It is what it is.

Posted by: pez at March 2, 2007 11:59 AM

D'Souza is either stupid, or has chosen to pretend to remain stupid for the sake of book sales or darker reasons.

To ignore history is a common islamic ploy.

Posted by: dgene at March 2, 2007 12:03 PM

Since I can read above the 4th grade level what I have reviewed and seen in many books is that ISLAM HAS BEEN A MURDEROUS PROBLEM SINCE THE 7TH CENTURY!!
Who is this muslim crappin' about peaceful muslims?
Islam has been invading, slaving, raping, and conquering everywhere from Arabia to Egypt, the Greeks, the Byzantines, Romans, Vandals, Hungarians, Jews, Spainards, French, Germans, and Serbian since the death of the bordello manager named Mohammed.
Islam was only stopped from advancing in Europe when the locals organized massive counter-offensives in the west.
Islam has been warring and bloody since its invention so the statement of islam going nasty in the last 25 years is pure nonsense.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at March 2, 2007 12:05 PM

what is the source of the detail on tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists killed? is this universally accepted?

Posted by: StillBreathing at March 2, 2007 12:08 PM

Islam is a heresy of Christianity. Its very roots are radical. Speaking the truth about Islam is what is needed. If this incites some to jihad then so be it. The truth is oftentimes difficult to hear---but that does not mean we cower in silence so that we do not anger its followers. Speaking the truth is precisely why Jesus was killed. As His followers we must do no less!
http://www.realclearreligion.com

Posted by: genevieve at March 2, 2007 12:10 PM

What a cheesy thing to say: "Spencer 'essentially agrees with Bin Laden.'"
If Bin Laden is right about something, do I have to disagree with him because he has done horrible things? For example:

Bin Laden: (fanning himself in the 92 degree weather) Warm day, huh?
D'Souza: (pretending to shiver) No it isn't you terrorist!
Bin Laden: Have you noticed how gravity holds us to the earth's surface so nicely here?
D'Souza: Nonsense! We are clearly flying through space, you evil, evil man!
etc.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 2, 2007 12:13 PM

In addition to not reading Mr. Robert Spencer's books Mr. Dinesh D'Souza has obviously (as revealed in his repeated statements) not read the the very important works of islamic doctrine - which are as important -if not more so-than the "holy book" -i.e. "sira" and "hadith".
Dinesh the "Dhimmi" is therefore -at the least -unqualified to discuss the topic and should not be given any public forum in which to promote his very narrow and limited understanding. And at most - he does know and understand and is therefore purposefully misleading i.e. lying. Why, for whom (and for how much)? 17 percent of the written doctrine deals with the "holy book" while 83 percent deals with the thoughts and deeds of the "prophet".

Posted by: TINBH at March 2, 2007 12:14 PM

By the way, Robert, what did you expect of the format and how was it changed?

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 2, 2007 12:14 PM

"But his historical argument is dubious. It emphasizes violent passages in the Koran, while downplaying the passages that urge peace and goodwill."

Does Mr. D'Souza not have access to a computer? The overwhelming evidence shows that lots of Muslims commit violent, non-"peaceful" acts against non-Muslims in the name of Allah, and they say they do it precisely because they are non-Muslims. How many acts of terrorism are committed by non-Muslims in, say, any given month? How many beheadings are committed in the name of Allah? How many are committed in the name of Pope Benedict XVI? How many in the name of Robert Schuller or Billy Graham?

Mr. D'Souza is basking in his notoriety and fame while keeping his head planted firmly in the sand. He attacks Robert because he wants to be the foremost expert on Islam, remain the darling of the Establishment that also resembles a flock of ostriches and he doesn't give a hoot about 70 million dead Hindus slaughtered at the instigation of Muslims.

Isn't he supposed to be a Catholic also? Jesus said he would vomit out of his mouth those who are lukewarm. D'Souza's spew certainly resembles a sickroom after an epidemic of the flu.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 2, 2007 12:22 PM

Watched the "debate" at CPAC yesterday. D'Souza is lame. Thanks for schooling him to the extent that you could under the "debate" format Mr. Spencer.

To answer D'Souza's question "Do we want to go to war with a billion Muslims?" I guess that'll be up to them.

Posted by: Mark Twain at March 2, 2007 12:23 PM

D'Stupid needs to go here:

http://www.cspipublishing.com/Mohammed_Allah_And_The_Christians.htm

...orrder his copy and maybe learn something.

He will learn that very early on, before Elvis, before Howard Stern, as that fiend Mohammad, rascal of allah, began preaching his rip-offed and corrupted religion, the entire community of Mecca was utterly traumatized. In despair, the leaders of the formerly tolerant Quraysh tribe went to Abu Talib (uncle of mohammad):

"Your nephew, Mohammad," they said, "has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, defamed our civilization, turned son against father, defamed our ancestors, and created nothing but enmity and violence. You need to stop him!"

AND THAT WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING.

Posted by: ynkedoodl2 at March 2, 2007 12:24 PM

dgene wrote:

"D'Souza is either stupid, or has chosen to pretend to remain stupid for the sake of book sales or darker reasons."

I had assumed that since DD can't be that stupid, his position w/r/t Islam has ulterior motives. But after reading the following sentence, I think he might be that stupid.

"In arguing his thesis Spencer locates all the violent verses in the Koran and all the hideous deeds performed by Islamic conquerors, especially in their early centuries of irredentist expansion."

Does he even know what "irredentist" means? When muslims swept through North Africa, were they reclaiming lost territory? What about Spain? Southern France? The Byzantine Empire? India? Yes, I now think he is rather stupid.

Also, DD asks:

"[I]s it realistic to approach the Muslim world with the premise that the only good Muslim is a non-Muslim?"

I would instead ask: Is it realistic for the Muslim world to believe that the only good human is a Muslim, as they seem to believe?

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 2, 2007 12:33 PM

D'Souza knows he can make a name for himself marginalizing the truth tellers. Actually taking on the problem facing us is too overwhelming. There are no quick, cheap, or simple solutions.

Islam is returning to the early days of expansion and conquest, but using western technology to do it. Far better than the rest of the world is using technology to fight against expansionist Islam.

Probably for another decade or so, jihad deniers will be very popular. It would require the abandonment of too many closely-held illusions in order to mount a proper defense.

The "Me Generation" can't conceive of a Suicide-Bombing-for-Martyrdom-and-Triumphant-Islam Generation. Better to feign stupidity and pass the mess on to the next generation. Otherwise we might have to consider reducing generous government handouts to the coming retirement bubble.

Posted by: Beagle at March 2, 2007 12:36 PM

What's the beef? Spencer DOES agree with bin Laden abut Islam. So do all the main schools of Sunni theology 'the mainstream' of Islam. So do the Shia though they put their own apocalyptic 'vengeance fantasy' spin on it.

Most 'moderate' Muslims, once the conversation gets a little heated and you lay out facts (about Israel, say) explode and say 'bin Laden type things'. If none of this matters to you, just look at the opinion polls from throughout the Islamic world. Support for 'Islam Original Recipe' invariably runs higher than support for the Nazis in Germany 1933.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 2, 2007 12:36 PM

D'Souza reminds me of a child putting a finger in each ear and chanting lalalalalalalalalalalala...can't hear you....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 2, 2007 12:39 PM

D'Souza = Denial = Dhimmified = Dangerous

Oh brother, D'Souza! You are blaming the victim for why radical Islam wants us dead. You are blaming foreign policy and liberal values on why they have become "emboldened". So it's our fault that they've attacked us? That's essentially what you're saying.

Gee -- the fact that Islam wants to dominate the world, as outlined in the Qur'an, doesn't enter into the picture? Don't you know that radical Islam will find any and all excuses to kill you and your family whether or not those "reasons" are true. And if they can't find a reason, then they'll make one up!

Don't you understand that they hate you and your "freedoms". To a radical Muslim, the word freedom is a four-letter word, and it needs to be taken away from us.

I don't know, Robert, maybe this guy is a closet Muslim. And describing you as a "polemicist" was certainly nice of him -- nice and dismissive!

