aurang could not do in his life, Manmohan Khan and Sonia Begum could well achieve - the annihilation of Hindus.
---
Posted by: fcuk at January 17, 2007 3:44 PM
If they don't like infidel immorality in infidel lands then get the hell out. Go home to the ummah and rape 9 year olds and goats-we won't mind.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 17, 2007 3:44 PM
Snippet,
Efraim Karsh (in the text, *Islamic Imperialism*) makes the point that throughout Islam's long imperialist history -- they have used terrorist tactics against any enemy (this frequently included other Muslims, btw). They would terrorize -- deliberately employ brutal means to frighten people and get them to comply. (I don't have the text at hand -- but some of the sadistic, gruesome things which were done -- it went way, way beyond merely "kill the enemy." But the sadistic use of force was all done with the aim to subdue "enemies" -- and sanctioned by Koranic verses.) thus, terrorism is not something "new." Also note, it worked way back then, and it appears to be working today (we get the Dhimmis like that CNN Amanpour, and D'Souza, zillions others -- all mindlessly mouthing the platitudes of islam).
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 3:50 PM
(abbreviated) Verse of the Sword, slay them where you can find them. They say the same thing every time from 633 AD to the present.
Leftists conclude they must not mean it. Why? Because leftists don't believe in anything. What is said every time, must be for the masses to be fooled by, which it is in Leftism.
Having no real faith or loyalty, the Left can't understand it in others.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 17, 2007 3:52 PM
There's no history like revisionist history these days.
People these days are like sheep allowing themselves to be walked to their slaughter.
We have had all sorts of freedoms that were earned by blood of hero's from our past, and now we want to surrender them and look for comfort in those who offer us a good side to the enemy. Here's a quote from a recent article written by Professor Victor Davis Hanson, I highly suggest looking up the article and reading it. It's titled "Traitors to the Enlightenment".
"But now all that hard-won effort of some 2,500 years is at risk. The new enemies of Reason are not the enraged democrats who executed Socrates, the Christian zealots who persecuted philosophers of heliocentricity, or the Nazis who burned books. No, they are a pampered and scared Western public that caves to barbarism — dwarves who sit on the shoulders of dead giants, and believe that their present exalted position is somehow related to their own cowardly sense of accommodation."
Mr. D'Souza is exactly one of those dwarves who's sitting on the shoulders of dead giants, he is a traitor to his people and of civilization.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at January 17, 2007 3:54 PM
Also, you don't need an airplane flying into a building to create terror -- and in Iraq all that's required is a hand drill. Wouldn't it be easier to just outright kill your victim?? But, OH NO, that would not instill terror into others. It's not about killing per se, it's about instilling fear (such as through drilling random holes into living bodies -- now that's Islam).
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 3:57 PM
so why repeat a canard that has the terrible effect of driving the traditional Muslims into the radical camp
This statement should be directed primarily at radical Muslim clerics....the canards they're repeating have far more "terrible effect of driving the traditional Muslims into the radical camp" than anything non-Muslims have to say. Even so, it's a bit condescending for D'Souza to suggest Muslims resort to radicalism simply because they can't take the heat of criticism from non-Muslims. Like Robert pointed out, Sayyid Qutb was never short of criticism against America, which did little to affect American way of life, but did more to affect (or rather create) his way of life and those of his followers. That said, I did like what D'Souza said in the rest of the interview.
Posted by: yadayada at January 17, 2007 4:01 PM
Dinesh D'Souza's claim that Jihad is founded in non-Muslim "immorality" may be one of the rationalizations given by Muslims for Jihad, but "immorality" is also a complaint (particularly re "Hollywood" and the "media") of many non-Muslims in the West, and they don't engage in violence at the level of Jihad.
Meanwhile, in India, the Philippines, Thailand and Darfur, among the places, people are impacted by the immorality of Islam. The issue is not 25 years old, but over a 1,000 years in process; the 21st century is where the issue is going to come to a head, a conclusion one way or the other.
If I remember correctly, D'Souza was an imortant guy in the Reagan Administration, but I don't think he's much of an expert on Islam. Robert knows what he's talking about on this issue and in any debate Robert will have D'Souza's breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Posted by: Frank at January 17, 2007 4:02 PM
25 years? I don't understand, the dems claim it only began after Bush became President :P Oh well, 25 years, give or take another 1400, who's counting? It's the future years of it's existance that matter. They can revise history, lie about the past, as long as they can't shape the future, that is what matters.
Posted by: Catawhumpus at January 17, 2007 4:15 PM
There are some conservatives who are like Dinesh D'Souza. They think that Islam like all religions is good. That to become more moral and religious is a good idea no matter what. In some ways these people want to use the conflict with Islam as their way to get what they want. The "moral war" is more important then the war with Islam.
They just don't understand how dangerous this is. Worst yet they then split us up and divide us by attacking all those considered immoral. I have met people I do not agree with from the left who understand the dangers Islam presents to our civilization better then these moral conservatives. I would rather be with them because at least they get it. We fight each other on all sorts of stupid issues but in the end we know what is more important.
I tell you Mr. Spencer it worries me that the Republican Party has this weight around its neck. I am sure you have met many like Dinesh D'Souza who push this view and the leadership seems to love it. It will be our doom.
Really the question comes to this: Can we reform our own political parties from within to see the threat or are we going to have to form our own political party that unifies and does not divide.
