| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
I don't want to belabor the point about Dinesh D'Souza and his irresponsible new book, but as I expected, he is getting tons of publicity -- O'Reilly, Zahn, Beck, Carlson, Cavuto -- because he is telling people what they want to hear: a new variation of the "It's All Our Fault" theme. At least here you will be able to find the truth about what he is saying. In this tothesource interview, whose views we have already discussed here and here, continues to deny the reality of the jihad ideology:
tts: Many Americans believe Islam is caught up in a Constantinian vision to conquer and convert by force.D'Souza: There is no "inherent conquering spirit" in Islam, any more than there is one in Christianity. Yes, early Islam did conquer a great deal of territory and early Christianity didn't. But that's because Christianity began in defeat, with the early Christians harassed and persecuted, while Islam began with success, with the prophet Muhammad becoming the ruler of a large domain.
Highly ironic, this. For if you read Islamic apologetics about Muhammad's battles, they will tell you that Muhammad took up arms precisely because the Muslims were being "harassed and persecuted," and that fighting against oppression is justified. After all, the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" (2:191) -- in other words, slaughtering persecutors is justified.
Anyway, the key point is that a strong theological justification was developed in Islam for Muhammad's "becoming the ruler of a large domain." And that theological justification perdured throughout the centuries, and has never been reformed away. Thus it remains today as a basis for Islamic expansionism. In that light, what Christians did or did not do doesn't matter: the supremacist, expansionist, totalitarian ideology threatening the world today comes from Islam, not from Christianity.
So Islam began to spread through force and conquest, but this is no different than the Roman empire which, let us remember, also carried Christianity to the far corners of Europe.
Not true. The Christian Romans did not conquer territories and then offer the conquered people conversion to Christianity or dhimmi status. The Roman Empire was converted by missionaries, not by force, although there were many conversions of convenience in the post-Constantine period. The contrast with the conquered countries of the Middle East and North Africa, where the jizya was exacted from the dhimmi populations, and those populations steadily converted to Islam so as to obtain equality of rights in the society, is stark.
Since the founding period there have been several Islamic empires: the Umayyad, the Abassid, the Mughal, the Ottoman, and so on. All have behaved like conventional dynasties, sometimes imperialist, usually valuing stability over everything else.
All were, to the extent of their ability, imperialist on the basis of Muhammad's command to convert or subjugate the infidels. This command remains in place today. Should we not direct attention to it? In doing so, we may awaken non-Muslims to the gravity of the threat, and help Muslims of good will with their reform efforts.
Despite the Koran's call to "slay the infidels" this has never been read as a mandate to forcibly convert or kill non-Muslims.
Right. This is a common red herring. Forced conversion is forbidden in Islam, although this law was often honored in the breach. And the choice, as I explained above, was not "convert or kill non-Muslims," it was to convert or subjugate non-Muslims, or go to war with them. That this mandate has never been operative in Islam is false. A Hanafi manual of Islamic law insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
The great medieval theorist of what is now known as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Calls for jihad went out in the seventh century against the Christians of Egypt and Syria and the other areas of what is now known as the Muslim world. Such calls sounded innumerable times against the Christians of Europe until 1683.
After that, although jihads became less common (particularly in Europe), at no point did Islamic theology evolve beyond the legal manuals and medieval theorists I have just quoted. Jihad remained part of Islamic thought and practice, but as the Islamic world went into economic and cultural decline so did jihad. Jihad is not a suicide pact; those who fight must have some reasonable chance of success; and such success became less assured as the West gained military predominance.
Still, Indian Muslims declared jihad against their colonial occupiers and the Ottomans against their enemies in Europe as late as 1914. Turkish Muslims proclaimed jihad against the secular state that was ultimately established by Kemal Ataturk. Yasir Arafat and Hamas have both called for jihad against Israel. Just as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden declared jihad against the United States.
No Muslim empire ever did that. The Mughals ruled northern India for 200 years. They could have killed the Hindus. They could have forcibly converted them all. They did none of this. Similarly under the Ottomans there were Jews and Christians who went to synagogue and church. The Ottomans gave them relative autonomy over their own communities. If you go to Istanbul today you can see these Jewish and Christian churches. These were not built after the secular Ataturk regime. They were built during the Ottoman period.
Sure. But the reality of the subjugation of non-Muslims goes back to the beginning of Islam. The 7-century caliph Umar’s agreement with the Christians mandates a number of humiliating regulations to make sure that the dhimmis “feel themselves subdued.” The Christians concede:
We will not...prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.
The regulations about different clothing and hairstyle, of course, made it easier to spot a dhimmi in a crowd and to make sure that he had paid the jizya and submitted to other legal requirements. The prohibition against weapons made it less likely that such investigations would meet with resistance.
We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims....