Posted by: champ at March 2, 2007 12:42 PM

Bernard Lewis does not use the Internet. Someone, however, should alert him to the misuse of him, as authority, or "auctoritee" (we are back with Chaucer), by the homo unius libri, Dinesh D'Souza, who apparently thinks that he has "studied" Islam when he has read, most imperfecdtly, Bernard Lewis.

What would one think of anyone who said he had "studied" any subject by reading Authority X, or Y, or Z, and that was the end of the matter?

What would one think of anyone who read that "authority" who was himself pulling his punches, or himself widely criticized for his strange inattention to important matters (in "The Middle East: The Last 2000 Years" Bernard Lewis manages, in 400 pages, to discuss the treatment of non-Muslims, as dhimmis, in only three paragraphs, all of them sequential, and two of them essentially exculpatory), and who in any case has been flatly contradicted by a great many others, including not only Bat Ye'or, the great scholar of the dhimmi condition (and Lewis's nasty and envious attempt to belittle her, with that word "dhimmi-tude," has not escaped notice, and he, Lewis, has been more and more revealed, over the past few years, to be not quite The Authority that his acolyates, including some in the Pentagon and in the Vice-President's office, took him to be -- but of course taking him as such relieved them all of the need to go and read fifty others. Clearly D'Souza felt that he had no need to read Antoine Fattal on the legal status of non-Muslims, nor Joseph Schacht. He had no need to read Gustav von Grunebaum, or S. D. Goitein. Nor Zwemer, nor St. Clair Tisdall, nor Henri Lammens, nor Muir, nor perhaps the greatest Orientalist of all, Snouck Hurgronje, or a hundred others, not their books, not their articles, nothing at all.

He had bits and pieces of Lewis -- and even there, he overlooked so much of what Lewis wrote earlier, before, out of vanity perhaps, he began to support the Oslo Accords, and then the farce of transplanting "democracy" -- defined primitively as mere head-counting, without any of the other elements in advanced Western democracies, including the rights of minorities, that appear to have been overlooked by so many of the praters, from Bush to D'Souza, about how it is "racist" to claim that "democracy" cannot everywhere be spread, is not everywhere welcome. It is not "racist" at all to analyze, as so many Orientalists have analyzed, the nature of the belief-system of Islam.

But Dinesh D'Souza hasn't time to do that. He's a crowd-pleaseer and check-casher, is Dinesh D'Souza. He's got to offer up those cheap phrases, and get on to the next event.

He is ignorant, and he is stupid. But he is even worse than that: he is someone who felt he had toi come up with Something New, Something that could be offered up, however dangerous, however wrong, that he as the Bright Not-Quite-So-Young (46) Conservative, could publish, and sell, and tell us, as he titles his latest article, one that is on the cover of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, "Radical Islam: Why We've Got It All Wrong."

He doesn't care. He's selling. And some may be buying. And if he's wrong, so what? He's a Holocaust Denier: he denies the Hindu Holocaust. He claims that the wonderful Muslims who conquered and ruled much of India did not kill any Hindus. They killed 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years. A Holocaust Denier.

But Dinesh D'Souza needs to maintain a certain level of income. What are 60-70 million dead Hindus, and the Jizyah inflicted on the rest (does the name "Mahmoud of Ghazni" mean antyhing, or the name "Aurganzeb," to Dinesh D'Souza? If so, what? And what does he make of the work of Indian historians, and of non-Indians, such as Koenraad Elst and Francois Gautier? Or wasn't "Islam in India" part of his intensive study of Islam, sittig at the metaphorical feet of Bernard Lewis, who of course hasn't ever written about Islam in India, not a word?

If the Holocaust Denier and Revisionist "Historian" Dinesh D'Souza, with his criminally negligent presentation of Islam't teachings, and the history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, helps delay the necessary recognition, by some Infidels, of what it is they are menaced by, the true sources of that menace, and why the division of the world between Believer and Infidel predates, by 1350 years, the appearance among us of such people as Michael Jackson (now becoming a Musim), and Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears, then Dinesh D'Souza is not merely a bad historian and badly misinformed about the belief-system of Islam, but is also a traitor to the West. He is hurting that West which he claims to be a part of, claims that he helps to buttress, claims that he knows all about, for he is a self-described expert -- bestriding the world like a colossus --on Western and non-Western "cultures."

He knows everything, Dinesh D'Souza. Just don't bother him with facts. Or logic. Or sense. Or appeals to intellectual coherence.

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2007 12:46 PM

Well, realizing the wealth of Islam, I'd have to say the Internet was the only affordable media for them to use to start the war on Terroirsm. They can conviently communicate with millions of their followers if they have computers and modems. I believe this is why they haven't been able to really get a foot in conducting terrorist acts, and now we can expect more attacks in the future too.

Posted by: Jeff at March 2, 2007 12:50 PM

D'Souza will never admit he's wrong, as that would effect book sales. He will just continue to evade questions and say the same things over and over.

Posted by: kelisw at March 2, 2007 12:53 PM

FILE UNDER: ACADEMIC ALCHEMY

Bullshit is bullshit
but the study of bullshit is scholarship.

Dinesh D'Stupid (the Dhimwit)deserves the

ACADEMIC ALCHEMIST OF THE YEAR AWARD!

Posted by: ynkedoodl2 at March 2, 2007 12:54 PM

what is the source of the detail on tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists killed? is this universally accepted? Posted by: StillBreathing

The source is here, and that too, only a partial count, since it only covers Muslim rule prior to the Moghul empire, not the British Raj. So one would have to calculate or extrapolate to find out the number that died subsequently: my estimate on this is some 150m. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad claims 200m, which is only possible if Hindus who were enlisted in Muslim armies and had to participate in Muslim wars are counted.

As for universal acceptance, it is well known that Hindus were brutally treated during Muslim rule, but other than the VHP claim above, nobody had ever statistically put a finger on it. Of course, there are Congress Dhimmi and Marxist historians in India who pretend that everything was hunky dory, and that the Brits were the worst things that happened to India.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 12:56 PM

"But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism is a recent one"

History has been around for .... as long as we can remember. However, amnesia due to PC will make even the most violent of religions suffering from a "sudden surge of terrorism".

How about remembering Egypt, Christian until somewhere between 639-641.
How about remembering the Byzantine empire. Fighting the muslims between 800 to 1400. Europe, until 1683 in Vienna. USA fought the north African states until late 17xx early 1800. Where does the idea that Islam is a NEW problem come from?

Posted by: Marvin at March 2, 2007 12:57 PM

In truth it is pointless debating a man like D'Souza. They have convinced themselves of their argument. What I find funny is how he can NOT supply any evidence for his argument. He can't even name one muslim in leadership position that will renounce jihad and sharia. He seems to think religious muslims are the allies when in truth it is the secular muslims (the few that exist) who have any hope of being reached. Lets assume some things right now:

(1) D'Souza is clueless about Islam and Islamic theology and its power over the Islamic world today. I am no expert but at least I have read the Quran and am making my way through the various and painful ahadith Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and others. It is a long road but rewarding for any westerner and esp. a lover of military and scientific history to study. To learn about why one must fight an enemy etc. It is self evident to me the dangers of Islamic theology. I don't need Robert Spencer to tell me that (but Mr. Spencer is a valuable resourse of furthur study) D'Souza appears to have read none of this. Has he even read the Quran or does he buy this nonsense that only the arabic version count..

(2) Khan erected a weak straw man with Sir lanka and Ireland as examples of terror BUT neither the IRA or Tamil Tigers have any global ambitions of world conquest however Islamic Jihad does.

(3) D'Souza is clueless about Indian history but even worse he is clueless about western civilization which he claims to know so much about. He thinks he understand what made the west great but it appears to me he ignores the enlightenment thinkers who dislike Islam for the same reasons Robert Spencer does. He ignores the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution thinkers who disliked Islam for the same reasons Robert Spencer does. He ignores the Founding Fathers who disliked Islam for the same reasons Robert Spencer does.

My question to D'Souza is this: How could Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and John Quincy Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, etc etc....who all seem to agree Islam is dangerous and degrading be wrong? If these men were still alive they would be in full agreement with Robert Spencer. Who can you find from history that would agree with D'Souza that it is the wicked ways of the west that causes Islamic violance?.......no one except a few current Arabist like Armstrong would agree with this nonsense.

