| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Serge Trifkovic and Dinesh D'Souza debated yesterday on WDAY's Hot Talk with Scott Hennen, and Serge has kindly sent me a partial transcript. Serge got a chance to do what I was not given the opportunity to do at CPAC: actually ask D'Souza about what he knows and what he is saying, and hold his feet to the fire. And he made the most of it, catching D'Souza out brilliantly:
TRIFKOVIC: The problem with his book is primarily that Dinesh denounces me and my friend Robert Spencer for writing about Islam the way we do. What is truly remarkable for an intellectual is that he does not do so on the basis of any failure on our part to offer empirical evidence for our fundamental thesis -- which is that Islam is inherently aggressive, racist, violent, and intolerant -- but rather that this shouldn't be allowed to be published, because it undermines the possibility of establishing some mythical alliance with the conservative Muslims. The problem there is that a conservative Muslim is obviously a person inherently opposed to any rationalistic revision of the Kuran or the Sunna, or any reinterpretation of Islam in the way that would enable it to be reformed. What we have is a self-proclaimed "conservative," here in the United States, acting in exactly the same way as... that reminds me of my youth under communism in Tito's Yugoslavia, denouncing a certain approach to a subject purely on the grounds of its alleged ideological unacceptability. He uses the term "Islamophobia" -- which is a classic term invented by the Race Relations Industry, by the very people of the Left that he seeks to denounce. Once you subscribe to the term "Islamophobia" all debates about Islam cease, because the only valid definition of "Islamophobia" is the one offered by those people he blames for 9-11!D'SOUZA: One of the problems here is a little bit of paranoia. These guys, Spencer, Serge, have been running around basically saying I am trying to silence them, whereas all I am doing is disagreeing with them.
Caught making an indefensible point, D'Souza lies about it. In his book, this is exactly what he says: "In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled [by Spencer], Sword of the Prophet [by Trifkovic], and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance [by Spencer]. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."
D'Souza does disagree with Serge Trifkovic and me: he says that when we speak about the elements of Islam that give rise to violence, we drive Muslims who reject those elements of Islam to espouse them. But aside from the patent absurdity of this, he says, "Stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims." And who, in his view, is attacking Islam and blaming Islam? Serge and I. So we should stop. That is not just a disagreement; it is a call for us to be silenced, or to be silent.
D'Souza wants to have it both ways: he wants to make the point, and then deny making it when it is uncomfortable for him to have done so.
In my book I say this: we can't win the War on Terror without driving a wedge between the radical Muslims and the traditional Muslims... There are many Muslims who are very different from the stereotypical Muslim that Serge and Spencer feature in their work.
Another inaccuracy. There is no "stereotypical Muslim" in any of my books, or Serge's. In all of mine I speak of peaceful Muslims and their plight in Islamic communities today. If he had actually read my books, he would know this. He claimed indignantly to have done so when we debated at CPAC. I think he was bending the truth again on that point.
My point is simply this: ultimately I think that we have to draw traditional Muslims away from radical Islam, because the radical Muslims are fishing in the pool of traditional Islam. So for this reason I think that these attacks on Islam -- the Koran [sic!] is a gospel of violence, Mohammed [sic!] is the inventor of terrorism --
He retailed the same false charges at CPAC. I have never called Muhammad "the inventor of terrorism." Neither has Serge. That he continues to retail such falsehoods after being corrected makes me wonder if he in interested in the truth at all, or just in sloganeering.
...they are not just tactically foolish, they are historically wrong because Islam has been around for thirteen hundred years, Islam radicalism was invented in the 1920s, and came to power in 1979. How can we blame the Prophet Mohammad for things that Khomeini and Bin Laden are saying, that are very new.
Khomeini and bin Laden invoke Muhammad to justify their positions. D'Souza's "traditional Muslims," as he himself acknowledges, have no theological differences with the jihadists. And clearly they have mounted no large-scale or effective response to the jihadists. So we are supposed to ignore the fact that the jihadists use Muhammad, instead of calling upon those "traditional Muslims" to formulate some effective counter to this use -- whether by rejecting the literal meaning of Muhammad's words in some cases, or by some other means?
Historian Bernard Lewis points out that radical Islam is a radical break with traditional Islam. Never before have Muslim mullahs, or clergymen, ever ruled a Muslim country. All Muslim countries have been ruled by non-clergymen until Khomeini.