After these and other rules are fully laid out, the agreement concludes: “These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”
The Verse of the Sword, Qur'an 9:5, is still in effect, and various other passages of Sura 9 clarify its precise meaning and applicability. While the regulations of dhimmitude are not enforced in countries where the Sharia is not the law of the land, and is ignored in whole or part in many places that do hold to the Sharia, they are still a part of Islamic law — as a Saudi preacher recently emphasized. In a Friday sermon at a mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Marzouq Salem Al-Ghamdi declared: “The Jews and Christians are infidels, enemies of Allah, his Messenger, and the believers. They deny and curse Allah and his Messenger....How can we draw near to these infidels?...They deny even the messengers sent to them. They do not believe in Moses, they do not believe in Jesus — because if they really believed in them, they would join Islam, because every prophet heralded to his nation the coming of the Prophet Muhammad and the need to believe in him.”
Sheikh Marzouq Salem Al-Ghamdi also repeated the Sharia’s classic injunctions on dhimmitude:
If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet — there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are...that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes...that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim... If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.
Even in Saddam Hussein’s relatively secular Iraq, Christians had a hard time. The Reverend Said Bello, a Chaldean Catholic who left Iraq for Canada in 1990 but has maintained close ties with the Christian community there, reported toward the end of Saddam's regime that Christians in Iraq are “living like slaves....The Christians have no work, and no revenue. The powerful are taking advantage of the weak. In some cases, young mothers whose husbands were killed in war have been obliged to become Muslims to feed their children.”
D'Souza:
There is a great deal of nonsense being said today about how Islam is the problem and how Islam leads to terrorism. But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism dates back around 25 years, to the Khomeini revolution. The reasonable question to ask is what is it about Islam today that has made it an incubator of fanaticism? Why has traditional Islam become such a fertile recruiting pool for radical Islam?
I responded to this yesterday: "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."
tts: OK. Why has it?D'Souza: The Islamic world is divided into traditional Muslims and radical Muslims. The traditional Muslims are the ones who have practiced Islam in the way it has been practiced since the days of Muhammad. The Islamic radicals are a new force that has gained power in the last few decades. My point is that we cannot win the war on terror without driving a wedge between these two groups. The reason is that the radical Muslims are recruiting from the pool of traditional Muslims. So no matter how many radicals America captures or kills, it's no use if twice as many traditional Muslims join the radical camp. What unites the radical and the traditional Muslims is not merely opposition to American values or culture, but a deep conviction that their religion is threatened. This is their unifying slogan: "Islam is under attack." What differentiates the two groups is that the radicals want to fight a jihad against America, using any means necessary, including terrorism, while the traditionalists would prefer to find a different approach.
tts: What should America do?
D'Souza: We should show them the other America, which is conservative and traditional America. When Muslims look at America, all they see is Hollywood and family breakdown. They don't see the Americans who work hard, look after their families, and go to church. If traditional Muslims understood that there is a part of America that shares its traditional values, and that there are Americans who are working hard to combat the depravities of American society, then this would go a long way to diminish their attraction to radical and terrorist strategies. They will see, for the first time, that they have potential allies in Americans who share their respect for traditional values, and who have no problem with Muslims living by those values in their own countries.
Attacks on Islam, the religion, or on the founder of the religion are going to have the effect of alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them into the radical camp. The radicals are going to say, "See, we've always told you that Islam is the West's real target. That's what they want to get rid of." So it's very imprudent for us to blame Islam as a whole, even if Islam is to blame. But as a matter of fact Islam is not to blame. Remember that Islam has been around for 1300 years. It's absurd to blame the prophet Muhammad or the Koran for something that's quite recent.
Yet the jihadists routinely point to Muhammad and the Qur'an to justify their actions. We must ignore this because it will offend moderates? But why should moderates be offended if we point out the elements of Islam that they reject, or should reject, if their moderation is to have any substance and be able to withstand the challenge from jihadists?
Posted by Robert at January 18, 2007 9:13 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
D'Souza: There is no "inherent conquering spirit" in Islam, any more than there is one in Christianity.
Sure Dinesh. I'm sure some Jews in 1933 Germany thought Hitler was just a passing fad too.
Unbelievable!
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 18, 2007 10:20 AM
Is anything in the universe more fragile than a moderate (traditional) Muslim's grasp of moderation? Mere words cause him to pack up his kit bag and head to Waziristan or the Hindu Kush for mujahideen training.
But the CIA claims al Qaeda is too difficult to infiltrate. It sounds more like group therapy for nearly-moderate Muslims.
Posted by: Beagle at January 18, 2007 10:34 AM
Dinesh is just another in a long line of ignorant or deliberately ignorant scholars. Scholarly ignorance about Islam is almost monumental in scope. How many scholars know anything about Ataturk's repression of Islam, about the Bumi Putra system in Malaysia, about the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), about Singapore's Administration of Muslim Law Act, about the findings of Freedom House regarding extremist literature in Mosques in the United States, about the Devshirme (the annual tribute of male boys demanded by the Ottomans who were then forcibly converted to Islam to become part of the Janissary Corps, an elite military unit), about all the pagan rituals incorporated into Islam ... I could go on and on ... literally all day but finally ...
Let's not forget about the most recently (1896) conquered territory by Jihadis: Nuristan (formerly known as Kafiristan) in Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafiristan
Kafiristan or Kafirstan ("Land of the Kafir" in Persian) was an historic name of Nurestan (Nuristan), a province in the Hindukush region of Afghanistan. This historic region lies on, and mainly comprises, basins of the rivers Alingar, Pech (Kamah), Landai Sin, and Kunar, and the intervening mountain ranges. It is bounded by the main range of the Hindukush on the north, the Pakistani border on the east, the Kunar Valley in the south, and the Alishang River in the west.
