| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Two debates today. This morning I taped a segment of the Mimi Geerges Show. It was supposed to be a debate about Muhammad and Islam, between me and Daniel Peterson, a professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Brigham Young University and author of a book called Muhammad, Prophet of God. However, Dr. Peterson and I agreed on just about everything, which may not have made for a dramatic radio show, but certainly did make for a pleasant and I think informative conversation. I don't know when it will be broadcast, but will post an update.
Then there was the big debate between me and Dinesh D'Souza at the Conservative Political Action Conference, with Suhail Khan moderating.
When I arrived in the green room, five minutes before the debate began, I learned that the format had been changed from what I had been told previously. But no matter. D'Souza played to the galleries with some yay-for-our-side irrelevancies about the disastrous presidency of Jimmy Carter and the errors of cultural appeasement, and he and Khan did their best to keep me occupied with their straw-man characterization of my positions -- Khan asked me at one point how I could explain, since I said in my books that Muslims were commanded to kill unbelievers, the fact that he himself was taught to be peaceful. So I had to spend time explaining that I don't actually say that in my books, and detailed the triple choice of conversion, subjugation, or war (cf. Sahih Muslim 4294).
D'Souza several times accused me of "cherry-picking" violent passages from the Qur'an and applauding bin Laden; he ignored my explanation that all the Sunni madhahib, as well as the Shi'ites, teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, and that it is not I who originated the idea that the violent verses take precedence over the peaceful ones, but this is founded in the mainstream Islamic doctrine of naskh, or abrogation. D'Souza drew some boos from the crowd when he acknowledged that, yes, you can find the phrase "kill the unbelievers" in the Qur'an, but you can also find it in the Old Testament. And he deserved those boos, since there is no such passage in the Old Testament. The violence in the latter book is undeniable but nowhere does it contain a mandate for believers to make war against unbelievers on a generalized and indefinite basis. The Qur'an, however, does.
And no, he never did give us the name of even one "traditional Muslim" with whom we should, in his view, ally. I mentioned Ali Gomaa, the one he mentioned during our last debate, and noted his support for Hizballah.
Anyway, you can soon see for yourself how it went, for I understand that it was taped by CSpan. I'll let you know when it runs as soon as I know.
UPDATE: I just found out, after the fact, that CSpan ran the debate at 10:51 PM EST last night and 2:46 AM this morning. I apologize for not being able to give you notice of this before it happened.
Posted by Robert at March 1, 2007 8:11 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Anybody know how to order that from C-Span? I would be interesting in getting a DVD of it.
Posted by: non-redneck![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 1, 2007 8:40 PM
"And no, he never did give us the name of even one "traditional Muslim" with whom we should, in his view, ally."
He new that question was coming and still he could not name one! Hahahaha!
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 1, 2007 8:43 PM
I urge everyone to contact Mr. D'Souza as he has his own website and email there to get a first hand taste of this person and his perceptions on life. It will be enlightening in the present he presents you in comedy.
For the record in profiling Mr. D'Souza in reading his work and letters, one glaring fact comes out besides his ego. He is akin to a Google webcrawler gathering information and deducts that "conservative values" are favorable, but his problem is in his computer type understanding is he knows nothing about the passion of a relationship with God, understands nothing of the passion of responsible liberty which formed the founding fathers in their desperate times and understands nothing about being an "American" in their heart.
This is in no way an attack on Mr. D'Souza, but the reality of the person he is. If one wanted to get into his Freudian persona he suffers from telling quirks of low self esteem and that goes into his personal life.
None of which is a concern in Conservatism, but it reflects in the fact that being a Conservative to Mr. D'Souza is something he learned in a book while being a Conservative as Ronald Reagan was is an inner belief to one's core.
Play respectfully with Mr. D'Souza and you might have great fun in learning the depth of the book is shallow as his cover.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 1, 2007 8:48 PM
C-span.org lists for Friday, March 2, 2007
Conservative Political Action Annual Conference
On C-SPAN at 10am ET
Is this the one that Robert was refering to being taped?
Posted by: non-redneck at March 1, 2007 8:55 PM
I hate listening to sugar coated lies, and C Span delivers a bunch of them. The fact is, Islam is only looking for continuence of World Domination, and any appeasement we'll suffer from later.
Yeah, I believe there'll be another 9-11 too !
Posted by: Jeff at March 1, 2007 8:57 PM
"Anybody know how to order that from C-Span? I would be interesting in getting a DVD of it."
You can always check their website:
www.c-span.org
A lot of their specials can be seen on the web and they probably have them available for sale.