Here again D'Souza continues to repeat points that have no substance, all the while robotically invoking Lewis like the homo unius libri that Hugh Fitzgerald pointed out that he is. One would think an established conservative such as D'Souza would recognize that sometimes the conventional wisdom on a given topic is incorrect, and that the truth can be found among those who are despised and vilified by the lemmings of the mainstream. And even Lewis doesn't say what D'Souza would have us believe he says. For example, D'Souza insists that the Qur'an is essentially innocuous and that non-Muslims in the Islamic empires fared better than non-Christians in Catholic Europe, dropping Lewis's name all the while. Yet Lewis actually explains in The Jews of Islam that Qur'an 9:29 “deals with the need for the holy war against the unbelievers and the imposition on them of a poll tax.” Of that tax, or jizya, Lewis says that it was “not only a tax but also a symbolic expression of subordination.” Lewis explains that “the Qur’an and tradition often use the word dhull or dhilla (humiliation or abasement) to indicate the status God has assigned to those who reject Muhammad, and in which they should be kept as long as they persist in that rejection.”
Lewis notes that that humiliation was at times brutally enforced. He quotes a European traveler in Istanbul in 1828, who called the Jews of the Ottoman Empire “the last and most degraded of the Turkish rayahs.” Lewis quotes another traveler in Ottoman domains in 1836 saying, “I never saw the curse denounced against the children of Israel more fully brought to bear than in the East…They are considered rather as a link between animals and human beings than as men…” Christians fared little better.
Also, when D'Souza asserts that "all Muslim countries have been ruled by non-clergymen until Khomeini," he is apparently suggesting that a non-establishment, separation of religion and state tradition is dominant in Islamic history, when in fact just the opposite is the case. There has never been in Islam a separation of the sacred and the secular realms. Sharia law is rooted in religious principles, and inseparable from religion. Here again, it is hard to escape the impression that D'Souza either doesn't know the facts of Islamic history and law, or actually wishes to give his audience a false impression.
So I think the flaw we see in this work and in the Islamophobic literature is that it tries to link the early centuries of Islam. It cherry-picks the Koran and finds all the violent passages, leaves out all the peaceful passages, and then basically concedes to Bin Laden that he is the true Muslim, that his reading of the Koran is correct, and it pushes the traditional Muslims towards the radical camp by denouncing their religion. Then we complain all these traditional Muslims [indistinct] ... by denouncing Islam itself.
At CPAC I explained that the doctrine of naskh, or abrogation, was mainstream in Islam, and so is the idea that the Medinan suras take precedence over the Meccan ones -- that is, the violent passages are considered to take precedence over the peaceful ones. Numerous Islamic authorities enunciate this common view, including Muhammad's first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, early jurists such as Ibn Qayyim, and in our own day a Pakistani Brigadier (S.K. Malik, author of The Qur'anic Concept of War) and a Saudi Chief Justice (Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, author of "Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah"), along with Sayyid Qutb and many others.
Yet D'Souza, confronted with this, ignores it and continues to prate about "cherry-picking." I must say that if I were in his position, I would at least adjust my public statements to deal with the new information with which I had been confronted. He doesn't have to agree, but it is irresponsible of him to pretend that all this just doesn't exist. Why doesn't he incorporate some response to this into his public remarks, rather than repeat patent falsehoods? Is it because he knows most of his hearers will not know about these elements of Islamic theology?
Anyway, here Serge lowers the boom:
TRIFKOVIC: This is really rich. First of all, to claim that the Kuran is a pacifist tract...D'SOUZA: I didn't say it's a pacifist tract.
TRIFKOVIC: Well, you do say that people like Spencer and I pick and choose. Have you actually read the Kuran? Have you ever actually read the Kuran?
D'SOUZA: Of course I have.
TRIFKOVIC: Do you know how are the Suras arranged?
D'SOUZA: They are... er... they are not arranged in any chronological order... er... [pause] and... er... [pause] and so I quote in my book both the violent and...
TRIFKOVIC: Just tell me how ARE they arranged.
D'SOUZA: The other point...
TRIFKOVIC: Can you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?
D'SOUZA: ... right. You can't just call...
TRIFKOVIC: Why don't you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?
HENNEN: OK, one at a time here; your question for Dinesh, Serge, is?
TRIFKOVIC: In what order are the Suras arranged in the Kuran?
D'SOUZA: [long silence] I really don't know what you mean by that. When you say "in what order" then... err... [pause] there...
TRIFKOVIC: ... an interlocutor who tries to pass authoritative judgments on the subject is refusing to tell me how are the Suras and the verses of the Kuran arranged. They happen to be arranged by SIZE, from short to long!