Kafiristan takes its name from the inhabitants, the Kafirs, a fiercely independent people with distinctive culture, language and religion. In 1896 the country was conquered and forcibly converted to Islam by the Emir Abdur Rahman Khan, who renamed the people as Nuristani ("Enlightened Ones" in Persian) and the land as Nuristan ("Land of the Enlightened").
Posted by: Mentat at January 18, 2007 10:37 AM
If islam is not forceful or pushy than what happened to the Persian and Byzantine Empires?
If islam is not aggressive than why did they invade and occupy large sections of Europe for centuries until militarily pushed out by the Crusaders?
If islam is not barbaric than what happened to all the Christian communities in northern and eastern Africa?
If islam is tolerant than why are they still killing up towards 2 million Sudanese in the native and Christian sections of the nation?
Why, why, why is this turd still lying and being paid to lie?
Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at January 18, 2007 10:38 AM
Duh, traditional and radical muslims.
Aren't both the same? Since they try to conquer the more educated free world they will get a bloody nose only, the sooner the better. There's nothing like moderate muslims. A moderate Muslim is just out of the line and act against the Quran.
All Muslims are Errorists and more and more become Terrorists.
Posted by: Arnie at January 18, 2007 10:44 AM
They (moderate) will try everything to look and appear harmless, because the "moderates" are needed to tighten the strongholds in order to keep the headcount going up. They are positioned strategically to take over more and more public jobs and to infiltrate society.
Ones they are higher in number they will turn radical - All -
What they are doing right now is test running their strategies and implementing it step by step.
Posted by: Arnie at January 18, 2007 10:50 AM
Listening to Dinesh on Prager yesterday turned my stomach. His lack of understanding of history was incredible and his assertions that by being more like Muslims we would escape their wrath were laughable. His thinking is dangerous and puts the freedoms of our civilization at risk.
Posted by: Alan at January 18, 2007 10:53 AM
I have 1 more lie to expose as he says "this has never been read as a mandate to forcibly convert or kill non-muslims."
WRONG!!!!!
In the final attack on Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 stated that "When we resolve to raze a city, we first give warning to those its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgment is irrevocably passed....convert to islam, surrender...and anticipate 3 days of plunder..."
The Christian city refused the offer.
"The Ottomans could feel that the siege had been sanctioned by holy law.....Mehmet proceeded to wheel up his guns."
The book is "1453" by Roger Crowley pgs 106-107.
Again this guy has the nerve to lie?
Does he read original islamic texts to see that muslims DO FORCE NON-MUSLIMS TO CONVERT OR DIE?
Does he ever stop lying.
I would like to debate him myself.
at January 18, 2007 10:57 AM
"the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" (2:191) -- in other words, slaughtering persecutors is justified."
-- from Robert's comment above
Possibly further dilation would help:
2:191 -- "persecution is worse than slaughter" needs to be understood as Muslims understand it. For them the "persecution" is that suffered by Muslims, and is worse than "slaughter" of them. Therefore when they, in order to prevent this worse-than-slaughter "persecution" of Muslims by non-Muslims, engage in "slaughter" of those non-Muslims, they are not only justified, but visitng a lesser evil -- mere "slaughter" -- on those who would visit a greater one -- "persecution" - on them.
Posted by: Hugh at January 18, 2007 11:05 AM
Here are a couple really great links revealing a violent Islamic timeline:
If D'Souza is so concerned about Islam's "image" then why isn't he spending his energy going after the Islamic radicals? Because he's a front-man for Radical Islam. D'Souza wants to try and compare Islam and Christianity. A person tries to leave Islam and they are killed by fellow Muslims. A person tries to leave Christianity and they are loved by fellow Christians. Case closed.
Posted by: Report at January 18, 2007 11:11 AM
D'Souza hearkens back to an age when Muslim jihad wasn't so prevalent or widespread and he calls that traditional Islam. It was only a period of relative weakness for them - the jihad had to lie in wait.
America's turning away from certain conservative values we held for the last couple hundred years has emboldened them to make the jihad more active.
D'Souza seems to be calling for a return to conservative values, but not the right ones. Modesty, sexual repression, etc are not the ones that held jihad in check. The conservative values that need to return are a focus on military strength and Enlightenment values. (D'Souza does a very telling sideswipe against separation of church and state. God forbid we should insist on that...)
Posted by: freedomschool at January 18, 2007 11:26 AM
OK Dinesh, you're losing it now. Please don't embarrass yourself with your obvious lack of knowledge in some areas of Islam.
I agree that it is true that many Muslims around the world see the blatant and raw immorality fed into their homes via sattelite (and I'm NOT talking about episodes of the "Love Boat" but actual pornography). And that for many of them, that forms the basis of their beliefs that Americans are an immoral people. They think that all Americans live that way. That these are accurate portrayals of the way all Westerners live. That is a problem. I wish it were not so. Also, Michael Savage believes the same thing -- that it gives Muslims the wrong impression of us. He has talked about that extensively on his radio program.