Of course you have to keep debating him just to prevent his silly ideas from gaining any followers but god it must be a pain to debate somebody this clueless. The truth will win out in the end.

Also fellow JW readers keep an eye on his blog and let him know what we think of his arguments. Do be honest and respectful even if D'Souza has not been to Mr. Spencer.

Lets pound him like Esmay and Hooper!!!!! (do it with class however we don't wish to sound like raving Islamophobes!!!) We all have to do our bit for the cause!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 2, 2007 1:02 PM

Hugh:

Where does this Hindu holocaust figure come from? A local professor (who specializes in Hindu/Muslim relations in India) tells me that the notion of tens of millions dead... is false.

Others:

Here's the quote from Wikipedia: "According to a literary tradition at least three centuries old,[1] Saint Thomas Aquinas[2] is reputed to have employed the phrase 'hominem unius libri timeo'— 'I fear the man of a single book'. "

Posted by: StillBreathing at March 2, 2007 1:08 PM

oh, Infidel Pride provided some detail. thanks.

Posted by: StillBreathing at March 2, 2007 1:09 PM

"what is the source of the detail on tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists killed? is this universally accepted?"

StillBreathing,

The source for that information is

The Legacy of Muslim Rule
in India. It is available online at
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tlmr/

Regarding universal acceptance, important historians such as Will Durant have this to say

He says in the book The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage page 459:

"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within." Almost all the Muslims of South Asia are descendants of weaker elements of the population who had succumbed to forcible Islamic conversion." ) and of course scholars like Serge Trifkovic has this piece in FrontPage Mag

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4649

I don't even know that this fact is Universally known, let alone accept it just as the fact about Islam being violent is not known even to the Intelligensia here and those who are supposed to be waging a war against it.

Posted by: Ishwar at March 2, 2007 1:11 PM

To add to my earlier post, let alone Universal acceptance, the uncomfortable facts of Muslim rule in India is not acknowledged in India itself, because it is too uncomfortable and is not politically expedient. When we learnt history in school, the text books taught us blatant lies such as "Aurangazeb was a pious and Just Ruler and Allauddin Khilji was a noble warrior" and all kinds of nonsense to cover up. All the elitist historians at institutions like JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University) never talk about this or talk about it in glowing terms. A few historians and scholars like KS Lal, Ram Swaroop, Sita Ram Goel, NS Rajaram and journalists like Francois Gautier have done yeoman service to bring out the historical facts as is. And there are a few people on this forum who know about their works. I have seen Hugh and Robert refer to them.

Posted by: Ishwar at March 2, 2007 1:22 PM

But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism is a recent one.

Do we really want to go to war with a billion Muslims? ++++++++++++++++++

insanity of the left has no bounds............

the cult of islam was created with violence and will die by violence.......

go to war with a billion muslims, the cult of islam is driving the world to war, it will then been seen what 2 billion Christians can do when the war spawned by the cult of islam gets started.

The Texican.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.
Live free and die free.

Posted by: The Texican at March 2, 2007 1:25 PM

We all know, that the Islamic world is conducting a propaganda campain, to convince the rest of the world that all the problems lie with, and are because of, the West, and not with Islam.

No one can figure out why D'Souza has taken the position he has. Historical fact is un-refutable and so is present day events. He can't be that stupid. So, usually when you can't figure someone out, then money is usually involved.

Therefore, who is paying D'Souza?

Posted by: sounder at March 2, 2007 1:34 PM

A few impressions from CPAC yesterday:

I was at the debate, in the Empire Ballroom, 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

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 2, 2007 1:38 PM

D'Souza reminds me of those few pathetic Jews in the Nazi Ghettos who believed that the whole thing was just a horrible misunderstanding and that if only they could get the Nazis to see that the Jews were loyal Germans, all would be forgiven and normal life could resume. Sad....

Posted by: BunrattyBill at March 2, 2007 1:45 PM

D'Souza is an intellectual prostitute and he "thinks" whatever sells. I can see him crafting his brilliant idea. "Let's see how can I cash in on the western self-hatred, the popular ROP delusion and the idol of inclusiveness all at the same time? That's it, I got it, Islamic militancy is caused by western decadence, and we must ally ourselves with conservative ROPers to defeat it!" KACHING! Construct some idiotic platitudes to that effect tobe repeated over and over, and voila, book deal, speaking engagements, annointment as conservative visonary, and all the associated perks. Plus, how could a man in such a nice suit be wrong!

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at March 2, 2007 1:52 PM

I loved d'Souza's reference to Islam's "early centuries of irredentist expansion". Which centuries were these, exactly? When did they end? Bulgarians like my wife keep a national memory of the horrors of the Ottoman yoke, which did not end until the early 20th Century.

Posted by: Karl Pov at March 2, 2007 1:54 PM

D'Stupid thinks he's a hot shit and so carelessly uses words like irredentist.

He's an absolute phony!

ir·re·den·tist

1. a member of an Italian association that became prominent in 1878, advocating the redemption, or the incorporation into Italy, of certain neighboring regions (Italia irredenta) having a primarily Italian population.

2. a member of a party in any country advocating the acquisition of some region included in another country by reason of cultural, historical, ethnic, racial, or other ties.

Since when were the imperial conquests of Islam based on "cultural, historical, ethnic, racial, or other ties?"

Posted by: ynkedoodl2 at March 2, 2007 1:59 PM

I am beginning to love D'Souza as my comic relief of the day and I thank you, Mr. Spencer.
The Big Double D is like Texas in the summer, it is too big, sprawls all over, you can't get away from it and it is full of hot air.

D'Souza if you examine his speech pattern can not keep from mentioning, selling and promoting his book. His entire blogs are like infomercials of the worst kind.
The honest truth is D'Souza is not American in thought patterns nor Conservative. His entire process is feminine liberal as he skirts issues, makes things up, degrades others and is Hillary Clinton in a Goa immigrant package.

Every time he opens his mouth or taps on a keyboard he reveals his complete ignorance on a wide variety of subjects. His mention of Muslim rule of India as an example of why Islam is humane in not slaughtering Indian Hindus or forcing them to Islam ignores economics as there was no way the Muslims could either murder nor convert that many Hindu nationals as it would have destroyed the Islamic empire.
Converted Hindu would have been free and not slaves to exploit and murdered Hindu waste resources and how does one profit when no workers are available to enslave?

That is the kind of ignorance D'Souza operates under. He in many ways is like Muhammed bringing back Christianity to Arabs and calling it Islam on the bias.
D'Souza is of Goa a Portuguese outpost in India of Catholic origin. He has benefitted from British rule. He has immigrated to America, but at his heart he is the outsider Indian Hindu always looking in but never understanding Christianity, America, Americans nor the basis of all in God.

D'Souza clicks perfectly in the profile clock. I was not going to reveal this, but people do need to understand who this man is at heart. He is still the little Hindu Indian boy with dark skin who saw the elite were white skinned which beckons back to his past of Aryan white skinned peoples civilized the black skinned lower Indians of lore.
D'Souza looks at western values as superior and in his soul views white women as status symbols. It is why he dated prominant Conservative white women and married a southern Louisiana white female named Dixie.
His entire being is trying to be what he is not as he deems himself inferior. This is not racist, because he has written a book on it trying to negate his daughters ethnic background of simple Eurasian to "too many sources to define", which in turn in his psychology allows him to finally escape his Indian world as race does not matter.

Such pyschopathy never does make any sense as people who know India find it a dynamic, exotic and a seductive people with a rich heritage and peaceful industrious community. D'Souza though embraces the economic and status symbol and is what gears "his conservatism".

D'Souza is not an expert on Islam, America or anything. All he is is just a voice spewing things he has heard in order to give status to the ego house he has constructed. He uses his limited intellect as a weapon and when he meets people like Robert Spencer he fails miserably, but can not let it go as he has to blog about it in order to keep this little Indian boy in the fiction that he is not what he is.

Sadly, D'Souza should be pittied as he is not a voice for Conservatives or anything. He is like Muhammed who heard something and has twisted it to make himself into a lie he knows he is not.

agtG

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 2, 2007 2:01 PM

Islam was peaceful only as long as it was restrained under the whip of European and Ottoman imperialism.