Look at the links on the left hand side for the c-span store.
at March 1, 2007 9:01 PM
Keep up the good fight against D'Souza and his elk in the Islamic Mis-Information Effort. What D'Souza does not explain with his little theory of how the American culture rightly provokes Islamic terrorism, is what about terrorist attacks in conservative Islamic countries? Has Saudi Arabia gone too liberal and thus deserve the terrorist attacks there?
And what about those pro-western swinging hedonist Shiites in Iraq? Sure they deserve to be blasted away by the dozens on a daily bases for their liberal ways!
D'Souza is looking to blame anybody but the terrorist and absolve the Islamic culture of any guilt or wrong doing in it's collective hatred of Western Civilization and most of humanity. Might as well say almost all of humanity for Muslims don't seem to like themselves much either. Afghanistan and Sudan or not exactly stellar examples of " brotherly love " either.
---Nossy
Posted by: Nostrodamus at March 1, 2007 9:01 PM
If Dinesh D'Souza received some Bronx cheers and some boos, then that is refreshing. I will certainly want to hear the intensity of the response. Now it must be clear why D'Souza does not like to debate people like Mr. Spencer.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 1, 2007 9:07 PM
It will be neat to see how D'Souza explains himself and why he can't name any "Traditional Muslims". His blog if anyone cares to know is:
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza
It is worth the time to check it out and leave intelligent comments etc. Heck just check out for the laughs.
He states in "Mr. Johnson Goes Nativist"
"Since I have a good knowledge of both Western and non-Western cultures, I approached the leading thinkers of radical Islam in an attempt to study what their ideas are, and why they are winning so many converts to their nefarious cause. My objective is to understand the enemy, so that we can fight him better."
(Mr. Spencer when I found your site two years ago and you had this as your mission statement I think I would have left at once)
"Unable to grapple with a guy who actually knows other cultures from within, who has a real knowledge of the Muslim world, and who doesn't succumb to the rabid Islamophobia characteristic of Johnson and some others on the right, my philistine fellow blogger can do no better than accusing me of "going native." Next time remind me to bring my prayer rug."
Like I said it is at least worth the laugh the same way Dean Esmay used to be....
Really not much difference despite the so-called education difference (my god D'Souza went to Dartmouth).
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 1, 2007 9:10 PM
"The Triple Choice" of conversion, subjugation, or war."
Is this like a Trifecta? The subject not having a choice among the three if the subjector so chooses? Or can Infidels order a double-dip with whipped cream and a cherry on top?
Seriously Robert, you have a winner with "The Triple Choice."
Trademark and copyright.
I wonder if hughman will come around an engage the antlered ones.
Posted by: Malinois at March 1, 2007 9:17 PM
Robert,
What would you think of an alliance with Irshad Manji?
Posted by: Davegreybeard at March 1, 2007 9:18 PM
"Since I have a good knowledge of both Western and non-Western cultures..."
--- from Dinesh D'Souza's description of himself
He doth bestride the world like a colossus.
Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2007 9:22 PM
(Suhail) Khan asked me at one point how I could explain, since I said in my books that Muslims were commanded to kill unbelievers, the fact that he himself was taught to be peaceful.Robert
I don't normally suggest being rude, but my response to that would have been, "On what basis do we assume that you were taught to be peaceful? If you were taught to wage violent jihad against us, would you be publicizing it?" That aside, assuming that he's from a country like Pakistan, where he's surrounded by only Muslims, people around him would have no trouble teaching him to be peaceful. Would he have been taught to be peaceful had he been a Muslim in Judea/Samaria or even Israel, India, Thailand, Philippines, or any number of other countries where he'd have had to live alongside Infidels and viewed equally under the law?
This was nothing but a variation of the usual apologist talking point "I know Muslims who are nice." Aside from the fact that such niceness can't be a genuine derivative from Islam, it ignores the fact that if a Muslim did have malevolent intentions, what would one expect him to say? “Hi, Robert, I’d like to see you either convert to Islam or die because you are a repugnant Infidel”?
D'Souza drew some boos from the crowd when he acknowledged that, yes, you can find the phrase "kill the unbelievers" in the Qur'an, but you can also find it in the Old Testament. And he deserved those boos, since there is no such passage in the Old Testament. The violence in the latter book is undeniable but nowhere does it contain a mandate for believers to make war against unbelievers on a generalized and indefinite basis. The Qur'an, however, does.Whatever playing to the gallery he did elsewhere in slamming the Left might have been undone here. After all, there isn't a huge atheistic component in the Conservative movement the way there is in the Right wing portion of the Libertarian movement. Also, equating Christianity /Judaism with what would be perceived particularly among this crowd as a vile ideology wasn't going to go down well with them.