We must to defeat the threat of Islamic expansion.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 17, 2007 4:18 PM
Patriot:
They aren't boneheads by any means. In any case, I very much doubt they will agree to debate in NR -- I may get a chance to debate Mr. D'Souza elsewhere.
They aren't boneheads they're eggheads. Either way - bad for us. Anyone who obscures reality stands in the way of the cure.
Too bad islamic "immigrants" don't come with warning stickers like cigarettes do.
Posted by: MeanieMo at January 17, 2007 4:27 PM
Since I see a few people who know about Indian History here in this thread.. may I ask this question even if it may be a bit off-topic?
Why is Arundhati Roy so vehmently anti-Hindu and so very pro-Moslem? I don;t quite get it. She seems quite the feminist and libertarian. Two things that don't sit quite well with islamos.
Is she of their religious background? It would seem strange - given her attire from what little I've seen of her. She's definitely the darling of the liberal artsy third-worldy crowd over here in the States and is it that she may be catering to them for bucks for books?
Posted by: MeanieMo at January 17, 2007 4:35 PM
MeanieMo!
Correct!
Our immoral society has developed more on our pinky finger then anything this supposed moral religion known as Islam ever did. I am tired of this silly argument made by some in the right. That Muslims attack us because American girls go to clubs, under age drinking, and sex before marriage. I don't agree with all this supposed immorality but hell we westerners have always been immoral in the eyes of Muslims. It is almost like some of these so called moral conservatives get off on Islam and somewhere deep down like it. They want to go back to the 7th century also. This is not the time to throw mud at each other. I don’t care if you are a bible thumping Christian or a liberal women’s rights nut. They both need to wake up and realize the crazed jihadi wants both heads on a pole. Both also need to realize that they played a role in this civilization called the west.
Posted by: greatcometof1577
at January 17, 2007 4:36 PM
D'Souza is on Medved right now if anyone's logged on....
Posted by: winoceros at January 17, 2007 4:48 PM
Also D'Souza needs to stop worrying about birth control, condoms and the woman's sex life in general. After all when the muslims take charge this will all be solved...right?
Maybe he should just convert now...maybe Islam has what he wants. After all everything he wants a woman to be like fits Muhammed's seal of approval. Just look at the papers he has written over the years. My view of him is he is obessed with women and their moral lives. Hell I am conservative but am also a red-blooded American male. I like my women aggressive, to show a little skin and talkative.
All I can to D'Souza....convert and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 17, 2007 4:54 PM
Oh my word, this man has the most unintelligible set of logic "rules" I've heard from anyone attempting to be serious on this subject.
How do you debate an apologist? On its face his arguments are unsupportable and laughable. I've listened for five whole minutes.
"[paraphrasing] I'm as much for free speech as you (sic caller)but when you insult the Prophet Mohammad with the cartoons you're not just upsetting the radicals, but a billion Muslims in (lists countries)with the blasphemy."
And....?
Logical conclusion: Don't buy the Danish newspaper. Condemn the editors as religious bigots in editorials, protests, etc.
Muslim conclusion: Newspaper should be banned, speech against the Prophet should be banned. Violators should be severely punished.
He also said Muslims are not against free speech.
Posted by: winoceros at January 17, 2007 4:57 PM
winoceros
You beat me to it - D'Souza is on Medved right now, and will be for the next few minutes.
Atlantean and Fcuk
Both of you are right. I too wonder which school/college D'Souza went to. Even Anglo-Indian schools in India, while watering down what Muslims did, don't pretend that nothing happened. And it went on uninterrupted for 800 years - 1000-1761 AD (not 1857).
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 17, 2007 4:57 PM
Blah Blah Blah
"You can find similar verses in the Old Testament, etc."
He also just lied about the Moghul rule/attempted invasion of the Hindus.
(See clarifications above)
Posted by: winoceros at January 17, 2007 5:04 PM
Also, the Islamic holocaust of Hindus didn't start with the Moghuls. Wonder whether Dervish D'Souza ever heard of Mohammed bin Qasim, Mahmoud of Ghazni, Mohammed Ghouri, Alauddin Khilji, Tamerlane, Bahman Shah, Ahmad Shah Bahamani, amongst many other Islamic rulers right up to the run up to the Moghul empire.
MeanieMo
Arundhati Roy is a Marxist who rejoiced at 9/11 (mocking Tony Snow's FNS commentary that weekend).
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 17, 2007 5:13 PM
Sayyid Qutb did not like this did he...
http://www.gono.com/adart/liberty/Liberty-June-26-1937.jpg
or this
or this
http://www.caftulsa.org/gallery/Dance2005/AirShow023.JPG
or this
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/Thomas_Nast/Lady_Liberty.jpg
I guess neither does Dinesh D'Souza...
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 17, 2007 5:21 PM
Dinesh D'Souza has written some excellent books and articles, but he appears to be very off base on this one. Let's hope he can be educated and/or is willing to debate.
The same apparently goes for NRO. I am going to politely email some NRO folks as well as D'Souza and hope they can become more a part of the solution than the problem.
Posted by: Papa Bear at January 17, 2007 5:42 PM
D'Souza:
So we have to be careful about simply describing a religion of one billion people as “violent.” This would be tactically imprudent even if it were true, but it is not true, so why repeat a canard that has the terrible effect of driving the traditional Muslims into the radical camp? (from above)
THEY ALREADY ARE IN THE RADICAL CAMP!
at January 17, 2007 5:56 PM
D'Souza's arrogance, in presuming to write about matters that he could not possibly studied, arrogance about the most important matters, disqualifies him from ever again being taken seriously about anything.