Once they slipped the leash after WWII, they started inevitably reverting back to jihad.

It looks like they need a refresher course on exactly why you do not go to war with the West ... Americans, Russians, and Europeans have untaped reserves of savagery ... just ask the folks who lived near Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Another Vlad the Impaler needs to teach them fear again.

Posted by: Kristopher at March 2, 2007 2:06 PM

The more I read what D'Souza says, the more amazed I become at the man's monumental ignorance and inability to grasp history. Yet his nonsense has to be confronted and exposed for what it is: the silly theories of a willfully ignorant fool.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at March 2, 2007 2:11 PM

Hugh wrote:
He is ignorant, and he is stupid. But he is even worse than that: he is someone who felt he had to come up with Something New, Something that could be offered up, however dangerous, however wrong, that he as the Bright Not-Quite-So-Young (46) Conservative, could publish, and sell, and tell us, as he titles his latest article, one that is on the cover of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, "Radical Islam: Why We've Got It All Wrong."

Bingo!! The correct thesis on the cause of 9/11... Islamic jihad...has already been written, and there is no available income to be gained there.

If it wasn't for the danger that the man presents, obfuscating the truth of Islam, as applied today, the ideology taken directly from their immutable texts, his position would simply be seen as laughable. Some monetary connection between D'Souza and Saudi Arabia is all but apparent at this point.

Posted by: awake at March 2, 2007 2:12 PM

Robert Spencer wrote: "We do have to call upon Muslims of good will to stand up and distinguish themselves from the jihadists..."

Not only have Muslims of good will not done so over the past few years; not only does it continue to seem that they will not do so; but there is also no reason from history to think they will do so, either.

Spencer's prescription above serves less as an actual pragmatic call based upon expectations of satisfaction, than it does as a rhetorical device to continually illustrate what seems to be an endemic and essential feature of the Islam which most Muslims are actively following and passively countenancing -- a feature that will not be able to put the brakes on a metastasis of jihadism now underway but rather seems to be positively enhancing that metastasis, necessitating therefore our general military and paramilitary engagement against Islam.

D'Souza is therefore right -- at least superficially so -- for the wrong reasons, and Spencer is wrong -- at least superficially so -- for the right reasons.

Posted by: remote_control at March 2, 2007 2:17 PM

"It is why he dated prominant Conservative white women"

...but D'Souza never did anything but hold hands with them, because he knew to go further would offend Osama's feelings of sexual purity and thus fuel muslim jihad against the west! So you know, he put on an iron chastity belt to save western civilization from muslim invaders, very altruistic and heroic...

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at March 2, 2007 2:21 PM

I find a creepy resemblance between D'Souza and some aspects of the Bush policy. The common thread is the idea that Muslims can be pacified by Infidel behavior. In D'Souza's case, he's saying that respectful, inoffensive and conservative behavior will do it. In Bush's case it's a matter of being respectful (Islam is a "religion of peace") and setting up democratic infrastructures for the politically deprived Muslim masses, including a Palestinian state.
These actions are designed to ignite loving gestures of eternal friendship and gratitude in Muslim hearts. But, when it comes to Infidels, the Muslim heart is frozen solid.

Posted by: jewdog at March 2, 2007 2:24 PM

If D'Sousa is supposed to be an expert about Islam. One would think he would already know how false his premmis is.

How Pious are these Muslims themselfs?

He would have a better case if he was claming the Muslims were mad because our Porn is so much better. Who could argue against that point?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 2, 2007 2:27 PM

I agree with Hugh. Writers of D'Souza's type have to come up with something new, something shocking every once in a while in order to keep producing bestsellers. They can't afford to refine--dig deeper, look at from various angles, contemplate dispassionately--a subject or a theme.

Watching him yesterday I sensed a certain dispair. He must have thought that his New Brilliant Idea would catch, or that he could spin it so that people wouldn't notice how lame it was, and how much ignorance lies behind it. He can't. There's a Robert Spencer, and there are those of us Robert has educated.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 2, 2007 2:35 PM

"but D'Souza never did anything but hold hands with them, because he knew to go further would offend Osama's feelings of sexual purity and thus fuel muslim jihad against the west! So you know, he put on an iron chastity belt to save western civilization from muslim invaders, very altruistic and heroic..."

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon

Mr. D'Souza has always been a anti-sex crusader renegade to point were he would invade other peoples personal lives and expose them. Below is a link to a nasty event that occured when he was at princeton.. (Please not the link is a pdf so you need adobe reader to see it). In this case he (was the writer of the story and editor of Prospect) exposed a young students sex life by giving her name in the paper and claiming it was a proofreding error.

http://www.isthatlegal.org/images/cap3.pdf

Like I said he has lots in common with is muslim brotherhood brothers....

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 2, 2007 2:36 PM

remote

What did D'Souza say that was right?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 2:36 PM

I think it's correct to say, not that US foreign policies are the primary cause of the jihad, but that it has inflamed Muslim hatred of the US (esp. for supporting Israel) and increased drastically the amount of Jihad even though it was already innate in the ideology.

But D'Souza's insistance that experts like Robert Spencer should not be publishing information that exposes the true nature of Muhammad's Islam because it can create jihadists is just terribly cowardly and irresponsible. Irresponsible because the religion-of-peace propaganda by "moderate" Muslims needs to be countered else the WEst gets gradually cooked like a frog in warming water before it knows what happened.

The Islamic terrorism IMO is mainly just punishment and deterrence. The real conquest is "by the womb" as Oriana Fallaci has warned and as Mark Steyn has elaborated.

The number one priority must be to severely restrict Muslim immigration.

Posted by: FM at March 2, 2007 2:41 PM

Robert-

You are right that the mandates and doctrines of Islam must be addressed in order to stop the violence of "radical Islam". The problem here is denial. However, I don't think your efforts will work, reason will not be enough. Eventually this denial is going to bring a tragedy to the Muslim Mideast. That is what is going to change minds re this. The ravings of the Psychotic in Iran and others like him are all firmly rooted in Islamic teachings.

Someday it will be said to you: At least you tried.

Posted by: Frank at March 2, 2007 2:42 PM

We need to keep up a strong position against the mounting threat of fundamentalist, expansionist Islam. Mr D'Servile suggests the appeasement route, being careful to not alienate those non-radicalized muslims who might side with us in a pinch. Well, the pinch is on, and I presume that the "moderate" muslims are like their intolerant brothers in that they despise the appearance of weakness.

The position Mr D advocates is one of weakness and of a feeble understanding of human motivation and will. Those who understand the critical and personal importance of subduing oppression in whatever form it develops have already taken the higher ground. It is ours to share with those who can escape totalitarianism, including traditional Islam, and ours to defend against all enemy combatants and detractors.

Posted by: lycaste at March 2, 2007 2:52 PM

D´Souza is a conservative who is doing what many on the American left have done: reducing grave foreign policy challenges to mere reflections of petty domestic animosities between the opposing American political parties. Thus Democrats hate Bush so much that they often care more about their dispute with him than they do about the external totalitarian threat. D´Souza adopts the same absurd misplacement of priorities and makes what the Democrats are allegedly doing wrong more significant than what the terrorists and totalitarian Islam are doing wrong. D´Souza and the conservatives who follow him, and many Dems, are thus guilty of a kind of navel-gazing narcissism that fails to recognize that not everything in the world is purely a function of American domestic politics. Islam has its own internal forms that have been developing since the time of Muhammad, long before Bush and long before the supposed decadence of American liberal culture. Islam is innately more fundamentalist than the other major religions, in part because violence is systematically built into the Koran as a very effective means of suppressing doubt and questions and as a way of maintaining an extreme fundamentalist interpretation. By contrast, Christian fundamentalism is just one part of Christianity, and even among Christian fundamentalists, hardly any would advocate state theocracy or the use of violence to compel belief. It just ain´t there in the New Testament to do that. But theocracy and religious violence are certainly there in the Koran and in the reports of Muhammad´s life that most Muslims consider reliable, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

Too frequently people assume, without question, that every great religion is ¨the same.¨ But such an assumption needs at least to be put in question. Especially when a religion appears to be totalitarian in its documents and practices, and when its chief (Muhammad) was the ruler of a state theocracy and a leader of many wars. By the end of the century, at least under current trends, Muslims will be a majority in Europe, so if one cares at all about religious freedom and civil rights and liberties, one should not blindly assume anything about Islam. Else it may soon be too late to save Europe´s freedoms.