As for 'cherry-picking' violent passages from the Quran, that ain't tough - it would be like looking for sand on a beach. What would be tough would be cherry-picking good passages, for they are rare, and when understood in the proper context (surah 109 being in the context of the satanic verses), they turn out to be just as intolerant. Besides, once Islamic meanings of a whole host of terms, such as truth, justice, oppression, corruption, mischief et al is understood, the number of good verses in the Quran then gets filtered down to single figures (if that).
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 1, 2007 9:25 PM
Davidgreybeard,
Manji is very misguided. She praises the Golden Age and does not realize the impossibility of reforming Islam rather than abandonning it altogether.
For more, visit http://www.masada1234.blogspot.com .
P.S. Robert, please link my site to yours. There's already a link on my site to Yours.
Posted by: Bar Kochba at March 1, 2007 9:26 PM
Davidgreybeard,
Manji is very misguided. She praises the Golden Age and does not realize the impossibility of reforming Islam rather than abandonning it altogether.
For more, visit http://www.masada1234.blogspot.com .
P.S. Robert, please link my site to yours. There's already a link on my site to Yours.
Posted by: Bar Kochba at March 1, 2007 9:26 PM
Dinesh is his silly nickname.
Let's start calling by his real name: Dilettanteish
at March 1, 2007 9:31 PM
Bar Kochba,
Thank you for the cultural visit. I support Israel but I am a little taken back by the passion of this site.
Posted by: Davegreybeard at March 1, 2007 9:40 PM
It is revolting that a so called Christian would compare Islam with Christianity/Judaism in such a manner.
One expects to hear the false claim that the bible commands the killing of unbelievers from an ATHEIST not a CHRISTIAN.
Posted by: genevieve at March 1, 2007 9:47 PM
One last this from the great ones blog (I can't help this is true winner of self importance)
D'Souza talks about his "renegade" days at Dartmouth and why is true rebel! He talks about going back to Dartmouth with the current dean of the school...
Ladies and Gentlemen I give D'Souza's "Creeping Respectability" (from his blog)
"You should invite me sometime," I responded. He shook his head. "Your name has come up several times, but some of the faculty are dead set against you." He lowered his voice, "Some of the wounds from your time at Dartmouth are still too deep." I confess I felt good about this. My renegade reputation had lasted even 15 years after my graduation. And given my views of the faculty members in question, respectability in those quarters would have driven me to depression and self-loathing!"
He is a cultural renegade...man! Mr. Spencer did you know you were dealing with a renegade! Leader of pack type leather jacket and all! James Dean has nothing on D'Souza!
He then goes on to say.....
"But now the official magazine of Dartmouth is featuring me on the cover. Creeping respectability! I may have to go back to the drawing board here. Am I doing something wrong?"
Yes you are!
at March 1, 2007 9:51 PM
without regard what you think Off me I think you are a hero, I wish you would some time be a little more forceful when you debate , you suffer fools a little to gladly sometime and put up with unneseccary gibberish
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 1, 2007 10:04 PM
Kaostral,
That's because Robert is a Christian Gentleman, a nice mix of strength and humility. He is a chivalrous example of what a better world could be if we all treated our neighbor well; a nice contrast to the arrogant, holier-than-thou totalitarians that we are fighting against.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 1, 2007 10:20 PM
D'Souza drew some boos from the crowd when he acknowledged that, yes, you can find the phrase "kill the unbelievers" in the Qur'an, but you can also find it in the Old Testament.
Hi Dinesh, when you visit here could you leave a note pointing out a few places where this is said? It's one thing to say such things in the heat of a debate, but another to have the leisure to go home and document them. Perhaps you're thinking of the somewhat milder assertion "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God' " (Ps. 14:1)? Nasty!
God predicts the downfall of those who disbelieve; he does not command the "righteous" to go out and kill them in order to effect this downfall.
You can find plenty of violence in the OT because it is history, and history contains a great deal of violence. There are some commands of God regarding a time-specific program for establishing a nation in a space-limited geographical region. The NT describes a good deal of violence either against christians (in that age) or dealt out by divine powers, not via human enterprises (in apocalyptic vision of end times).
DESCRIPTIVE passsages about violence do not equal PRESCRIPTIVE ones.
Find us a biblical passage to hold up against Quran Sura 59, that includes divine incitement for generalized violence against people solely on the basis of disbelief.
Or find a Quran'ic equivalent to the declaration in John 3:16 that God loves all people in the world, or God's sacrificial love for sinners (in context, unbelievers) as in Romans 5:8. It would be comforting to know if there is some basis like this for peaceful treatment of unbelievers in islam, instead of the favourite truncated quote from 2:256 (the "no compulsion" verse) that leaves out the nasty parts of that passage, which seems the best the islamic apologists have been able to supply so far.