But even if it were true (and it's not) that Westerners are morally banckrupt, we still reject any supposed "right" Islam thinks it has to impose it's will and beliefs on us.
If they do not agree with the way Westerners live then let them have the moral obligation to leave the West and return to their own sacred lands. In other words, I disagree with you that Westerners have the obligation to show Muslims that we are not immoral. That we deplore the filth pumped out of Hollywood (even if we do). Remember, we are not living in Muslim lands. The obligation to conform rests with the Muslims in the West. Not the other way around.
From what I have seen, the governments of all Western nations have made extraordinary accomodations to appease the beliefs and sensibilities of Muslims. But this seems only to encourage even more radicalism. The time to stand our ground is now. And I think you are wrong if you are suggesting that we appease Islam any more than we already have.
at January 18, 2007 11:52 AM
2:191 -- "persecution is worse than slaughter" needs to be understood as Muslims understand it. For them the "persecution" is that suffered by Muslims, and is worse than "slaughter" of them. Therefore when they, in order to prevent this worse-than-slaughter "persecution" of Muslims by non-Muslims, engage in "slaughter" of those non-Muslims, they are not only justified, but visitng a lesser evil -- mere "slaughter" -- on those who would visit a greater one -- "persecution" - on them. Posted by: HughThe Orwellian aspect to the translation from 'Fitnah' should not be ignored.
per·se·cu·tion /ˌpɜrsɪˈkyuʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-si-kyoo-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the act of persecuting. 2. the state of being persecuted. 3. a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutions of Christians by the Romans.However, with Muslims, 'Fitnah', and ergo 'persecution', is very loosely defined. Let's say I am living somewhere as an Infidel and prospering, and in the vicinity of a Muslim, I am demonstrating to him that one can prosper without worshiping Allah. As a result, I am a temptation for him to either not take Islam seriously, or not follow it at all. Therefore, I am guilty of fitnah, or persecution, even though I am not contacting him at all, but just minding my own business.
This point seems to be further emphasized in 2:193 (Hilali-Khan):
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)No inherent conquering spirit indeed!
at January 18, 2007 12:35 PM
D'Souza says:
"What unites the radical and the traditional Muslims is not merely opposition to American values or culture, but a deep conviction that their religion is threatened."
In what ways is Islam threatened, specifically?
As a response to what Americans can do, D'Souza says:
"We should show them the other America, which is conservative and traditional America. When Muslims look at America, all they see is Hollywood and family breakdown."
"then this would go a long way to diminish their attraction to radical and terrorist strategies."
So, if we eliminate movies and become better citizens, we can continue to exist as non-Muslims? Again, this directly threatens Islam in what way? Is it the internet porn I occasionally view in the privacy of MY home, in MY country that compels a "traditional" Muslim to turn "radical"?
D'Souza summizes:
"So it's very imprudent for us to blame Islam as a whole, even if Islam is to blame."
That sounds like a thinly veiled threat to me and sounds more like the Islam I know.
These are nothing more than historically inaccurate, dangerous lunatic ravings from a very sick mind.
Posted by: awake at January 18, 2007 1:08 PM
Dinesh D'Souza wrote:
If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet — there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are...that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes...that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim... If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.And his non-Muslim, Conservative audience is supposed to be impressed by that? And more...?
We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims....Posted by: Infidel Pride
at January 18, 2007 1:09 PM
"From what I have seen, the governments of all Western nations have made extraordinary accomodations to appease the beliefs and sensibilities of Muslims. But this seems only to encourage even more radicalism."
Posted by: Joseph at January 18, 2007 11:52 AM
Good post and well stated, Joseph.
at January 18, 2007 1:11 PM
D'Souza: "There is no "inherent conquering spirit" in Islam"
The Islamic texts show otherwise:
58:20 Lo! those who oppose Allah and His messenger, they will be among the lowest.
58:21 Allah hath decreed: Lo! I verily shall conquer, I and My messengers. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.
9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
48:28 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness.
61:9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.
8:39. (Hilali-Khan). “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.”
{Note: Bracketed and parenthetical insertions in Hilali and Khan, in 8:39, above, are based on the tafsirs of Ibn Kathir, Tabari, etc}
Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 33 (see 30-35): It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Ishaq:204. ‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’
Tabari VI:138. "Those present at the oath of Aqabah had sworn an allegiance to Muhammad. It was a pledge of war against all men. Allah had permitted fighting."
Ishaq:471 "We are steadfast trusting Him. We have a Prophet by whom we will conquer all men."
at January 18, 2007 1:26 PM
Comments on Islam by D. S. Margoliouth (1905):
“The taking of Khaibar marks the stage at which Islam became a menace to the whole world. True, Mohammad had now for six years lived by robbery and brigandage: but in plundering Meccans he could plead that he had been driven from his home and possessions: and with the Jewish tribes of Medina he had in each case some outrage, real or pretended, to avenge. But the people of Khaibar, all that distance from Medinah, had certainly done him and his followers no wrong: for their leaving unavenged the murder of one of their number by his emissary was no act of aggression. Ali, when told to lead the forces against them, had to enquire for what he was fighting: and was told that he must compel them to adopt the formulae of Islam. Khaibar was attacked because there was booty to be acquired there, and the plea for attacking it was that its inhabitants were not Moslems. That plea could cover attacks on the whole world outside of Medinah and its neighborhood: and on leaving Khaibar the Prophet seemed to see the world already in his grasp….Now the fact that a community was idolatrous, or Jewish, or anything but Mohammadan, warranted murderous attack upon it: the passion for fresh conquests dominated the Prophet.”