Muslims´ own primary documents show that Muhammad employed torture, assassination of critics, rape, and deception for the purpose of spreading Islam´s dominance. The use of Koranically sanctioned deception by Muslim apologists seeking to make Islam look compatible with Western values must be kept well in mind. Please check these facts for yourselves, check thoroughly.

Posted by: traeh at March 2, 2007 3:05 PM

Sorry if this has already been pointed out, but if liberal ideology is the cause of radical Islam, then why do Islamists kill others who are clearly not under the influence of liberal thought? Is liberal ideology causing Islamists to kill Hindus and Buddhists, for instance? I highly doubt it...

Posted by: Adam_Schwartz at March 2, 2007 3:06 PM

It amazes me that people (such as d'Souza) can still argue that Islam doesn't promote violence and coercion. All the texts are full of it, with the exception of the early period in Mecca when Mohammed was a powerless nobody. He was all in favor of tolerance then!

Posted by: Irish Savant at March 2, 2007 3:16 PM

StillBreathing and others,

I admit I am skeptical about the notion that 70 or 80 million Hindus were killed by muslim invaders.

In 1600 the population of England was about 5,000,000. It is now about 10 times that, but most of this increae incurred in the course of the 19th century due to improvements in medical care, sanitation, agriculture etc. In the 20th it slowed down again, for other reasons.

What applies to the West applies equally to the third world, with the proviso that the massive increase in population started more recently - perhaps 100 or 50 years ago.

India now has a population of 1.1 billion. But Niall Ferguson in 'Empire' quotes a figure of some 40 million for the population of India at the beginning of the 18th century. But in the age before censuses accurate figures are hard to come by. And even for the 20th century it is difficult to determine how many died in Stalinist Russia or the Nazi concentration camps. Perhaps it was only 5 million Jews. Or 4 million.

I find this numbers game stupid. There is no moral superiority to be gained from claiming 'you have killed more of us than we killed of you.' Few doubt that Israel has killed more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. What matters morally is what either side would do IF THEY COULD.

MEMRI has a video where some guy is claiming that the Americans killed 150 American Indians. Of course this is a far wilder claim than that 80 million Hindus were slaughtered by Muslims for the same general demographic arguments I have advanced here. The Americas were relatively sparsely populated before their 'discovery' by Europeans. Many died from various causes - European diseases and the attitude later expressed in the phrase 'the only good indian is a dead indian.'

I think we should always be skeptical about big numbers and remember too that in past ages conquerors exaggerated the numbers of their victims.

What is wrong with simply saying 'many millions'? Why aim for an accuracy which can probably never be achieved?

If we are going to be scrupulous about what the Quran, ahadeeth, sira and the madhahib founded on them say, we need also to be scrupulous in two further areas. The first is history. The second is the fact that what the madhahib say has now and generally never had much impact on how most muslims live their lives. No more than Catholics listen to what the Pope says about contraception.

The problem - more perhaps for the Muslim world, but also for us - was summed up by W.B. Yeats in the 1930's : 'the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.'

Plus ca change....

Posted by: kevin at March 2, 2007 3:34 PM

dear mr. spencer,

i have to disagree with atlas shrugged and your commentators

i believe that d'souza KO'd you

and i have written about that here

http://eteraz.org/story/2007/3/2/123136/0820

when you are not as busy hobnobbing with america's leading intellectuals perhaps you can address this response i wrote to your article on jihad in the emory paper

http://eteraz.org/story/2007/3/1/1421/36075

alas i cannot offer you any air time on cspan

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 3:37 PM

to kevin:
Your post is sensible, but I would think the number could be pinned down a bit more precisely than ¨many millions.¨ One would need to take the range of numbers offered by the great scholars of the subject, and simply report that range. Naturally one´s idea of what constitutes a ¨great scholar¨ would have to be reasonably broad-minded, but generally the great scholars identify and refer to each other even when they disagree with one another, so that it shouldn´t be so very hard to find out who they are and then get from them the numerical range.

Posted by: traeh at March 2, 2007 3:51 PM

Infidel Pride,

D'Souza is right (superficially) when he rhetorically asks:

"Do we really want to go to war with a billion Muslims? If not, is it realistic to approach the Muslim world with the premise that the only good Muslim is a non-Muslim?"

The rhetorically implicit point D'Souza's questions contain is that Robert Spencer does not, in fact, really reasonably expect Muslims to reform and give up the jihadism they are either (depending on the Muslim population) 1) actively perpetrating, 2) actively supporting, or 3) passively enabling -- and that, therefore, our going to war with Islam is in fact the most rational and likely eventuality of this ongoing problem. I believe D'Souza is correct here (though for the wrong reasons), as I explained in my previous post.

Posted by: remote_control at March 2, 2007 4:00 PM

s_sgt7, thx for your input.
I certainly hope that democracy takes hold in the Mideast, as unlikely as it may be to succeed. I just think that the effort to establish it reflects a lack of understanding of the Mideast and Islam. One of the consequences of that misunderstanding is the belief that somehow the Muslims will be really grateful for our efforts. Of course, some of them are, but in general I tend to agree with Churchill who, in 1922, called Iraq an "ungrateful volcano" and predicted that Britain would get nothing of any value from it.
Instead of grand democratization schemes, our first, and maybe last, priority needs to be defense against jihad, an efficent defense stemming from a realistic assessment of what Islamic culture is all about.

Posted by: jewdog at March 2, 2007 4:08 PM

remote control:

but the fact is that reform in the muslim world (and even among western muslims) is a reality

it simply does not occur at the pace that will make people of this site happy

however it is real. spencer regularly critiques sheikh ali goma of egypt for a) his support of hizbollah (for which I have yet to see a citation), and b) for goma's banning of statues

yet the fact is that goma has allowed muslim women to lead prayer, permitted all sort of hymen reconstruction surgeries, stated that islamic law does not necessarily extend to the issue of adultery, and helped al azhar univ utter their most definitive condemnation of fgm

in other words reform is real i welcome you to read our site where we catalogue and support such efforts i.e. the women's protection bill in pakistn and anti-stoning campaigns in iran and letters that support the right of muslim publishers to publish the danish cartoons

as to the other commentator who wishes to inform me of his habits in the toilet i can only pray for him that his backside not spew diarrhea in the manner of his frontside =)

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 4:09 PM

to kevin:
I also think you perhaps underrate the ¨numbers game.¨ I´m not sure any fact that might be ascertained, even if only approximately, is quite irrelevant to understanding.

Remember that the 70 million figure is supposed to have piled up over a period of five centuries, at least if I read Andrew Bostom correctly.

If I do a calculation based on assumptions that sound plausible but might easily be wrong, seventy million does seem high. For example, if the average generation during that five century period amounted to a population of ten million Hindus, then to reach seventy million deaths, Muslims would have to have been killing, on average, close to half the population of each generation, i.e., four million multiplied by seventeen generations (assuming about 3.5 generations per century) equals about seventy million. But I have no basis for the assumptions I make in this calculation, and would be very interested to know what the serious scholars say.

Posted by: traeh at March 2, 2007 4:10 PM

Ali Eteraz wrote:

dear mr. spencer,
i have to disagree with atlas shrugged and your commentators
i believe that d'souza KO'd you

Ali,

The five line blurb you wrote is actually less valuable than D'Souza's sidestepping of the direct questions posed by Robert to Dinesh, about the ideology and history of Islam.

I didn't think it was possible, but the Islamist never ceases to amaze me. The depth of your counter argument is compelling, oh wait, you didn't actually present one. You simply wrote a five line blurb headed by the opposite sentiment as proposed on atlasshrugged.

I will read your response to Robert on the Emory, tonight after supper, after the kids are put to bed, just me and my wife, enjoying a little light reading, and having a good laugh at your expense, I am sure.