Or find us a contemporary christian terrorist group that effectively uses biblical commands as direct justification for war against others on the basis of their unbelief. If you find such a group (I won't assume that such freaks don't exist...we all remember Koresh, and Jonestown,...), then find me a major christian denomination that supports their biblical exegesis and application of such texts.
My Strong's (exhaustive) concordance gives 16 instances of "unbelief", 5 of "unbelievers" and 6 of "unbelieving", all in the NT, which I'm sure you realise contains no incitement to violence towards such people. Remarkably, there are NO instances of these words at all in the OT. You'll find that unbelief, where it is alluded to in a sideways fashion, is not of great importance until the NT.
But my English Qur'an gives 31 occurrences of "unbelief", 244 of "unbeliever(s)" and 4 of "unbelieving". Any one of the vast majority of these passages is enough to make most people's blood run cold. Let us keep in mind, as well, that the Qur'an is only about half the length of the NT, so these numbers underplay the relative frequencies of the occurrences of these passages. The numbers also don't include several instances of "infidels", which actually occurs twice in the NT (in probably the nastiest passages you could find about unbelievers, II Cor 6:15 and I Tim 5:8 -- look them up if you want a "worst case" of reviling unbelievers in the NT), and "kuffar" and "kafir", which of course don't appear in the bible.
And let's not even get into the Hadiths.
Anyway, whether or not there are inciteful passages is not really the point. The NT does include a command from the Apostles to abstain from blood (ie in our diet), but I, like most christians I know, love a good wash of gravy on my mashed potatoes. There is a difference between the command being there in some technical sense and exactliy how it plays out in practise. The point is how these qur'anic passages are being used to support jihad, the very thing you appear to be trying to sell as unimportant.
So, you'll understand, Dinesh, if a few people boo'd your statement about the bible. Do you really think you can make an argument for moral equivalence between the two?
at March 1, 2007 11:37 PM
Robert:
I just watched the debate between you and Dinesh D'Sousa on (C-span 2 10:52 PM EST). I think it will be re-broadcast around 2:20 AM EST tonight.
In some ways there is some agreements with you and D'Sousa. The disagreements that give concern is this determination he has in playing down the militancy that is found in the Ahadiths, and the Quran to the point where he feels that we are polarizing possible moderate Muslims by merely making the rest world aware of their existence.
Why would we want to ignore the suras',Ahadiths' that call for jihad against the non-believers when we should be trying to understand them and should be having a dialogue on the role that they play in mainstream Islam everyday. Remember when the POPe called for a dialogue about the militancy in the Quran -- What did it get him but death threats.
Dinesh has to understand that fundamental Islam believes that the words in the Quran, whether it be Medina, or Mecca are considred the perfect words of Allah and not given to change. So how does one go about having a honest dialogue with an ayotolla, or Mahmoud Amahdinghad Etc?
Maybe Dinesh can start the ball rolling on that.
Posted by: Mackie at March 1, 2007 11:38 PM
OFF TOPIC BUT NOT SURPRISING
It has become a fashion now and so predictable next time sometihng like this happens I will atleast bet on it and make some money.
The incident I am refering to is as below:
There have been no Al qaeda in Paksitan,this has been repaeted over and over again by them.They were ready to sear by it.
Then the US govt decides to regulate aid to pakistan based on its progress in repsonse to Al Qaeeda as the genral feeling is Paksitan is not doing enough.
AND VOILA all of sudden we have this heading in the NEWS :
Mullah Omar’s deputy Obaidullah captured
By Ismail Khan
PESHAWAR, March 1: Pakistani security forces have captured Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, deputy to the elusive Taliban chief, Mullah Mohammad Omar, from Quetta, a federal government official has told Dawn.
The ally in war of terror works real hard when it see a threat to the $$$$$ and the warplanes coming in form of aid bieng threattened.
I wonder if the threat to cut aid is a huge one will OSAMA bin laden and Mulla Omar also suddenly be caught out of the blue?????
at March 1, 2007 11:47 PM
He doth bestride the world like a colossus.
Posted by: Hugh
Perhaps it should also be remembered what happened to the remains (It had already been damaged in a earthquake many years before) of old colossus. The muslim arabs conqured rhodes in the 7th century and broke up what remained and sold it for scrap metal.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 1, 2007 11:48 PM
"But now the official magazine of Dartmouth is featuring me on the cover. Creeping respectability! I may have to go back to the drawing board here. Am I doing something wrong?"