--David S. Margoliouth, (1905) in Mohammad and the Rise of Islam, pp. 362-363, quoted in Andrew Bostom’s (2005) edited volume The Legacy of Jihad, p. 250.
at January 18, 2007 1:30 PM
Infidel Pride:
D'Souza didn't say that. It was Sheikh Marzouq Salem Al-Ghamdi.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 18, 2007 1:36 PM
There is no forced conversion in Islam. ??
What does this mean?
A. If a person said and did what was required to convert to Islam, then its a valid conversion.
B. If a person went through A., but had a mental reservation, because they subjectively felt coerced, then they never converted, and there are no consequences, like apostasy, to reverting back to being a non-Muslim and exhibiting that openly.
Does Islam punish Muslims who try to force conversion, or does it say there was no coerced conversion, the conversion was valid?
Its like the Miranda rule. Do you let the person go free, and not punish the cops, or keep the person, i.e. count the conversion, but punish the cops? Or does Islam keep the person and not admit the cops ever coerced anyone?
Has any Islamic court ever declared a specific case of a person having been coerced to Islam, so the conversion was not binding and they could go back to being a non-Muslim without consequences?
..
Does liberalism acknowledge forced conversions to PC? When politicians are put on the spot to denounce Goode, does MSM consider these forced denunciations or voluntary?
What about conversions to communism?
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 18, 2007 1:38 PM
D'Souza: "Despite the Koran's call to "slay the infidels" this has never been read as a mandate to forcibly convert or kill non-Muslims."
Robert Spencer: "Right. This is a common red herring. Forced conversion is forbidden in Islam, although this law was often honored in the breach. And the choice, as I explained above, was not "convert or kill non-Muslims," it was to convert or subjugate non-Muslims, or go to war with them."
1. The conditions of subjugation (dhimmitude and slavery) themselves constitute coercive force, which could be alleviated, or even rewarded, usually only through conversion to Islam, hence forcible conversions.
2. Polytheists often were not given the "option" of dhimmitude; hence any of their conversions must be regarded as forced.
3. Apologist gymnastics aside, it is difficult to see how verses 8:39 and 9:5 could be interpreted reasonably as anything other than commands to forcibly convert non-Muslims.
4. Islam is predicated on the assumption that those who do not convert to Islam will be burned and tortured in hell (regardless of good works, etc.). Hence, theologically, Islam is also based on forced conversion in this respect. (Believers believe this proposition, ergo they support forced conversion. "No compulsion in religion" is no more meaningful to a non-Muslim than "Allah is merciful" etc. Predictably, D'Souza fails to address this issue, even though he is making claims about what is or is not "inherent" to Islam. Frankly, I doubt that he sees anything wrong with this aspect.
Posted by: Archimedes at January 18, 2007 1:47 PM
Oops. This should say:
1. The conditions of subjugation (dhimmitude and slavery) themselves constitute coercive force, which could be alleviated, and dhimmi or slave converts even rewarded, usually only through conversion to Islam, hence forcible conversions.
(Note: Both punishments, and excessive inducements offered to those under such constraints, do constitute coercion. If someone is starving or threatend with death for not paying jizya,, and they convert to Islam, that's coercion; that's one way of using force to get people to convert. Muslim apologists can talk all they want about "no compulsion in religion"...the reality is that coercion and fear are central to Islam. Islam would dissolve in a generation or two without its use of coercion (death to apostates, critics, heretics) and fear.
Posted by: Archimedes at January 18, 2007 1:52 PM
THE basis of ISlam is voilence.
If they really care for Islam and the palsetininans then why dont they just give them citizenship in theri country and assimalte them in a peaceful way .
Instead the spend billions of dollars preaching hate gainsts ISRAEL, claiming to support them as brothers.
The same billions could have been spend taking them as citizens of their own country if they really considered them brothers and thus brind peace in the region.
what do they expect,that a whole country like Isreal evacuate for their sake.
at January 18, 2007 2:37 PM
What constitutes evidence of a hate crime?
If 4 green people do something to a blue person is that evidence it was motivated because of color?
Search:
hate crime dragging death James Byrd
In the case of James Byrd, a black man dragged by 4 whites, the instant conclusion was yes. This alone was evidence of a hate crime to the MSM, and legislatures around the country passed hate crime laws. However, most didn't say in the law that 4 on 1 in some bad act constituted evidence, but everyone seemed to think it was in that case.
If we apply that to Muhammad or the Quran, what do we get? Muhammad had several pogroms against Jews. The Quran then states take not Christians and Jews as your friends, etc.