Posted by: awake at March 2, 2007 4:23 PM

Ali Eteraz wrote:
but the fact is that reform in the muslim world (and even among western muslims) is a reality

it simply does not occur at the pace that will make people of this site happy

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Fourteen hundred years and counting. I am all for patience, but there must be a limit for sure Ali, don't you agree?

Posted by: awake at March 2, 2007 4:26 PM

hi awake:

the operative assumption in your first response is that islam began in barbarity, never advanced beyond it, and still languishes there.

unfortunately reality (and even d'souza's article) counter your assumption. islam began in strange circumstances to be sure, but created multiple civilizations, had numerous golden periods, and even treated its jews better than christian europe ever did. it also treated its women quite better than christian europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/magazine/25wwlnEssay.t.html?pagewanted=print

thereafter, at some point the muslim world did sink into a dark hole. whether that was caused by corruption or colonialism i don't really worry about. fact is that there are plenty of people today (and i've already provided some examples) who are looking to bring islam in line with the rule of law

at our site we catalogue and monitor such efforts and yu're welcome to lurk around, even comment, there are numerous conservatives (assuming u consider urself one) who have plenty to say

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 4:38 PM

"We do have to call upon Muslims of good will to stand up and distinguish themselves from the jihadists"

That statement seems to be contrary to everything that has been posted on this site. Not once have I read that you believe there are different "types" of muslims. I'm sure you've confused of your supporters, trying to clean up your guts from that pwning you got from d'souza.

nice try though.

Posted by: edward at March 2, 2007 4:38 PM

i'd love to stay and chat but my internet time has expired.

bye.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 4:39 PM

Dear Ali Eteraz,

Thanks for stopping by. A reader sent me a link to your comments on my Emory piece a while ago; I am stuck in an airport now and will reply asap. Thanks for at least attempting to respond with some substance, unlike your frothing, raving, spitting, carpet-chewing, truth-challenged, pathologically insecure and slanderous friend Esmay. (Pathologically insecure, for only such close off discussion and debate.)

One thing I want to ask you about now, however: you report my offer to debate an Emory college student as if it were something unseemly. Do you think college students who comment on matters as if they have knowledge of them should be immune from challenge on those points? I am ready to discuss anything I have ever asserted about Islam with anyone, from Bernard Lewis to Sheikh Tantawi to, yes, college students. I don't see anything wrong with open and free discussion, and I do believe that even college students ought to be able to defend positions they take publicly.

Yet instead of open discussion on matters of substance, I have received from you and your friends character assassination, vilification, slander, and outright lies -- the least of which is the falsehood that what you and they have rendered as "Roobart Sbunsar" manifests ignorance of Arabic on my part, when in fact it is a 100% correct rendering of my name in Arabic. Google روبرت سبنسر, or just روبرت, and you will see that it is not only correct, but is the dominant rendering of the name, used by Al-Jazeera, the Syria News Service, and many others. I suppose they don't know Arabic either.

But the point is that you knew what you were doing was false and misleading when you did it, since I expect you know Arabic. You wanted Dean and his friends to think I was stupid, so you abetted this falsehood about how I wrote my name in Arabic, even though you must have known better.

The point is this: you all can have your fun, but you should know that you are not the only ones on the Internet who know Arabic, and in that episode, it was not me who came out looking silly, not to mention dishonest, to those who were able to see what you were doing.

Why do I mention all this? Because you have now come in here and addressed me with contempt and derision: "i believe that d'souza KO'd you...when you are not as busy hobnobbing with america's leading intellectuals perhaps you can address this response i wrote to your article on jihad in the emory paper...alas i cannot offer you any air time on cspan." Yet in every interaction we have had in the past, I have offered substantive reponses to points you have raised, and have never assailed your character or motives. You, by contrast, have egged Esmay on in his slanderous rants, and have joined them on occasion. Neither you nor Aziz Poonawalla, who in fact had promised to do so, ever corrected the post by Matoko in which she asserted that my translation of al-insan al-kamil, which is the same translation as that used by numerous authorities in the field, including many Muslim scholars, was incorrect.

And now you come in again, full of contempt for which you have no cause in my writings to you, and summon me to answer your objections to my letter to Emory. Very well, I will do so probably tonight. And when I do so, I will not belittle, insult, or lie about you, or pretend that I know your motives.

The larger point is this: your behavior toward me is the behavior of virtually every Muslim who has responded to my work at all (although I had a delightful chat with Muhammad -- alas, I don't recall his last name -- at the Muslims for America booth at CPAC yesterday, and we shared a hug), as well as some non-Muslims: instead of engaging my substantive points, they just impugn my knowledge (without specific examples), my character, my motives, my honesty, my basic decency as a human being. With respect, I don't think this is an effective or decent way to proceed. Your post at Eteraz today about my Emory letter is a bit different, in that you offer some substance, but again do so couched in the same derision and contempt.

Now, the fact is that contempt and derision are not arguments. If I am wrong on the substance, show evidence for that. But if you had actually ever read any of my books, you would know that I do not characterize "all" Muslims as doing or believing anything, and I do not engage in slurs or character assassination or anything of the kind. I discuss, and do not deny as I have been charged with doing, the existence of and plight of peaceful Muslims. I am very careful to document all my sources, and am always, as I said above, happy to engage anyone on the substantive issues.

When I published my first book I thought there would be thoughtful Muslims who would be happy to engage me on the issues. Six years have passed now since I wrote my first one, and that has never happened. You are welcome to be the first. But I would hope that we could do it in an atmosphere of mutual respect as human beings.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 2, 2007 4:49 PM

Hey Ali, want to fast-track Islamic reform? Try apostasy.
As Churchill once observed, there's no greater retrograde force in the world than Islam. Still true.

Posted by: jewdog at March 2, 2007 5:05 PM

kevin

traeh is right. Morally, 4 versus 20 million killed makes no difference, but historically--geographically, economically, demographically-- it does. All kinds of changes happen in a society, especially in older times, when 20 million people disappear, especially in a relatively short span. That's why a historian needs to get to as close an approximation as possible, and establishing ranges is part of this effort.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 2, 2007 5:07 PM

"But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism is a recent one"

So what were the Meccans, the Byzantines, the Persians, the Hindus, the Christian kingdoms of North Africa, the enslaved Africans supposed to think? Probably they praised their Arab masters - especially the women whose husbands were killed before they were married off to their new Arab masters. Finally freed from the yoke of their husbands? I can imagine the joy and hapiness..

That Mohammed's acts - I can't come up with any of the ten commandments he or his fellowers didn't break repeatedly (but I'd be glad if I were proven wrong there) - went unpunished and even praised, indeed set a precendence.
Everyone might decide for himself whether a good or bad one.

Posted by: flibustier at March 2, 2007 5:12 PM

RADICAL LEFTIES HATE CHRISTIANS BUT LOVE TERRORISTS

So they changed the format of the debate when you arrived, and after telling you to prepare for something totally different. Very sneaky! I hope you made that known to the audience at the outset. Wish I could've been there.

Just from the posts you put here on the website, it seems that Dsouza is floating around the periphery but not addressing any substantive issues. And he's BLAMING THE WEST for the actions of murderous jihadists.

The Jews have been trying to make nice w/ the Muslims for 60 years in Israel...it won't work bc killing infidels is an act of worship for their false demonic god, and the best guarantee for a happy afterlife.

The reason they have been sabre-rattling over the last few years have everything to do with Islamic ESCHATOLOGY and nothing to do with anything infidel nations have done recently. Dsouza, speaking the language of Arabic does not mean you speak the language of Islam. Until you deeply understand their religious beliefs you will never speak their language.

Posted by: Tookson at March 2, 2007 5:29 PM

Remote

Thanks for the clarification - that was one point that I somehow missed commenting on. However, I don't exactly agree that D'Souza is right even here. Did we want to go to war against the Nazis? Answer is no, but ultimately, we were forced to. I do want to be at war with 1 billion Muslims, if for no other reason, just the fact that this conflict will be out in the open, without any pussyfooting about a war on terror/extremism/radicals/individuals/Arabs/Asians/ ______.