The interview goes on for another 10 minutes or so. Meanwhile, Serge tells me: "To avoid misunderstanding, let me point out that my 'explanation' to D'Souza about the arrangement of the Suras in the Kuran ('They happen to be arranged by SIZE, from short to long!') was not a slip, it was the final proof-positive of his fraud, as HE DID NOT CORRECT ME but went on babbling..."
It would be refreshing for Mr. D'Souza to engage in a dialogue about the points raised above, rather than propagandistically repeating points that are manifestly false to anyone who has actually studied these issues. If he is willing, so am I.
Posted by Robert at March 6, 2007 8:04 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
D'Souza is in a career bind, and (as of now) he has elected to tough it out. If he admits that aspects of his thesis are based on not having studied enough, he will lose backers who will otherwise continue to assume that people like Serge and Robert are the ignorant rabble rousers.
How many of us will actually research which compilers of Islamic hadith are considered reliable and which hadiths are therefore respected by millions?
Mr. D'Souza, you will still eat. Wouldn't it be more heroic to face up to what you've done, and what you're doing? Do you really think that avoiding the true basis of day-to-day Muslim belief is the way forward? Do you think that the truth of the history (including the intellectual history) is not important?
Instead of pillorying the truth tellers, why not tell the truth?
Posted by: StillBreathing![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 6, 2007 8:35 AM
BUsted!!...I think D'Sousa actually wishes to give his audience a false impression. Against knowledgible speakers, he fails...
Islamic clerics have been feeding lies to Muslims for centuries and it is now coming to light....
The truth is getting out...and Muslims hate the truth....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 6, 2007 8:38 AM
It’s clear that D’Souza only wants to rant. I’d like to see a gentlemanly debate but that requires both sides actually grapple with the statements of the other. D’Souza just wants to spew his talking-points. It’s good, however, to see Trifkovic “hold his feet to the fire.”
D’Souza expresses ideas that I’m sure a large contingent of conservatives believe. A real debate would be helpful but boiler-plate talking-points -– like a Presidential “debate” -– are unproductive in the intellectual arena. I suspect his knowledge is so superficial that he can only repeat what he’s said before.
at March 6, 2007 8:41 AM
Wow! He didn't know how the Koran is organized. How about that.
Does anyone think it was put together that way to intentionally mask Muhammad's increasing intolerance as his power grew?
Just wondering.
Posted by: Jan Sobieski at March 6, 2007 8:42 AM
D'Souza claims he spent 4 years studying islam. Seems to me it was time wasted.
Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at March 6, 2007 8:45 AM
In the next paragraph, do you think the phrase "From... the bosoms of men" is meant to be literal? I do. The source of the text is http://www.academyofislam.org/PDF/ARBERRY.pdf .
"This arrangement however dates not from the Prophet's lifetime, but is due to a recension
undertaken at the order of Othman, the third caliph of Islam, in the year 651 A.D., nearly twenty years after Mohammed's death. Othman's predecessor Abu Bakr, the first caliph, is reported to have commissioned a similar enterprise in 633 A.D., and the Arab historians speak of his collection being made 'from bits of parchment, thin white stones, leafless palm-branches, and the bosoms of men.' This earliest edition, and several others made by various immediate disciples and relatives of the Prophet, perished when Othman's Vulgate was propagated; though modern researchers claim to
have recovered considerable information about the contents of the lost codices. In the Vulgate the general procedure is to arrange the Suras roughly in order of their length, beginning with the longest and ending with the shortest, a favourite prayer of the Prophet's being prefixed. This arrangement paid no heed to the chronology of the revelations."
at March 6, 2007 8:55 AM
There is no "stereotypical Muslim" in any of my books, or Serge's. In all of them I speak of peaceful Muslims and their plight in Islamic communities today.
Having read a few of your books, I can attest that this is true.
However, no sympathy is due the "peaceful Moslem" so long as they fail to apostasize, for Islam at its very root is a declaration of permanent vicious war against all non-Moslems, all forms of freedom, all who would mind their own goddamned business.
In other words, there are stereotypical Moslems in the real world. Not that your books are unreal, we understand that you must be circumspect in order to maintain the requisite personal credibility to pursue your mission.
You must adroitly dodge the threads of undeserved condemnation that stitch together any Fictive Reality, to include the Islam Fictive Reality that is now strangling us.
But, it must stand that "peaceful Moslems" are better termed "inactive Moslems," for while they privately celebrate aggression, hate, crime, and expansionism, they themselves do not participate in the most active form of Islam: Jihad war terrorism.
* 2:216 * 4:74 * 9:111 * 8:12 * 4:96 * 56:22 * 38:51 * 55:56 * 55:76 * 56:22 * 8:74 * 9:2 *
For example, the cabbies here in Mpls-St Paul are to be despised and resisted.