His dreamy belief that Islamic terrorism dates back to 1979 and the Ayatollah Khomeini returning from Neauphle-le-chateau to Teheran, ignores, as Robert mentions about the entire history of terrorism directed against Israel, Israel as a state, and even before it was a state, the Jews who lived what was, historically, the Land of Israel. D'Souza ignores the terrorism used against the French in Algeria (and though Alistair Horne, who got so much wrong in his history of that conflict, a history which apparently Bush is reading, because Henry Kissiner, ever the Islam-avoider, recommended to Bush as a guide to the situation in Iraq, when a moment's thought would show ten ways in which the situations are different, and Horne's book refuses to recognize the centrality of Islam in the Algerian war against the Infidels, who included not only the French, but all kinds of other non-Muslims -- Spanish, Italians, Jews -- who had been living for a long time in Algeria and whose only crime was to not be Muslim).
But more than that, he ignores the 1350 years of Jihad-conquest, or apparently thinks that because the military means involved did not include bombs on airplanes (no, there were no bombs on airplanes during those 1300 years of Jihad-conquest, nor I.E.D.s blowing up Humvees when the Muslims conquered the MIddle East and North Africa, or when the Seljuk Turks conquered most of Anatolia, and the Ottoman Turks finished the rest of the conquering, nor when Sassanian Persia, or Hindu India, were conquered.
But "striking terror" in the hearts of the enemy was always Muslim war policy, and was practiced even without the particular technologies or techniques used today. No airplanes, no airplane hijackings or bombings. No I.E.D.'s, no use of I.E.D.s. Apparently Dinesh D'Souza thinks that that is all that "terrorism" is: not a method, but the precise techonologies that go back, on, just a few decades. He might as well suggest that the Muslims have never used propaganda, either, because they lacked, in the old days, audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, and the Internet. That is his level. That is what we are being asked to take seriously.
And then there are the texts. The most obvious apologetics are based on the notion that "everyone does it." All the texts, we are told, are more or less the same. Are they? Are the texts of Judaism and Christianity just as bloodthirsty, just as likely to whip up hatreds and violence, as are the Qur'an and Hadith? We all know that in some of those texts terrible things are written about the ancient Israelites and the Canannites. But do Jews, have Jews, been going to temple and had rabbis whipping them so that as they leave those temples they grab non-Jews yelling "kill the Cananites"? Has that been a feature of Judaism for the past hundred years? Thousand years? Two thousand years? It is nonsense to compare the texts of either of the prior two monotheisms with those of Islam. Dinesh D'Souza has not read Arthur Jeffery, Sir William Muir, Willem Noldeke. He has not read Snouck Hurgronje or St. Clair Tisdall or Joseph Schacht or Antoine Fattal. He has not read K. S. Lal, or any of the other Indian historians who might provide him with figures on how many Hindu victims -- 60-70 million of them -- were murdered by Muslims, and the murdering only stopped, and so did the forced conversions, when it was realized that if every Hindu disappeared, then so too would those who could pay the Jizyah.
And if his airy allusion to the possiblities of "selective quotation" which, he thinks, is all that is worrisome in Islam, when the Qur'an is riddled with Jihad verses, when the softer suras are essentially cancelled and superseded by the harsher more violent verses (has Dinesh D'Souza heard about "naskh" or abrogtation? And has he taken it seriously? Or has he relied on one of those smiling, plausible Muslim informants who assures him that this doctrine is not used, that it is a figment of the islamophobic imagination -- something concocted in the fervid brain, say, of Ibn Warraq, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, those crazed interpreters of Islam who know so little, while Dinesh D'Souza knows so very much?
What does Dinesh D'Souza make of the contents of the khutbas, sermons, that are delivered in Bangladesh, after which the Muslims streaming out of the mosque feel inspired enough to beat to death passing Hindus? For that matter what does he make of the murder of the most peaceful, programmatically peaceful, Buddhists of southern Thailand by Muslims? What does he think of the strange outward flow of non-Muslims, observable everywhere that Muslims now rule where they once did not -- as in the lands that were once part of the Raj and are now known as Pakistan and Bangladesh, where the Hindu percentage of the population is now 10% what it was in 1947, in Pakistan, and a quarter of what it was in Bangladesh in 1947, and yet, at the same time, the Muslim proportion of India's population has gone steadily up? And what does he think about the steady diminution in the numbers of Christians in Arab lands (never mind the disappearance of a million Jews who, experiencing pogroms in Cairo and Tripoli and Baghdad, were not about to remain to enjoy the famed "tolerance" of Islam?)
Dinesh D'Souza has fallen for that nonsense about "family values" in Islam. He is apparently so offended by the obvious decadence of the Western world that he likes the idea of fine, upstanding, people who don't use tattoos or practice body-piercing, whose children must listen to their parents (as long as those parents are Muslim -- if you convert to Islam, however, you need not have any respect for your non-Muslim parents who have been Left Behind), and who, in the world of Dinesh D'Souza, a humorless and self-preening little world, some kinds of "morality" are accepted -- presumably the official Muslim hatred for homosexuality appeals to straight-laced Dinesh D'Souza -- but others are not.