Similarly, contrary to the fondest hopes of everyone who frowns on any supposedly genocidal sentiments, I don't believe that it'll be our decision whether or not we go to war against 1b Muslims. D'Souza's question reflects the compulsion behind the PC multiculturalist template that has been adapted by so many: if we don't want to go to war against 1b Muslims, why not appease them (or at least the 'traditional' Muslims). While confronting them may avoid an all out war, it will still necessitate an open confrontation with them - something that nobody wants to actually implement in real life.

Robert is right in stating that you can't reform what you won't admit needs reforming. However, we all know that (Eteraz notwithstanding) Islam isn't going to be reformed from within: it will have to happen from beyond. So while Robert may hope that he's strengthening the hands of genuine reformers, what he may be really doing (without stating as much) is getting us Infidels to recognize that Islam, as it exists, cannot co-exist with the West, and needs to be quarantined.

One point I noticed D'Souza state was that we should drive a wedge between traditional and radical Muslims: while he didn't state it, the implication was that if there is a civil war within Islam in which the West has a stake in the success of one side, it will keep them too busy to attack us. But problem is that whichever side is perceived to be pro-Western will be regarded as traitors, not just because of loyalty to Islam, but also because of the PC notion that they aren't standing up to the West. I prefer Hugh's formula of encouraging other fissures between radicals of different denomications, such as al-Qaeda vs al-Sadr, Ikhwan vs Hizbullah, Pakistani Shia vs Sipah e Sahaba, et al.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 5:41 PM

kevin, traeh, others

I agree that the difference between 5m and 50m being killed can't be quantitatively compared on a moral scale. Reason I mention it is that in the accounts I've seen so far, the number of Hindus killed was mentioned only for a part of the time that the Muslims were running things. If 70m or 80m were cited as the casualty figures for the entire period of Muslim rule from 1000-1761, I wouldn't be putting up other numbers. But this citation of numbers is done for the sake of correcting the negationism practice of ignoring the Hindu death toll. But then, instead of seeing the death toll over 700+ years, if they are just going to do that for the first 500+ years, then they are - wittingly or unwittingly - guilty of the same negationist crime of ignoring those killed between 1526-1761, and that's the aspect that I have a problem with.

Other than that, I don't believe that if Muslims were shown to kill 'merely' 7m people instead of 70m, they suddenly wouldn't be all that bad. The circumstances under which they happened - like Muslim conquests of Hindu kingdoms and follow-on massacres after such cities fell - are well known in history. While it is useful to quantify that, and as ovidius noted, it does make a demographic difference over time, on a moral scale, it doesn't mitigate (nor aggravate) the crimes themselves.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 5:51 PM

D'Souza - "For example the Muslims ruled North India for two centuries before they were displaced by the British. The Mughal emperors could have killed the tens of millions of Hindus under their control or at least forced them to become Muslims? They did nothing of the sort".

This guy is a first rate moron. I guess he ought to talk to Hindus, their history tells otherwise. I think he most probably hates Hindus, hence doesn't respect their history. He is no different to the people who deny holocaust in Europe. Perhaps some Hindus will challenge him in the court and make him understand his own statements.

He ought to read history of the Sikhs to learn about the slaughter of non-Muslims which took place in his native country by the Muslims. My guess is that he has been reading too many Pakistani kinderGarten books to make that kind of statements. They have very similar material which is in his book.

There are hundreds of readily available examples for him to analyze that his book is not worth the paper its’ written on. He should read Robert’s book, ‘The Truth About Mohamad’ and he doesn’t want to do that in case he is enlightened about Islam

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 2, 2007 6:23 PM

"Spencer is willing to concede one of the world's great religions--one with more than a billion adherents worldwide--to the murderers of Al Qaeda."

Well it seems that where his logic led him. I know that is where mine has led me and to which of many others has led them.

We are not "concedng" what the writer deems "one of the world's great religions".

We are pointing out the facts. The number of people engaging in aggressive barbarism doesn't make it less egregious - in fact it makes it worse.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 2, 2007 6:47 PM

Wow, this guy is blind and dangerous...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
admire dhimmidiots

hug a terrorist today
for they all just want peace
.

Posted by: USpace at March 2, 2007 7:10 PM

Ali Eteraz,

"spencer regularly critiques sheikh ali goma ...yet the fact is that goma has allowed muslim women to lead prayer..."

There shouldn't even be a sociopolitico-cultural situation of a cleric "allowing" women to have any basic right. It's preposterous, ridiculous, inhumane and regressive to even have that situation in the first place. Gee, should we be glad and our hopes aroused for the future of Islam when some bearded old fart with his head up the ass of the 7th century finally "allows" women to have a basic right!? Fuck that shit.

"...permitted all sort of hymen reconstruction surgeries..."

Again, the very situation of a bearded old fart "permitting" "all sort of hymen reconstruction surgeries" is insanely offensive to basic human rights. Basic human rights shouldn't be heeding some bearded old fart and waiting for him to "permit" the surgical repair of the horrible abuse so many multitudes of little girls have suffered at the cruel backward evil hands of pious grassroots Muslim families! Fuck that shit!

"...stated that islamic law does not necessarily extend to the issue of adultery, and helped al azhar univ utter their most definitive condemnation of fgm..."

Ditto. We don't care anymore. Muslims should get their noses out of the business of politics, laws and all military endeavors. If jihad is really just an "internal spiritual struggle", then confine your "struggle" to your house, your mosque, and your heart. Period. If Muslims continue to refuse to delimit their jihad, and continue to persist in wanting jihad to permeate the legal, political and military spheres of existence, then we Infidels will, sooner or later, have to force them to really practice an exclusively "internal spiritual struggle".

Posted by: remote_control at March 2, 2007 7:26 PM

Aaaaamen !

Posted by: Jeff at March 2, 2007 8:04 PM

Re: D'Souza " Don't all these Western attacks on Islam and the Koran and Muhammad, not to mention Spencer's agreement with Bin Laden that Islam mandates violence and terrorism, have the effect of alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them toward the radical camp?"

D'Souza strangely implies that R. Spencer and others who point out the violent nature of Muhammad and early Islam are somehow causing the alienation and radicalization of Muslims.

?????

D'Souza is obviously confused and misinformed.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 2, 2007 10:44 PM

eteraz,

You state that Islam "treated its women quite better than christian europe."

1. I don't see any support for the statement.

2. Islam is not "quite better" today, not in the past couple hundred years at least. Also, canonical Islam states that married women who commit adultery are to be stoned to death. Christianity fairly explicitly rejects that penalty in its scriptures (e.g., "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."). Also, some Islamic law contains rulings that permit 'honor killings'; Jordan still has some laws allowing for special leniency in this regard as well (as has been reported on JW/DW).

3. However, the standard is not Christian Europe of hundreds of years ago. The standard of comparison for Islam today is our modern secular laws, charters, etc. which protect women's rights.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 2, 2007 11:02 PM

D'Souza writes:

"But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism is a recent one."

Two online sources refute that claim thoroughly.

1. This article documents 100 cases of Muhammad's use of terrorism.

2. This article shows that Islamic terrorism has occurred in every century since the birth of Islam.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 2, 2007 11:16 PM

More! We need more of this!

I wish it was video viable to the eyes and ears. Thank you Atlas, but that wasn't the easiest video to comprehend.

What I would do to have some well known integrity, a camera, & Robert Spencer with Dinesh D'Souza in the same room.

Quality debates. MORE.

Posted by: Ashtonian at March 2, 2007 11:33 PM

D'Souza has been sharply criticized by some Conservative heavy-hitters as repeating and ratifying bin laden's cultural attack upon this country.

For instance, VDH comes to mind.

So now D'Souza tries to shift the focus of that attack on to Spencer.

He's trying to ingratiate himself with the Conservatives who blasted him by saying he agrees with American Conservatives. But that it's SPENCER who agrees with bin laden, not him.

At first, I was convinced that D'Souza was primarily motivated by fear.

But maybe, just maybe there is something to Fitzgerald's critique, that D'Souza is just out there looking for enhanced notoriety, which always translates into dollars.

Of course, it can be both, it needn't be mutually exclusive.

So he can be scared to death, AND be looking to cash in.