If we take a book like the Quran together with multiple pogroms of Jews, we conclude that Muhammad engaged in hate crimes against Jews and the Quran is hate literature against Jews.
The same applies to his followers and Christians, multiple bad acts against Christians and they finalized the Quran in written form c. 656 AD, and it justified their acts. It did it by ongoing commands to continue to do the same bad acts to Christians and Jews.
This is more evidence of a hate crime than in the James Byrd case. In fact, the evidence of hate crime against Muhammad is greater than almost any hate crime prosecution except for confessions. In a way its better even than these, because those who wrote the Quran were in power. The Pope was fundamentally right about this, regardless of the details of specific verses.
Throughout the history of Islamic states, the rulers or others have justified their wars based on the Koran. Ambassador Adja to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in 1786, bin Laden to the US in 1998, are but two examples.
Any group that harmed others and had a book like the Quran as literature would be called a hate group, even by the SPLC.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 18, 2007 2:38 PM
Let me rephrase a point on forced conversions. Does Islam recognize any specific apparent conversion of any specific person to have been forced?
Or does Islam say in effect, no specific apparent conversion has ever been invalid.
Islam doesn't recognized any conversion as forced? This is what it means by there are no forced conversions in Islam?
Also for non Jews and non-Christians, doesn't Islam command they convert to Islam or die? But this is not called forced conversion, its called free choice for the non-Muslims and a command by God to the Muslims to kill them if they don't freely choose conversion to Islam?
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 18, 2007 2:50 PM
Has D'Souza engaged in genocide denial? Ambassador Adja said the Koran commanded the taking of 1 million Europeans slave from before 1500 to after 1800. This was a crime against humanity under international law today.
Adja said it was done because the Koran commanded it. D'Souza seems to have denied this and other crimes against humanity done by Islam and that those who did them themselve said it was done in the name of Islam. Moreover, the Saudi courts and other Islamic courts have not ruled those or similar acts were against Islam, but have instead upheld similar acts as being commanded by Islam.
Thus D'Souza is engaged in genocide denial, and denial that certain acts were hate crimes, i.e. motivated by simple difference of religion, and that the command came in the Koran. D'Souza is denying hate crimes done against Americans where it was explicitly stated the reason for the hate crime was difference in religion and that is was commanded by the Koran.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 18, 2007 2:54 PM
The conclusion in the above posts should have been a question as to whether D'Souza denied anything, not an assertion. These posts raise questions, and are not meant to reach conclusions.
However, as another question, if someone says Islam never did genocide in its existence or never was a motive for genocide nor statements in the Koran a motive or used as an excuse for genocide, then it is an allegation of no genocide is one way to take it. That could be considered consistent with the phrase genocide denial, although the latter is often used to mean asserting that A denied genocide X, and genocide X happened or is proven.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 18, 2007 3:28 PM
"What constitutes evidence of a hate crime?
If 4 green people do something to a blue person is that evidence it was motivated because of color?
Search:
hate crime dragging death James Byrd
In the case of James Byrd, a black man dragged by 4 whites, the instant conclusion was yes."
Posted by Old Atlantic
On the question of what constitutes evidence of a hate crime? And not to minimize what you have said and your overall point was valid, but the trouble with using "hate crimes" is that those crimes sometimes depend on whose ox is being gored. You mentioned the dragging death of James Byrd which was considered a hate crime. However, consider the following which was equivalent to the Byrd case except that the intended victim did not die:
"The 26-year-old victim told Darlington County deputies he was getting a drink at a store when the two men came up and demanded money, sheriff’s Lt. Robin Bryant said.
The men then beat the victim, stealing his money and forcing him into his own pickup truck. The three then drove to a field, where the suspects beat him again and made him take off all of his clothes, deputies said.
The victim said he was then chained by his legs to the truck and dragged until he could free himself and run away, authorities said. He was taken to the hospital and is expected to recover from cuts and abrasions he suffered during the assault, Bryant said.
The victim, told officers the men used racial slurs as they chained him to the truck. But Bryant said he does not think at this point the crime was racially motivated."
See:
http://www.wltx.com/news/news19.aspx?storyid=24791
The original story was here:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/10810036.htm
But I did agree with your main point.
at January 18, 2007 3:45 PM
"Also for non Jews and non-Christians, doesn't Islam command they convert to Islam or die? But this is not called forced conversion, its called free choice for the non-Muslims and a command by God to the Muslims to kill them if they don't freely choose conversion to Islam"
.......Muslims do indeed use forced conversions, one recent example follows....if these two did not covert (at the point of a gun),they, most likely, would not be here today...
"GAZA (Reuters) - Militants in the Gaza Strip released two kidnapped journalists from the American Fox News Channel on Sunday after forcing them at gunpoint to say in a videotape they had converted to Islam.
Correspondent Steve Centanni, a 60-year-old American, and New Zealand-born cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36, were in a hotel in the Palestinian coastal strip after two weeks of captivity."
.....This sounds like forced conversion to me....ya know...convert or die.....
at January 18, 2007 3:52 PM
"There is no 'inherent conquering spirit' in Islam."
There isn't????? REALLY??
Gee. I'm so relieved.