What does Dinesh D'Souza find "moral" in polygamy, or in the contemptible treatment of women, not least in their inabiility to make a rape charge stick, or in the unequal punishments for women and men accused of sexual misconduct? How does he like lapidation as a form of exectuion? And the four male witnesses rule in cases of rape? What kind of "family values" are these? And what about being able to divorce -- for the man -- merely by saying "I divorce you" three times? Does that impress Dinesh D'Souza as an advance on Western ways? Can't one deplore many of the things that go on in the West without embracing or defending Islam?
What does Dinesh D'Souza think of Qutb? He remembers Qutb, doesn't he -- the man who came to America in the late 1940s for two years, the man who was disgusted by those church socials, and above all that hideous and dangerous square-dancing -- "Swing your ladies and dosido, and don't step on your partner's toe"? Does he not realize that it was this, and not Internet pornography or Howard Stern's surpassing vulgarity, that offended and offends Muslims?
And what does he think is the Muslim attitude toward devout, pious, Orthodox Jews, family values and all -- whether in Antwerp, or Jeruslaem, or Williamsburg? Does he think that Muslims are so pleased by the "family values" of these people that they find a natural affinity with them, wish them well, do not wish them harm? Is that what it says in the Qur'an: respect and honor Jews and Christians until such time as they begin to exhibit the features of modern, early 21st century, corrupted Western man, and only then? If so, why are the canonical texts full of inculcated hatred, even murderous hatred, of Jews and Christians who were as devout, as self-effacing, as pious, as full of family values, as a hundred Leagues of Decency together could not possibly observe?
He's a fool, but not a fool to be taken in isolation. His foolishness is that of the self-assured know-nothing, the Podsnap of this New Age, who does not know, and does not wish to know, about all kinds of things, for if he did know, they would Offend Him. Like Podsnap, Dinesh D'Souza has the habit of putting all disagreeables about Islam out of sight, out of mind.
With this book, he should lose any residual respect any one of sense might once have harbored for him. He has lost the right to an audience. He should no longer be given a hearing at National Review or, for that matter, anywhere else that wishes to be taken seriously.
This book is beyond the pale. Beyond all pales.
Posted by: Hugh at January 17, 2007 6:10 PM
That the Western world is a mess is clear. That this mess could ever conceivably be taken as justification for the much greater mental and moral mess of Islam should also be clear. The habit of mental submission, the discouragement of free and skeptical inquiry, the perverse limits put on artistic expression, the refusal to locate political legitimacy in the expressed will of the people, the collectivism of the umma al-Islamiyya and disintrest or even hostility toward the idea of the individual and toward the guarantees of individual rights, are some of the features of Islam that Dinesh D'Souza misses completely.
Only those who understand this about Islam and who, at the same time, understand the decadence of the West (and do not applaud that decadence, but deplore it) should be listened to.
Many months ago someone decided to applaud here at Jihad Watch many of the most unseemly aspects of Western life. He received an unsympathetic reply, which is re-posted just below:
"The list provided above by "kj" of things we, Western men, supposedly "like," consists not entirely, but largely so, of some of the most deplorable things the decadent West has to offer. And it is offered up not in a spirit of self-critical mockery, but rather in a spirit of gleeful celebration. Good God. That Islam and what it inculcates, in what it encourages, and what it limits, entitles us to rightly regard it with at the very least distaste, at the most sheer horror, is perfectly justified. To then speak and write as if everything that has been done in the Western world is admirable, or justifiable, when all around us we see evidence of the sheer crap that so much of it is, not least in the educational system, and in the amorality and idiocy of so many, disturbs and more than disturbs. After the Soviet Union collapsed, one commentator, annoyed at the triumphalism, wrote that "just because they are sick does not mean that we are well." Islam is awful. And there is plenty of awfulness, but of a different kind, and a kind which one can deal with, a situation that is ameliorable, and at its worst offers nothing quite so bad as Islam.
But the list above is not the Western world, is not even America. It is a cheap version, the kinid of thing that a Muslim propagandist would, in large part, offer up as a list of Infidel horribles. There is plenty there not to celebrate, but to deplore."
[Posted by: Hugh at August 8, 2006 09:40 AM]
at January 17, 2007 6:19 PM
D'Souza is wrong about this, but in his defence, at least he is thinking. I mean this in contrast to the large minority that blames "neocons" for everything including Katrina. Lets face it, Jihadwatchers and people fully aware of Islam are a smaller minority and that "tiny minority of extremists". I think D'Souza is a possible ally.
Posted by: Charles the Hammer at January 17, 2007 6:21 PM
D'Souza-:
"I’m saying it’s foolish to blame Islam when Islam has been around for 1,300 years and Islamic terrorism has been a problem for the past 25 years."
I guess he means since the Munich massacre, anything before that doesn't register in his memory.
He is an idiot, and anyone who believes that also deserve it.
at January 17, 2007 6:21 PM
One more past posting re Qutb, and the humorlessness ("There is no humor in Islam." Ayatollah Khomeini) and loylessness of Islam, with its phony "morality," a morality that is phony because it is merely the outward face of hidden decadence. Does Dinesh D'Souze not know that Saudi Arabia, where "morality" on the street is a function of the mutawwa, the Saudi version of religious enforcers for which there are analogues in other Muslim countries with rigorously faith-based legal systems, the real behavior of any Saudi who can get away with it is far more decadent than anything that could be dreamed up by the most decadent Westerners? Has he no idea how Saudis and other rich Arabs behave in the capitals of the West? Does he not know what they all do behind their palace walls in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E.? What does he think goes on? And aside from the sexual bheavior, what does he make of the camel-racing in which four and five year old boys, Pakistanis for the most part, are tied to the camels, and frequently are severly wounded or killed, and are treated as expendable beings, as are so many non-Arabs all over those horrific countries?