- from a posting above quoting Dinesh D'Souza
Why, yes he is on the cover of the latest issue of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine. The issue appears to be written by the Development Office, hoping to win favor from some rich Muslim alumni, for it is hard otherwise to explain the special solicitude for the clear tone of apologtics.
The two articles listed on the cover, which has a nice crescent and star, under the main line "Understanding the Muslim World" are:
1) What's New in Islamic and Arabic Studies, by Andrea Useem '95.
In this article you can learn all about what students are learning about -- and it isn't the unadorned contents of Qur'an, hadith, and Sira, and the words "dhimmi" and "Jizyah" are unlikely to be much in evidence in the Dartmouth classes on offer, but the innocent and impressionable students won't discover that in most other colleges either -- and will just have to pick up a real knowledge of "Islamic and Arabic studies" outside the confines of MESA Nostra (google "MESA Nostra" for more).
2) "Radical Islam: Why We've Got it All Wrong," by Dinesh D'Souza.
In this article you can learn why "we've got it all wrong" -- alll of us, Snouck Hurgronje and Arthur Jeffery, St. Clair Tisdall and Joseph Schacht, David Margoliouth and Edmond Fagnan, Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq and Hans Jansen, everyone who was a student of Islam in the Western world, in the golden, unafraid age, from about 1860 to 1960, when truths were told. Islam didn't change. The texts and teachings of Islam didn't change. What changed was the willingness of Westen scholars, in a climate of correctness and desire to blame the West, that grew and grew until it now suffocates even baby truths in their cribs, as they attempt to let out their first squeals.
And "we've got it all wrong" if "we" are Ali Sina, and Ibn Warraq, and Irfan Khawaja, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Anwar Shaikh, and Azam Kamguian -- "we" who have been born into Islam, pondered it deeply, considered carefully what it is about it that led us, each on his own, to come to conclusions that forced us to jettison Islam -- "we've" got it as wrong as C. Snouck Hurgronje and Joseph Schacht.
But one person, above all other persons, has it right.
And his name is Dinesh D'Souza.
And he is right about Islam, as about so many things, when all the world has heretofore gotten it wrong.
Dinesh D'Souza, it should not be forgotten, is available for corporate and university speaking engagements.
For more information, simply click on www.dineshdsouza.com and then on "Events" or "Corporate Speaking" or "University Speaking."
Then you may contact Dinesh D'Souza directly to find out more details -- especially about the fees.
Don't worry. Those fees are really, under the circumstances -- what with Dinesh D'Souza getting it at long last right when all of the rest of us have "got it all wrong" -- those fees are really very modest.
Don't delay. Call today.
That Operator Is Still Standing By.
Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2007 11:49 PM
Pop Spencer always brings the pain! Can't wait.
Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 1, 2007 11:50 PM
He doth bestride the world like a colossus.
Or like a cymbalum mundi ("the noise of the world"), as Tiberius called the itinerant sophist pseudo-scholar, Apion.
Or, as others called Apion, Mochthos ("the busy one" -- more like a polyhistor).
Posted by: remote_control at March 2, 2007 12:42 AM
Good job, Robert.
Posted by: angryeagle at March 2, 2007 12:49 AM
I just watched the debate between you and Dinesh D'Sousa on (C-span 2 10:52 PM EST). I think it will be re-broadcast around 2:20 AM EST tonight. Posted by: MackieMackie
It will be on C-Span @ 2:46AM EST i.e. 11:46PST. I hope to catch it in the next 15 minutes.
Thanks for the tip off.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 2:29 AM
I am glad I stayed awake to see that.
D'Souza is true ass. I have no idea how a man could show up with no knowledge not only of Islam but of general history like he does and still is so full of himself that he thinks he can win an argument by making pointless bug references.
My god......he is the conservative version of Dean Esmay.
at March 2, 2007 3:35 AM
I just watched the 'red-eye' airing of today's debate. For anyone listening, it is clear that Mr. Spencer won the debate, hands down. It sure sounds to me like Mr. D'Souza is already collecting checks from one of the princes from Saudi Arabia. My question is: How long will it be before Mr. Spencer will not be welcomed at the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute or similar think tanks? With the likes of Sukhail Khan 'moderating' panels at the American Conservative Union,(I believe that he is now on the board of that organization)it is clear that the Muslims and Friends (Grover Norquist) are buying out outlets where Mr. Spencer could present his point of view. Money is not the problem for oil-rich Muslims seeking to shut down debate in Washington DC. They will continue buy-outs of think tanks, other outlets and politicians until no venues are left for critical analysis of their motives and plans for the world.
Posted by: maryrose at March 2, 2007 3:36 AM
I think many of you guys missed an opportunity to zero in on Dsouza.
You guys were firing away at him, but not striking center mass.