So I guess that would explain why Muslims slaughtered close to half a billion people across much of Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe conquering and Islamizing these places during the second half of the first millennium AD and the first half of the second millennium AD.
Taqiyya cannot replace history. We can all see what happened and analyze what transpired and why these events occurred as the did. No one needs Muslims for that (or anything else).
As for this guy, whatever his name is, he needs to lay off the crack! I'm not kidding...
Posted by: pythagoras at January 18, 2007 3:56 PM
Infidel Pride,
"Let's say I am living somewhere as an Infidel and prospering, and in the vicinity of a Muslim, I am demonstrating to him that one can prosper without worshiping Allah. As a result, I am a temptation for him to either not take Islam seriously, or not follow it at all. Therefore, I am guilty of fitnah, or persecution, even though I am not contacting him at all, but just minding my own business.
The problem is larger than that, and should contrain Islam more than your analogy implies (though I'm sure you will agree with my amplification). I.e., not only should an Infidel be able to live in the "vicinity" of a Muslim and prosper and therefore tempt that Muslim, Infidels should also be able to live smack dab amid Muslims and prosper and if they want to flaunt their non-Islamic prosperity, without any repercussions whatsoever and without any detriment to the Infidel's equal rights.
Whether or not the non-Muslim world will ever be able to persuade or force the Muslim world to treat non-Muslims with equal rights and respect, and whether or not the non-Muslim world will come to accept a kind of global apartheid separating the Two Worlds (thereby countenancing Islamic mores as long as they remain contained in Islamic areas), this should not prevent us from officially expressing our moral outrage, based upon our moral superiority, at their culture.
Posted by: remote_control at January 18, 2007 4:01 PM
a SAMPLE OF A MUSLIM GENOCIDE PLAN GOES LIKE:
Hezbollah, Muslim terrorist organization
In a 1992 statement, Hezbollah vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."
The Hezbollah Founding Statement reads: "We are the sons of the umma [Muslim community] -- the party of God ... the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran. … We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. … Our culture is crystal clear. It is not complicated and is accessible to all. No one can imagine the importance of our military potential as our military apparatus is not separate from our overall social fabric. Each of us is a fighting soldier. And when it becomes necessary to carry out the Holy War, each of us takes up his assignment in the fight in accordance with the injunctions of the Law, and that in the framework of the mission carried out under the tutelage of the Commanding Jurist. … We combat abomination and we shall tear out its very roots, its primary roots, which are the U.S. All attempts made to drive us into marginal actions will fail, especially as our determination to fight the U.S. is solid. …”
The Hezbollah Founding Statement contains a section titled “The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel,” which reads as follows: “We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile. Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.”
at January 18, 2007 4:53 PM
a SAMPLE OF A MUSLIM GENOCIDE PLAN GOES LIKE:
Hezbollah, Muslim terrorist organization
In a 1992 statement, Hezbollah vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."
The Hezbollah Founding Statement reads: "We are the sons of the umma [Muslim community] -- the party of God ... the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran. … We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. … Our culture is crystal clear. It is not complicated and is accessible to all. No one can imagine the importance of our military potential as our military apparatus is not separate from our overall social fabric. Each of us is a fighting soldier. And when it becomes necessary to carry out the Holy War, each of us takes up his assignment in the fight in accordance with the injunctions of the Law, and that in the framework of the mission carried out under the tutelage of the Commanding Jurist. … We combat abomination and we shall tear out its very roots, its primary roots, which are the U.S. All attempts made to drive us into marginal actions will fail, especially as our determination to fight the U.S. is solid. …”
The Hezbollah Founding Statement contains a section titled “The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel,” which reads as follows: “We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile. Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.”
at January 18, 2007 4:57 PM
OR HOW ABOUT THE IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS
Yahya Raheem Safavi, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Commander (July 30, 2006)
"We Must Keep the Hatred of America Burning in Our Hearts Until the Moment of Revenge Arrives."
"I hope that our courageous and great nation will succeed one day in taking revenge against Israel and America, avenging the blood of the oppressed Muslims and the martyrs."
"We see America as also being the cause of the death of the 200,000 martyrs in the war that was forced upon us [i.e. the Iran-Iraq war], since it urged Saddam [Hussein] to attack Iran. We must keep the holy hatred burning in our hearts until the moment of revenge arrives."
"In light of the Zionists' crimes and oppression, I ask God to hasten the years when this regime will no longer exist. ... The Zionists are hastening their own death through their foul deeds, since Hizbullah and the Lebanese people are undefeated. There is a need to topple the phony Zionist regime, this cancerous growth [called] Israel, which was founded in order to plunder the Muslims' resources and wealt
at January 18, 2007 4:58 PM
OR FROM THE PLO:
Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (excerpts)
Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.
Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people, through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them.
Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute -- both their organizations and the individuals -- one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.
Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. …
Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.
Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation -- peoples and governments -- with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland ...
Article 20: Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.
Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands safeguarded.
at January 18, 2007 5:01 PM
NO INHERENT CONQUERING SPIRIT INDEED!!
Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 18, 2007 5:02 PM
Motor City Madman [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 18, 2007 03:45 PM
"The victim, told officers the men used racial slurs as they chained him to the truck. But Bryant said he does not think at this point the crime was racially motivated.""