Dinesh D'Souza is in some ways akin to Pat Buchanan. Buchanan's antisemitism prevents him from supporting Israel or understanding that the Lesser Jihad against Israel is no different in kind from the Jihad now pursued against non-Muslims in Western Europe and elsewhere. In Dinesh D'Souza's case, he seems to have become such a Moralist of the cheapest, most narrow and obvious League-of-Decency kind, that he has, seeing Muslim girls, for example, modestly dressed, to forget all the rest of Islam: the Islam that divides the world between Believer and Infidel.
Part of the sinister missionary work being undertaken by the members of Hizb al Tahrir is devoted to convering prisoners, especially those who are black or His panic, appealing to them by claiming that Islam is all about "social justice." It isn't. It is in the Muslim countries where whoever seizes or inherits power manages to steal much of the country's wealth: think of the Mubarak in Egypt. Think of the Hashemites in Jordan (not much wealth, so the CIA has been supplementing, or at least used to, the call-girl bills of the ruler). Think of the al-Saud princes, tens of thousands of them, helping themselves to trillions of dollars of money that rightly belongs to every person in "Saudi" Arabia. And the same is true in Kuwait, in the U.A.E., in Qatar. And in Algeria, and Syria, and Morocco and Pakistan This business of "social justice" is nonsense, a misundertanding of the fact that people can attend the same mosque, and prostrate themselves next to someone much richer or much poorer. But that has no effet on political power or the sharing or proper distribtuion of the national wealth.
Dinesh D'Souza is, on the right, the equivalent of Richard Reid or Jose Padilla or any black radical who converts to Islam or joins the Nation of Islam (which is not strictly orthodox Islam), thinking that this will hasten the day of "social justice."
In Dinesh D'Souza's case, he sees Islam, the true and good and conservative family-values Islam, as the natural ally of all those who are offended by Western decadence. You don't like body-piercing or cocaine sniffing or non-stop sex at some bathhouse? Well, Dinesh D'Souza apparently believes that help is on the way-- help in the form of the inoffensive Qur'an, the innocent Hadith, the mild-mannered "peacemaker" (Karen Armstrong's epithet) Muhammad as described in the Sira.
Dinesh D'Souza -- brother under the skin to Richard Reid. To Jose Padilla. To Mahdi Bray.
They joined an imaginary Islam of "social justice." And Dinesh D'Souza defends an imaginary Islam of "family values."
The first two are behind bars (Padilla is awaiting trial). Dinesh D'Souza, however, is published by National Review, and is not being denounced by his colleagues, or sent to permanent Coventry.
When the day of reckoning comes, when those who wrote truthfully and intelligently about Islam, lliberal or conservative, are validated in every way, and the assorted "liberals" and "conservatives" who told nonsense and lies about Islam are exposed, then all kinds of things will happen, and many will, or should, lose their Important Positions.
Posted by: Hugh at January 17, 2007 6:45 PM
Here's one more posting about Qutb, first put up on December 24, 2005:
"You know that Qutb, the spiritual father of so many now running around in Iraq and Afghanistan today (not to mention London, Paris, and Rome), wrote his Signposts Along the Way (Ma-alim fi al-tariq) partly prompted by his disgust with the West. And that disgust was the result of two years he spent in the United States in the late 1940s. How decadent it all was, how thoroughly un-Islamic. And do you remember what it was that offended him the most? It was the horrifying spectacle of a church social, and a square dance sponsored by a church -- where American girls and boys could swing their partners and do-si-do, and try not to step on your neighbor's toe, and now promenade. The horror, the sheer horror of it!
But I recently came across in a dusty bookstore, the kind where you find in the backroom a certain forgotten book that, once you realize its contents, leads you on a frightening journey into the deep dark past, or perhaps causes you to live in fear for your life, as others, afraid of what you have discovered in that manuscript, begin to chase you down (in either case, Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture), a book that prompted me to think of Sayyid Qutb. No, I am not speaking of the Qur'an -- though some will no doubt attribute Qutb's behavior to his fervent belief in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
The book I have in mind, one which I recently bought, is called Honor Your Partner. It is described as "Eighty-one American Square, Circle and Contra Dances, with Complete Instructions for Doing Them," compiled by Ed Durlacher, with musical arrangements by Ken MacDonald and photography by Dr. Ira Zasloff. It was published by Devin-Adair in 1949, while Qutb was in this country, seeing that fiendish and insensate whirl of boy and girl. It was a sight he could never forget.
Check out the book yourself. You will not believe the things you find therein. I would like to draw your attention in particular to "A Word to the Caller" and the "rules to all dancers for a successful evening":
(1) When instructions are being given DO be quiet so that all may hear and understand.
(2) Each person will be dancing with three or more others. One person can spoil the dance for everyone by being a "showoff" or ill-mannered.
(3) Have a GOOD time.
That last -- "Have a GOOD time" -- is particularly disturbing. What would Bin Laden, what would Ayatollah Khomeini, what would al-Qaradawi, what would Hassan al-Banna, what would al-Ghazzali, what would the earliest caliphs, say about that -- "Have a GOOD Time"?