Today, His argument concerned THE PRUDENTIAL MILITARY VALUE of Spencer's works. He said we're not killing enough of the "radicals," we're not winning enough allies amongst the Left, and all we're doing is driving "traditionals" into the open arms of the "radicals."
That's it, that's the long and the short of it.
That's what he kept coming back to, today.
On the walls of Langley, it says "You shall KNOW THE TRUTH, and THE TRUTH shall set you free."
Dsouza REVERSES THAT.
THE TRUTH, for Dsouza, if it becomes problematic, is best avoided, not spoken, not thought of, certainly not highlighted and proclaimed.
That's why he never really wanted to get into a discussion about the accuracy of Spencer's comments on the Koran, on jihad and the judicial interpretations thereof. For him, THAT very exploration ONLY caused more "traditionals" to race off and join the "radicals."
So I think that it would be best, {if you ever have another run in with him...} to focus on the FOUNDATIONAL importance of the truth, for purposes of formulating proper policy, ESPECIALLY MILITARY POLICY. Is it possible to found victorious policies on falsehoods, is it beneficial to peddle politically correct falsehoods. When policies founded on lies collapse, {even lies told for the best of PRUDENTIAL purposes...} how are successful policies to be constructed thereafter, once credibility is shattered, public confidence eviscerated?
I said on another blog that I was convinced that the MAIN motivation of D'Souza wasn't money, nor a quest for increased notoriety. BUT IT WAS FEAR.
His FEAR today was palpable.
That's why he kept harping on "one billion muslims." It's AN IRONY that he accused you of stereotyping, but his own argument RELIES on STEROTYPE. For when he continually calls to mind "one billion muslims," he's also calling to mind a mental image of wild-eyed fanatics, taking to the streets, placards in hand, machetes at the ready, Kalashnikovs firing into the sky. And the subtext is: "Good God, do you REALLY want to tangle with ALL of them....??????"
His entire argument is one of fear.
He says that being Indian, he's realistic. I say, being Indian, he's not untouched by that FEAR.
And India abides in an uneasy social understanding. Atrocities by muslims are promptly answered in kind, in spades. So who the Hell is he kidding, trotting out India as the beau ideal of tolerance and co-existence.
Turkey totters constantly, and has only been maintained as a secular state by force of arms, heretofore provided by their own officer corps.
Indonesia has been free from much of the doctrinal severity of islam, it's true. But how long will that last, as the house of al saud pours BILLIONS into jihadism, anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism. Not very long.
So sure, more muslims exist in Turkey, Indonesia and India, then in the Arab lands combined. Yea. So fricken what. NONE of those states are going to be seen by us, who are heirs of the glories of Anglo-Americana, as examples worthy of our emulation.
D'Souza was playing an artful bit of bait and switch today too.
That was rather nauseating.
He wrote his damn foolish book, he ought to have the manhood to go out there and defend his policy prescriptions flowing from his inner fears!
Posted by: Dan at March 2, 2007 3:39 AM
One of D'Souza's claims in the debate was that Robert starts off with the conquests of Mohammed and fast forwards to al Qaeda. While Robert responded with what the texts have always said, he could have briefly used some history as well - something that D'Souza is thoroughly ignorant of. It is not like the first few decades after Mohammed was the rapidfire conquests of Islam, and then some 700 years of democracy. True, the Arab hegemony ended once Baghdad fell to Hulegu Khan, but that by no means was an end to the wars. And he mentions all the caliphates - Umayyad, Abassid, Ottoman - as though they were great and prosperous empires. And somehow he missed the Seljuk Turks, Tamerlane and a whole host of other rulers. Fact remains that that area of the world was never at peace, and there was always persecution of non-Muslims, to the extent that they existed.
Robert, your response on the question of whether the Tamil Tigers, the IRA or the Irgun were Hindu/Catholic/Jewish terrorists was good, but there was one more thing worth mentioning. All these acts were local - the Tamil Tigers don't have a goal of some day having us speak Tamil, the IRA never had plans to take over Russia and the Irgun never had plans to convert the Hindus to Judaism. In the case of the Jihadist groups, while they have their local spheres of influence, their goals are common as well - make their respective countries Islamic (where it's not already) or Islamic theocracies (where it is).
But nowhere does D'Souza's omniscience about history shine more than in his 'home' country India, where Muslims (presumably the Moghuls) ruled for only 200 years and didn't convert any Hindus. Somehow, he probably skipped the classes when the Sultanates of Delhi were being taught: that started in the 1200s, and transitioned to the Moghuls in the 1500s (not to mention all the other Muslim sultanates all over India over that period.) All in all, India had some 1800 years of Islamic persecution, and 150-200m dead Hindus/Buddhists/Jains/Sikhs to show for it.