This is a brilliant example. It encapsulates everything. On 9-11, the hijackers made clear this was done for and in the name of Islam, and the MSM especially Peter Jennings simply denied the obvious. So did Bush in his Religion of Peace speech.
White House Bush does not think
At what point do Bush and Blair's statements and the MSM become genocide and hate crime denial?
does think:
"The Conservative Response to the Islamic Threat.
by Jason Pappas � September 5, 2004"
Pappas " What gives with D'Souza?"
Basically, what we have here is a failure to think that is society wide. Does not think is the mantra of our PC culture. Certain thinks are "unthinkable", and like robots our society and we as individuals will not think them even as we are being dragged and we are told what the reason is.
As with the man who was dragged and lived to tell us he does not think, we have to learn survival skills, that means think it and act on it before you get dragged or 9-11ed or immigrationed to death or nuked. This means speaking up to make what PC will consider rude and bigoted remarks. We have to do that with our Congressmen and Senators on a regular basis, as well as the comment sections of our local papers that local politicians look at to gauge opinion. Be accurate but civil, and they will call it bigoted. Don't and our survival is just a count down.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 18, 2007 6:30 PM
Robert
I stand corrected.
Remote
I do agree with your amplification. My only rejoinder (but not disagreement) would be that one must walk before one can run, or tolerance before acceptance/endorsement. But you are right - to turn it around, if there was a _____(fill in the blanks with a member of your rich religious community) living in my vicinity, and there was a direct co-relationship between his fervor and his prosperity, my religion wouldn't call on me to eliminate him, and in my case, nor would it tempt me to switch.
I also agree with another profound epiphany you had yesterday - that PC is worse than Islam. (Can we not abbreviate it? - I'm beginning to hate my laptop ;->)
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 18, 2007 7:04 PM
When I first read D’Souza admiration for fundamentalist Islam last April, I was taken aback. I knew many were searching for the elusive “moderate” Muslim with which to establish common ground. After all, it was the “moderate” (or perhaps lax is a better term) that everyone hoped would be Westward leaning. Sadly, poll after poll and election after election seemed to show that the “moderate” was missing in action.
When I wrote, last April, about D’Souza sympathy for the fundamentalist Muslim on a friend’s discussion board, everyone was amazed. After all, D’Souza seemed calm and reasonable in the past. One would have thought that his ignorance would have led him to search for the elusive “moderate.”
Fortunately, he is still in the minority within conservative circles as I noted by citing an early review from the Claremont Institute (scroll down). Many have linked to and read my remarks with some relief. D’Souza isn’t going to get very far. But he will be an odd novelty item. D’Souza has clearly had his 15 minutes of fame.
at January 18, 2007 10:57 PM
Robert Spencer wrote - Not true. The Christian Romans did not conquer territories and then offer the conquered people conversion to Christianity or dhimmi status. The Roman Empire was converted by missionaries, not by force, although there were many conversions of convenience in the post-Constantine period.
---
Not true
At the time of Constantine per Gibbon, the roman empire was about 5% xtian only
The mass conversions took place under Theodosious
( an early example of Mohammed ) who gave the option of conversion or death to the Roman Pagans
BTW, Saint Gregorious in 300AD, demolished the hindu temple in Armenia and forcibly converted the hindu emigres. Saint Gregorius did this when he converted the Armenian king and had an opportunity to put into practise the biblical hatred of idolators
The koran is a garbled copy of the old testament
The only difference being, xtians and jews no longer follow the intolerance of the old testament,
whereas muslims still do
Most of the barbarism of the sharia is copied from Leviticus and Deuteronomy
Because of the shared roots of the old testament, Xtians who attack islam are confounded by replies to look into biblical intolerance
Posted by: Shyamsunder at January 19, 2007 12:07 AM
My God, just when people are beginning to pay attention to islam, study its history and doctrine, and listen to scholars like Mr. Spencer and Hugh, another blubbering, ignorant, but "credible" moron writes a fantasy of revisionist history and subjective nonsense. I am anxious to see the references from which he derived his flawed and inaccurate fairy tale.
Could he actually be sincere? Is it possible?! Please Mr. Spencer, debate this fool as soon as possible, if he will agree to one. People like this man are dangerous because they deceive and mislead people, whether intentionally or not, when our survival is at stake and it is imperative for the people of the West to understand the islamic threat. Thanks to him and other like him, many see no threat because he tells them just what they want to hear.
One step forward, ten steps back. I think I'll have a voo doo witch doctor put a curse on this book. Couldn't hurt.
Posted by: Susanp at January 19, 2007 12:43 AM
Dinesh DSouza is an Indian Xtian - End of story
I challenge anyone to find a notable Indian Xtian who is anti-islam
You can find plenty of pakistani xtians who are anti-islam, but no Indian Xtian, since they are allied with Indian muslims in an Anti-Hindu axis
at January 19, 2007 9:02 AM
Glenn Beck destroyed D'Souza last night.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/18/gb.01.html
Posted by: awake at January 19, 2007 12:58 PM
(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.)