No wonder Qutb went home, intent on preaching Jihad. Don't, as is fashionable, blame American "racism." Blame those square-dance fiends. Blame all those who preach "Have a GOOD time." Blame Ed Durlacher."
[Posted by: Hugh at June 28, 2006 08:50 PM]
at January 17, 2007 6:48 PM
Charles the Hammer:
you wrote: "at least he [D'Souza] is thinking..."
What?!! (as I laugh). You've got to be joking. One of the features I noticed in D'Souza's rant for Islam is that D'Souza hit on virtually every single one of the Islamists "talking points." He's like a pro-Islamist talking.
And, "no," being a talking head apologist for Islamism is not "thinking."
This reminds me of an item the other day (it was unintentionally hilarious) broadcast on CBC. The announcer (an Islamist apologist) was talking about the decapitation of the half-brother of Saddam (and the botched hanging). Yah, the hang-man got da rope too long... anyway, the announcer made some statements about the natural "horror" Muslims must endure at the mere thought of degrading a corpse (this, of course, illustrated the utter ignorance of the announcer -- Baghdad has a reputation of deposing of dictators, then dragging the body/corpse around the town square). Anyway, the announcer was addressing his remarks to a reporter (on the ground) in Baghdad. And I half-expected the reporter to comply ("Yah, oh the horror!") But, instead the reporter shot back with the observation that the residents of Baghdad are not walking repositories of critical thinking or independent reflections; the reporter noted that what residents of Baghdad do is to repeat whatever their local Imam tells them to say. Thus, one gets a regurgitation of the Imam's thoughts. That's it. (ditto for the D'Souza's and other Dhimmis.)
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 6:48 PM
Dinesh D'Souza might be interested in doing some research before spouting off such utter garbage.
Instilling terror of fear of death for political purposes is central to Islam itself. Islam was founded upon terrorism. Muhammad proclaimed himself to be a terrorist ("I have been made victorious with terror"--Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim) and indeed was one. Islam critic and ex-Muslim Abul Kasem has documented 100 of Muhammad's terrorist operations in detail here
Terrorism comes in many forms, but certainly the assassination of critics and mockers counts as terrorism, and that was Muhammad's/Allah's intent:
ahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369.
{This describes the assassination of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, who had allegedly “hurt Allah and his apostle” by composing mocking amatory verses about the Muslim women}.
“Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it."[…]”
Ishaq:368 “Ka’b’s body was left prostrate [humbled in submission]. After his fall, all of the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We lured him to his death with guile [cunning or deviousness]. Travelling by night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet.”
Tabari VII:97/Ishaq:368 “We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’”
Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”
Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ And he accepted Islam.”
Posted by: Archimedes at January 17, 2007 7:07 PM
Dinesh D'Souza might be interested in doing some research before spouting off such utter garbage.
Instilling terror or fear of death for political purposes is central to Islam itself. Islam was founded upon terrorism. Muhammad proclaimed himself to be a terrorist ("I have been made victorious with terror"--Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim) and indeed he was one. Islam critic and ex-Muslim Abul Kasem has documented one hundred (100) of Muhammad's terrorist operations in detail here
Terrorism comes in many forms, but certainly the assassination of critics and mockers counts as terrorism, and that was Muhammad's/Allah's intent when he employed that method:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369.
{This describes the assassination of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, who had allegedly “hurt Allah and his apostle” by composing mocking amatory verses about the Muslim women}.
“Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it."[…]”
Ishaq:368 “Ka’b’s body was left prostrate [humbled in submission]. After his fall, all of the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We lured him to his death with guile [cunning or deviousness]. Travelling by night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet.”
Tabari VII:97/Ishaq:368 “We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’”
Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”
Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ And he accepted Islam.”
Posted by: Archimedes at January 17, 2007 7:09 PM
The problem is we are no longer perfectly sheltered in the strong arms of science.
Winston Churchill said:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
The River War, pp. 248–50 (1899)
at January 17, 2007 7:28 PM
Archimedes:
What you have posted as a Comment*, cannot be said too often. Twice is hardly sufficient. Should be read and re-read.
_______________________
*"Instilling terror . . . for political purposes is central to Islam itself. etc., etc., etc."
at January 17, 2007 8:24 PM
D'Souza was just on CNN's Paula Zahn. D'Souza is out to score political brownie points by hitting on the Left. How utterly pathetic. And, please, this guy is a moron if he is too blind to comprehend that he's playing right into the hands of the Osama gang. He sounds identical (he makes precisely the same points as al-Qaeda), a flippin' acolyte, of the terrorists. Needless to say, this is not "helpful." Someone needs to inform D'Souza that you do not win a war by adopting the enemy's arguments!! (geesh...)
Posted by: J.S. at January 17, 2007 8:37 PM
re Moslem invasions of India:
[quote - source at bottom]
Muslims in India and elsewhere have been led to believe by the mullahs and Muslim historians that the conquest of India by Islam started with the invasion of Sindh by Muhammad bin Qasim in 712 AD, was resumed by Mahmud Ghaznavi in 1000 AD, and completed by Muhammad Ghuri when he defeated the Chauhans of Ajmer and the Gahadvads of Kanauj in the last decade of the 12th century. Muslims of India in particular have been persuaded to look back with pride on those six centuries, if not more, when India was ruled by Muslim emperors. In this make-belief, the British rulers are treated as temporary intruders who cheated Islam of its Indian empire for a hundred years. So also the “Hindu Banias”, who succeeded the British in 1947 AD. Muslims are harangued every day, in every mosque and madrasah, not to rest till they reconquer the rest of India which, they are told, rightfully belongs to Islam.