On the question of whether Islam is compatible with democracy, listening to D'Souza, one would think that India is an Islamic country with 200m Muslims (actual number is 133m). Also, the argument that the most populous Islamic countries are democracies - Indonesia and Bangladesh and Turkey - ignores the persecution of Christians in all 3 countries, and Hindus in the first 2 under the majority rule. D'Souza, for all his Western exposure, misses the point of what democracy is. It isn't just majority rule, where on an island of 16 men and 4 women, one could have a 16:4 vote on whether the women should be raped, and go ahead. It is the respect of rights of all citizens and equality under the law - concepts totally alien to Muslims, regardless of how many elections they hold.
To paraphrase D'Souza's closing argument (where he had to have the last word), I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony pointing out his errors.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 3:47 AM
I just finished the debate too. And I must confess to a certain disappointment.
You simply weren't given sufficient time to explore these issues.
The room looked packed.
THEY looked more than eager to stay, and hear it out.
Too bad, too damn bad.
But I think CPAC wasn't too eager for the bromides to be blown up.
People are beginning to sense that Spencer is right. It's growing, {as I said it would, EVEN IN Europe...}. But that doesn't mean the people are eager to hear more, for they sense that a collision is coming, a collision like the ones their fathers knew.
And nobody wants any part of that.
Which is why we get books like the one from this guy D'Souza, filled with fear, freighted with dread, loaded down with anxiety.
HE PLAYED on that fear today.
And they shouldn't have sat you next to one another like that either.
Posted by: Dan at March 2, 2007 3:48 AM
Typo above - India had 800 years of Islamic rule, not 1800 (although it sure felt like it).
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 3:50 AM
Ya really just need to ask, at the beginning of any of these types of debates:
1} Are you questioning the underlying truthfulness of what I'm relating....????
OR
2} Are you questioning the PRUDENTIAL VALUE of what I'm relating, for purposes of advancing our war effort.......??????
Because if he says the latter, THEN EFFECTIVELY he's conceding ground on the former.
The other thing you need to do, is not allow the blurring of the lines of debate.
Constantly ask "are we discussing islamic verities, or are we discussing what use knowledge of such verities has for our war effort?"
Posted by: Dan at March 2, 2007 3:56 AM
"Since I have a good knowledge of both Western and non-Western cultures..."
--- from Dinesh D'Souza's description of himself
Hugh: "He doth bestride the world like a colossus.'
Priceless!
Almost like 'does the moon care when a dog barks..?'
Another poster above:
"What would you think of an alliance with Irshad Manji?"
Manji is unable to face the ugly reality. She is sugarcoating this pig called Islam, pretending she can cook her own cult to her own liking. She still lives in lala-land. Unless she makes a complete break with Islam and sees it for what it is instead of she would like it to be she can't be an ally, but a westernized shill for a nonexistent Islam.
Infidel Pride:
There's something wrong with your posting here:
"All in all, India had some 1800 years of Islamic persecution, and 150-200m dead Hindus/Buddhists/Jains/Sikhs to show for it."
Cannot be. Islam exist's since 1400 years, so how can you have 1800 years of Islamic persecution in India? The numbers of killed Hindu's are usually given around 70-80 million. Where did you get 200 million from?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 2, 2007 5:02 AM
"D'Souza drew some boos from the crowd when he acknowledged that, yes, you can find the phrase "kill the unbelievers" in the Qur'an, but you can also find it in the Old Testament."
Mr. D'Souza, they weren't booing; they were saying "D'Sooooooooooooouza" or else it was "Mooooooovers".
at March 2, 2007 6:22 AM
"you can find the phrase "kill the unbelievers" in the Qur'an, but you can also find it in the Old Testament."
...Of course there is a distinction...Christianity rarely if ever, embarked on a purely genocidal policy of ethnic cleansing....Islam, on the other hand started out pursuing a genocidal policy of ethnic cleansing and continues to do so today...Need Proof?...you shouldn't.....
at March 2, 2007 9:09 AM
Note that Suhail Khan as the moderator finished with a quote from Jesus's sermon on the mount at Galilee in the new testament;
"Blessed are the peace makers for they will be called the children of God".
Posted by: Mackie at March 2, 2007 10:17 AM
Cont:
Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the children of god (Matthew 5-9)
Posted by: Mackie at March 2, 2007 10:20 AM
Mackie,
So Mr. Khan used scripture, eh?. Yeah, the devil also knows scripture back and forth, and can twist it to his own ends.