He may have misjudged the Conservative movement in the States. He may have thought "I'll write a book bashing the Left and blaming it for 9/11, that will garner HUGE attention, all the Conservatives will get worked up and love it, I'll be attacked and the Conservatives will rush to my defense."

If that was thinking, well, somebody threw a spanner into the gears somewhere along the line.

Posted by: Dan at March 3, 2007 12:26 AM

to Infidel Pride and Ovidius:
I didn´t say there is no moral difference between murdering five million and murdering fifty million. True, murdering even one innocent person already reaches a kind of infinity of evil, and in that case it would seem to be meaningless to speak of any possible increase in evil. You can´t go higher than infinity. Nevertheless, I´m not sure different quantities of mass murder are morally equivalent. Who knows, maybe there is a mathematics that would allow the adding together of infinities.

Posted by: traeh at March 3, 2007 1:23 AM

So, D'Souza's core argument is: Robert, don't stir the pot because the you'll really find out what's beneath the surface. The peaceful (traditional) muslims will become violent if you even imply their religion has violent roots, and then we'll have to fight all 1400 million of them.

Posted by: Marvin at March 3, 2007 1:27 AM

D'Souza: Spencer "essentially agrees with Bin Laden"

I think, the following question should have been brought up regarding this topic:

Would Muhammed have agreed with Bin Laden, too?

Inquiring minds want to know. Bin Laden considers himself a "good pupil" of islam. Would Mohammed - whose authority is unquestioned by muslims - would have considered him a "good pupil" of islam, too?

@Khaybar Oasis, thanks for the links, they are very helpful for getting answers to the questions above.
Mohammed's life is the key to understanding islam.
He teached islam, he lived islam, he set the precedence. To be admired, praised and copied by all the following generations.
"Do we really want to go to war with a billion Muslims?"
Rhetorical question - noone wants. But:
does a billion ( or one million, or two millions or a hundred?) muslims want to go to war with the west?

The US neither wanted to go to war with Nazi Germany nor Japan. It simply started to defend itself when war was brought onto its territory or war declared onto it.
Neither did France nor England want to go to war with Nazi Germany.

Did the Byzantines, the Meccans, the Persians, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, the Serbs, the Christian Syria, the Christian North Africa, Spain, the Hindu kingdoms - did they deliberately, out of the blue - want to go to war with islam? Or did they simply try to defend their territory, their families, their way of life and their very lifes?

Posted by: flibustier at March 3, 2007 4:56 AM

Re: D'Souza: Spencer "essentially agrees with Bin Laden"

The sky is blue. Of course they agree that the Koran mandates violence and domination over the unbeliever. Bin Laden thinks that's good, Robert thinks otherwise. Bin Laden is not unusual among Muslims and Robert is no longer unusual among Kuffirs. The Koran is considered direct dictation from God (it's not the Gospel according to Matthew) and Bin Laden and Co. point to the orders in it to subdue or kill the unbeliever and say to Muslims: what don't you understand about a direct order from God?

The belief-system began as a rationalization for Arab imperialism. There is nothing unusual in humans having "holy" reasons for setting up nations and empires to dominate, exploit and even kill recently "indigenous peoples". Islam is simply a better tool to that end. It was a perfect tool in India, it was a perfect tool for the Ottomans, etc. All that is being revived today. The verses in the Koran are used to justify the supremacist and imperial will to power.

Anyone who pretends that all this is unique to the West or any particular group is a liar or fool. No person and no people are "tolerant". (Muslim Arabs complain about the "bad treatment" of "Palestinians", and meanwhile Arabs and other Muslims are silent on the extermination of Negro Africans in Darfur, etc. It's all Pharisaical bullshit.) Islam is an excellent tool for oppression and domination of "the other".

Posted by: Frank at March 3, 2007 6:59 AM

I think it is time to start examining all belief-systems with an eye to understanding how they are used to rationalize the will to power. But there is no question that Islam is perfect as a tool to that end. Hitler considered Islam the best tool to conquer, dominate and exploit. He (and Himmler) regretted that Germany was primarily influenced by Christianity. Hitler called Christianity "the Jewish Christ creed with its pity ethics". Hitler was right that the teachings of Christ condemned war and all hypocrisy. Hitler got it right about Islam and its mandates to conquer and dominate. It's in the DNA of Islam. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it.

Posted by: Frank at March 3, 2007 7:15 AM

I take exception to the previous commentator; D’Souza isn’t right when he asks “Do we really want to go to war with a billion Muslims?” anymore than pacifists were right to ask during the Cold War if “we really want to go to war with a billion Communists?” The question implies that surrender and appeasement is preferable.

Obviously we’d prefer that they fear going to war with us and that’s how we won the Cold War. Our Cold War efforts weren’t led by “trying to reform Communism” but establishing a policy of containment and establishing a deterrent. Given the technological backwardness of Islamic nations this could and should be easier. First, end the 50 years of appeasement. Second, prevent Muslims from entering the West. Taking these steps can help avoid wars.

As a man of the right, I’m saddened to see an apostle of appeasement like D'Souza being received so well. But then again, Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative. Denial and appeasement afflict the right as well as the left.

Posted by: JasonP at March 3, 2007 7:41 AM

"Spencer is willing to concede one of the world's great religions--one with more than a billion adherents worldwide--to the murderers of Al Qaeda."

Dinesh D'Souza

And how exactly does D'Souza define "great"? Are we to consider Islam a "great" religion, just because over 1 billion people are muslims, and therefore should dismiss what Islam itself actually teaches? Or does he mean that the teachings of Islam itself are "great"? And if he is so familiar with those teachings, and if Islam's teachings are indeed "great", then why is he unable to refute any of Robert Spencer's theological arguments?

And surely, the members of Al Qaeda have submitted themselves to Islam, as opposed to Islam being submitted or conceded to them, given that they base their views on traditional Islamic teachings, and have not reformed the religion in any way?

What an idiotic statement for Dinesh D'Souza to make. And he seems to be very good at making them.

Posted by: Amicus at March 3, 2007 8:07 AM

Amicus-

Numbers of people believing anything doesn't mean anything with regard to the objective truth. Galileo was a distinct minority in his time. Islam (to me) is just another belief-system that rationalizes feelings of supremacism, that gives a green light to the human will to dominate, exploit or kill "the other" with a clean conscience. I'm sure there are many Muslims who freelance on Islamic beliefs and make of it what they want, but the will to dominate and subdue is in the DNA of Islam, in its "holy book". To say otherwise is to be a liar or to be demented with regard to hard facts.

The belief-system will attract people with a low self-esteem, people who need to feel superior. It is simply a revival of the imperialism that led to the Arab and Ottoman Empires. It's another system that gives a green light to oppression. It's all done "in the name of God".

Posted by: Frank at March 3, 2007 9:01 AM

Robert asks the question: "Shouldn't everyone be examining the mandates in the Koran and traditional Islamic teaching that the Jihadists are using to justify terror"?

D'Souza's answer: "No". "It's Britney's fault".

Posted by: Frank at March 3, 2007 9:11 AM

D'Souza = Denial = Dhimmified = Dangerous

Oh brother, D'Souza! You are blaming the victim for why radical Islam wants us dead. You are blaming foreign policy and liberal values on why they have become "emboldened". So it's our fault that they've attacked us? That's essentially what you're saying."

Exactly right!

Posted by: QuadoLama at March 3, 2007 10:12 AM

We do have to call upon Muslims of good will to stand up and distinguish themselves from the jihadists, repudiating or radically reinterpreting the traditional doctrines that the jihadists use to recruit and motivate terrorists.

Does Spencer not realize that it is impossible for Muslims to repudiate or reinterpret these doctrines and at the same time remain Muslims? Or is Spencer actually trying to imply that we need to encourage apostasy?

Posted by: anonymous at March 3, 2007 1:32 PM

D'souza is as slimy as an eel. And twice as repulsive.

Even if he IS wrong (which he clearly IS), he's not going to concede that. What he's going to do is insult our intelligence with more bogus arguments, analogies, and syllogisms in one lame attempt after another to show us that he's right when he in fact ISN'T.

Let's just say that this guy can NOT possibly be correct about anything and move the hell on.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 3, 2007 1:44 PM