The academic historians also agree that India was ruled by Muslim monarchs from the last decade of the 12th century to the end of the 18th. The standard textbooks of history, therefore, narrate medieval Indian history in terms of a number of Muslim imperial dynasties ruling from Delhi - the Mamluks (Slaves), the Khaljis, the Tughlaqs, the Sayyids, the Lodis, the Surs, the Mughals. The provincial Muslim dynasties with their seats at Srinagar, Lahore, Multan, Thatta, Ahmedabad, Mandu, Burhanpur, Daulatabad, Gulbarga, Bidar, Golconda, Bijapur, Madurai, Gaur, Jaunpur, and Lucknow fill the gaps during periods of imperial decline.
It is natural that in this version of medieval Indian history the recurring Hindu resistance to Islamic invaders, imperial as well as provincial, looks like a series of sporadic revolts occasioned by some minor grievances of purely local character, or led by some petty upstarts for purely personal gain. The repeated Rajput resurgence in Rajasthan, Bundelkhand and the Ganga-Yamuna Doab; the renewed assertion of independence by Hindu princes at Devagiri, Warrangal, Dvarasamudra and Madurai; the rise of the Vijayanagara Empire; the farflung fight offered by the Marathas; and the mighty movement of the Sikhs in the Punjab - all these then get readily fitted into the framework of a farflung and enduring Muslim empire. And the Hindu heroes who led this resistance for several centuries get reduced to ridiculous rebels who disturbed public peace at intervals but who were always put down.
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/12/india-and-moslems-httpwww.html
[original source given at address above - has more info there]
at January 17, 2007 8:43 PM
Hugh,
Lots of great posts in this thread by you. Reading them, I thought of Nietzsche's saying "Error is cowardice", especially since everyone in the thread basically saw through D'Souza's argument at least partly because of things we can all read here at Jihad Watch. D'Souza and his ilk are intellectual cowards, that is why they write such mistaken things. The information is out there, but they are afraid to look at it.
I also thought of this article about Jimmy Carter, but which I think has wider application among the "intellectuals" of the West. They are afraid of the alternative to their fictional world, so they avoid the truth, regardless of how openly the truth "struts its stuff", so to speak.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA17Ak07.html
Anyway, I had a question for you. What Western authors do you think offers a "realistic" assessment of what the West should be? Who do you consider the essential Western character? What I mean is, do you envision an ideal, modern, Western society to be a society of "Voltaires", "Hegels", "Leopold Blooms", "Walt Whitmans", what? I know it isn't a society of "Podsnaps"! I prefer a society of "Caesars", personally. I think such a society would not have a terrorism problem.
Posted by: venividivici at January 17, 2007 9:15 PM
Dinesh D'Souza is an INDIAN XTIAN
Indian Xtians are always pro-muslim
The cardinals and bishops of India always give cover to the islamists and mullahs of India
In India, there is an unholy anti-hindu alliance consisting of Indian Commies, Indian muslims and Indian Xtians
In all Indian elections, Xtians vote with muslims against Hindus
You will never find an Indian xtian taking an anti-muslim stance, unlike millions of non-Indian xtians
The reason is rather simple
Both muslims and xtians want the death of hindu religion
Muslims by the sword and xtians by conversion
In every hindu-muslim conflict, namely Ayodhya, Kashmir, Godhra, you will always find Indian xtians in the guise of human rights trying to give cover to muslims
Posted by: Shyamsunder at January 17, 2007 9:49 PM
In India you can find millions of Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists who are anti-islam
but never a single Indian xtian
Dinesh DSouza is an Indian xtian - thats why he is pro-muslim - end of story
at January 17, 2007 9:51 PM
Shaymsunder,
Do Indian Christians try to make alliances with Muslims over morality, like D'Souza suggests American Christians do? The argument isn't convincing, obviously, but is it used in India?
What do they say about the Hindus? That they are polytheists and therefore not equal to a Christian or a Muslim?
Posted by: venividivici at January 17, 2007 9:58 PM
Muslims have been terrorizing the rest of the world for 1300 years whether this guy admits it or not.
HINDUUNITY.org has a motto: "Islam=Terrorism."
The Hindus have been struggling against Islamic terrorists and terrorism for nearly 1300 years--s so if anyone would know it is they. The Slavic peoples have been struggling against islamic terrorism for over 800 years. And believe us this is only the tip of the iceberg...
SO, exactly who does this creep think he's kidding?????
"I Have been made victorious with terror."--Muhammad, the Kuran.
ps---No alliance between Islam and Christianity will EVER be possible!
at January 17, 2007 10:13 PM
Kevin Weakley wrote above: "Maybe D'Souza's right, maybe we should start blaming dhimmis like him who enable the bloodshed to continue without blame.
Some epiphanies happen suddenly and instantaneously, others take time to pack their wallop. I've had an epiphany of the latter type, which has brewing and percolating slowly over the past couple of years -- and this D'Souza story is the final bubble that spilled the hot coffee.
Summarized in a nutshell, the epiphany is this:
PC is worse than Islam.
This nutshell can be unpacked a little, thusly:
PC is currently a problem worse than Islam, because PC is getting in the way of our effective analysis of the problem of Islam and rational measures to take to solve, or at least contain, this problem of Islam.