Posted by: wrathofasma at March 2, 2007 10:40 AM
"Robert, your response on the question of whether the Tamil Tigers, the IRA or the Irgun were Hindu/Catholic/Jewish terrorists was good, but there was one more thing worth mentioning. All these acts were local..."
Yes, and therefore are other differences, which I have adumbrated on my blog:
Comparing IRA Terrorism with Islamic Terrorism: Another Canard
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2006/09/comparing-ira-terrorism-with-islamic.html
at March 2, 2007 11:43 AM
I think next time they should invite someone like Hugh Fitzgerald. Have a doubles debate. Dinesh D'Souza and Karen Armstrong vs. Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald. Robert could have been sharper but he wasn't. Loggerheads as usual. Robert's gotta hit back hard as some of the readers have suggested. If there's a doubles debate, no doubt the Spencer-Fitzgerald team would kill.
Posted by: wrathofasma at March 2, 2007 11:54 AM
"So Mr. Khan used scripture, eh?. Yeah, the devil also knows scripture back and forth, and can twist it to his own ends."
Peace in this case means totally giving up anything and everything that we, as non-Muslims, hold dear, in order to preserve our lives.
If this be peace, give me war.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 2, 2007 12:27 PM
Sheikh Yermani
The first point about Muslim rule in India being 800 years and not 1800 was duly noted 2 posts below.
As for the 80m number of Hindus killed, Koenraad Elst cited Kishori Saran Lal as noting that thei was the number killed between 1000-1525AD. In that case, note that it doesn't count anything that happened under the Moghul empire or successive Muslim invasions, which ran from 1526 to 1761. While in the first half of the millenium, Muslims were mainly active in North India, in the latter half, they were active throughout the country, so the casualty numbers couldn't have been much less.
The VHP claims that the total number of people that Muslims massacred was 200m. I think that the only way that number can be right is if one counts Hindus who were enlisted in Muslim armies, and died fighting in various wars of conquest or defense. If one looks just at defeated Hindu armies massacred, as well as civilian massacres, the number is more likely 150m.
Some day, I hope to have a breakdown by dynasty and ruler on these statistics.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 12:43 PM
Dan
Excellent posts.
I was there, in the room, and able to take the temperature of the crowd.
CPAC is a curious assemblage, and this year it felt really bizarre, what with all kinds of excentrics milling around and the huge numbers of college kids--I almost came to the conclusion CPAC was founded so that college republicans could get dates and internships. And if you love pins, that's the place to get them; there was this one kid proudly displaying "I told Hillary where to stick it."
It also felt as if someone was trying to sabotage Robert and Dinesh's panel. It wasn't posted on the schedule outside the room, so many people thought it had been cancelled or postponed, and left. The panel didn't start at the appointed time, it felt rushed through and breathless, and it was fraught with technical difficulties. The moderator looked hapless, maybe because of the changes in the format that Robert was talking about.
The college crowd was there to see a good fight, and at least one sitting next to me declared herself to be satisfied, but, overall, it didn't feel like the audience knew much about the subject because many enormities uttered by D'Souza drew no reaction. The cheers were mostly to generic conservative points being scored against the left and democratic administrations (Carter, Clinton) as well as to Robert's good retorts. A small fraction of the audience sounded like Dinesh groupies, ready to cheer no matter what.
Dinesh came across as shrill, intemperate, condescending to downright rude (he kept addressing Robert with "Spencer")and, frankly, a little unhinged--clearly not someone who knows he has the truth on his side, and the very opposite of Robert. He looks well groomed to a fault, in strange contrast to his wild-eyed pronouncements.
at March 2, 2007 12:47 PM
ovidius
I did notice that Robert was making faces or something while Dinesh was speaking. I hope not. That takes away from the message. It also makes him look as petulant as Dinesh.
Posted by: wrathofasma at March 2, 2007 2:26 PM
wrathofasma
Robert seemed to be chuckling or mocking the remarks. It was amusing to watch, and didn't come off as petulant. If anything, he was being helpful, adjusting Dinesh's mike - something I didn't see DD reciprocate.
Ovidius
What I am wondering is - who was it who originally chose the format, and at whose behest was it changed? Time to dive into conspiracy theoryland.
Remote
Point noted. Interestingly enough, unlike the typical Mohammedan apologist who brings up McVeigh, Suhail Khan at least brought up real terrorist groups. And in the case of the Irgun, whenever they bombed British facilities, they'd call in and provide last minute warnings so that the attacks couldn't be prevented, but people didn't get killed.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 2:47 PM
Here is the URL for the CSPAN video
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/c08/c08_030107_cpac.rm
at March 5, 2007 10:36 PM
Real Video archive file on CSPAN
Posted by: Vince at March 5, 2007 10:37 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)