At any rate, my drift is similar to the poster's which I quoted above.
Posted by: remote_control at January 17, 2007 10:43 PM
The D'Souza brain farct also demonstrates a complexity about PC; for, as the poster Cornelius notes above, D'Souza has demonstrated -- before, with respect to other issues -- a mind open to the wider reality outside the PC box.
For example, in the 1990s, he bravely took on an axiom that found nourishing soil in PC: some blacks (mostly in the USA) were bandying about the notion that most ancient Egyptian and even ancient Greek wisdom was due to certain key black Africans, and that, therefore, the cultural and philosophical and scientific heritage of the West owes a lot, or maybe most, of its substance to black Africans. Sound familiar? It's roughly the same argument Muslims purvey about how Islam is the original font of most modern philosophy and science.
The complexity that is revealed about PC with D'Souza's politically INcorrect intelligence in one sphere, and his politically correct stupidity in another (far more important) sphere shows that the PC Multiculturalist template is not monolithic: some axioms and some paradigms are stronger than others. The complexity may also be explained by personal and biographical factors in each individual under consideration -- D'Souza could be one of those Indians who has internalized generations of dhimmitude without being fully self-aware of it.
at January 17, 2007 11:07 PM
Dinesh said:
"Besides, you have to look at what the Islamic empires actually did. There were Christians and Jews who lived under the various Muslim dynasties, from the Abbasid to the Ottoman."
He needs to meet some Armenians, they could enlighten him about the treatment of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. The Muslim Turks terrorized and killed as many as the could. That started over 1000 years ago. This guy does not know history.
Posted by: Alek at January 17, 2007 11:09 PM
Pythagoras wrote - ps---No alliance between Islam and Christianity will EVER be possible!
It has been alive and kicking in India for at least 50 years
Watch the Indian xtians on every hindu-muslim issue, you will find them giving 'intellectual cover' and human rights cover to muslims
--
Dinesh Dsouza is a bright guy, he knows what the muslims did in India, he is not PC, simply like almost all Indian xtians he is pro-muslim and anti-hindu.
--
Veni vidi vici wrote
-Do Indian Christians try to make alliances with Muslims over morality, like D'Souza suggests American Christians do? The argument isn't convincing, obviously, but is it used in India?
--
Heck no,
In India, the most vigorous anti-muslim force is the BJP affiliates. Anything that strengthens the BJP, strengthens hindu society and makes conversions more difficult
The catholic Sonia Gandhi is a prime muslim appeaser. Almost all xtians and muslims support Sonia Gandhi
at January 17, 2007 11:28 PM
"Who do you consider the essential Western character? What I mean is, do you envision an ideal, modern, Western society to be a society of "Voltaires", "Hegels", "Leopold Blooms", "Walt Whitmans", what? I know it isn't a society of "Podsnaps"!
-- from a posting above
The mix of real people with fictional characters (Bloom, Podsnap) in your list is a tribute to the creators of those fictional characters (Joyce, Dickens) Can't imagine any one person being the "essential Western character" -- that is, the embodiment of the Western world. But wily Odysseus comes close.
How about just setting down your own list several dozen representative though differently remarkable people, including necessarily Shakespeare and Pushkin and Dante and Chateaubriand and many others, including my personal favorite -- my mother. As for the others, use your own sense of things, and add names as you wish. You don't have to include on your list my mother. She would probably be furious to have me bring her into this at all. Lists will overlap, but each list will differ or should, from every other list. In other words: Ni tout à fait le même, ni tout à fait un autre.
But do trade in Hegel for Robert Benchley.
Posted by: Hugh at January 17, 2007 11:54 PM
Hugh
The problem with the west is not immoral behavior but instead stupidity. It is stupidity when ever someone says "Islam is just like Christianity". It is stupidity when ever someone says "the number one priority in Math class is cultural sensitivity" which is occurring right now in the Newton School district in Massachusetts. It is stupidity whenever some says "most Muslims are not radical" or "Osama is just confused about Islam". It is stupidity when someone like Dinesh D'Souza tries to use the morality argument to why Muslims are fighting us.
Now we can spend hours on end talking about the lesbians down the street, the dangers of pre-marital sex, god awful rap music, or the piercing of America with every part of ones body but that will not fix our problem. It does not matter if we celebrate it or not. If we do not fix the "stupidity problem" first we can kiss this good bye. Just look at the two political wings and how they approach the problem.
The liberal leadership should be going crazy over the fact that Islam is against women's rights and all those wonderful liberal concepts like separation of religion and state. Yet they don't. Liberals should be listening to people like Hirsi Ali who is as liberal as they come or Bruce Bawer who is a homosexual but they don’t. They want to put the blame on conservatives for their “cowboy behavior” and “Christian values”. They blame imperialism or some other fantasy.
The conservative leaders should be brave and just say it like it is when it comes to Islam. They should point to people like Mr. Spencer and you for more information but instead they run away from the truth and cannot run away from Mr. Spencer's works fast enough. Do you think G.W. or Cheney has read "The Truth about Muhammad"? Of course the answer is no. Do you think Dinesh D'Souza has? (hell no!). Moral men they may be and go to church each week but they are still bitten by the stupidity bug. They don’t read about Islam and when they do its works by safe authors like B. Lewis and Mrs. Armstrong. You know the ones that don’t give you the impression that w
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)