What is their plight, being carted over here at no cost to them from the awful hell-hole their ancestors (and Islam) made, enabled to cash free money checks, disobey our laws against FGM and bigamy, and have the nerve to dictate Sharia on us?
The cabbies, and all other Moslems, with the exception of those too young to know better, are irresponsible, aggressive people who were quite pleased on 9/11 and 7/7, have had much to smile about the last 30 years or so, and look hopefully to the future for much more of the same.
610 * 623 * 632 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
I’d be tempted to denounce the cabbies as ingrates and prerogates, which they are, but I have a better perjorative with which to denounce them: Moslems.
Screw all of ‘em.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 6, 2007 8:58 AM
What extraordinary (alas not really in this case) chutzpah from D-Souza, again. Time and again he demonstrates a remarkable lack of knowledge about his chosen subject, yet he carries on regardless.
He has a remarkably thick-skin. Many, many others would feel ashamed at being proven ignorant, time and time again.
But perhaps he is justified in being so obtuse. Perhaps he is playing to a gallery that has no interest in trivialities like primary sources or historical significance. Maybe he reasons there is a lot of mileage in reciting falsehoods to an audience united by an over-arching sense of denial when it comes to all matters Islamic.
I know people who share this denial who are western Christians in the middle east. For them the denial seems, perhaps, more explainable. They find themselves in arab countries and they'd really rather not think about the worst case scenario thank you very much - it's a little too close to home, or rather, it IS HOME.
As for those in the west who stick their fingers in their ears? That is perhaps less easy to understand.
Posted by: Alex at March 6, 2007 9:00 AM
So D'Souza says the cultural left, and their contributive influence to the overall degradation of US cultural morality is the prime cause for 'traditional' Muslims to become 'radicalized', which lead directly to the attack of the US on 9/11.
This is laughable, tu quoque, with the sole intent to generate a buzz and help him sell his book.
What he fails to explain, is why Muslim immigrants currently in the US, vote exclusively for the left, and organizations like CAIR are explicit in telling Muslims to vote for the left. Minnesota Somali Muslims elected a Senator, a Muslim convert, in Keith Ellison, again from the left.
The cultural right is supposed to form an alliance with 'traditional' Muslims, working towards a return to moral conservatism. This is D'Souza's idiotic proposal as a solution going forward to offset the 'radicalization' of 'traditional' Muslims, which leads to jihad.
It does beg the question, however. If all that 'traditional' Muslims want is a return to cultural conservativism, why would these 'traditionals' vote as a bloc with the same people they are purported to detest?
More likely is that the Islamists recognize a weakness, by appeasement, from the left and seek to exploit that weakness, by infiltration into US politics and policy through the left. Now that at least has some elements of common-sense, unlike D'Souza's completely illogical construct.
Kudos to Mr. Trifkovic for exposing D'Souza as the fraud that he is, bereft on any real knowledge of Islam. The beauty of logic and reasoning is that sometimes, the most innocuous question strikes a fatal blow to the illogical and unreasonable, knocking down their false claims like a house of cards by attacking them at the foundation.
If D'Souza is unqualified to speak on the subject of Islam, as revealed by Trifkovic, how can he write a book, containing his false presuppositions about Islam, of any value? The short answer is he can't and therefore should not have.
Posted by: awake at March 6, 2007 9:14 AM
After reading this story, I'm convinced that not only have I read more than this apologist regarding Islam...I know more than he does!And I'm just an everyday dumbass!What does that make Mr. D'Souza?He is unworthy of further debate IMHO.
Posted by: HawkWatcher at March 6, 2007 9:33 AM
Wow! He didn't know how the Koran is organized. How about that.
Dinesh D'Souza's lack of very basic knowledge is disturbing.
Does anyone think it was put together that way to intentionally mask Muhammad's increasing intolerance as his power grew?Just wondering. Posted by: Jan Sobieski
Yes. More recently. . .The Center for the Study of Political Islam has made available "A Simple Koran"
Now you can read and understand the complete Koran.
A Simple Koran is not condensed, every single word is included in modern English, with foreign words defined.
A new method of ordering, sorting and categorizing the Koran makes it easy to read. When Mohammed’s life is woven back into the Koran, meaning is restored. The Simple Koran is a powerful epic story.Posted by: justamomof4
at March 6, 2007 9:34 AM
"Serge got a chance to do what I was not given the opportunity to do at CPAC..."
- from the article above
But that was deliberate: neither Grover Norquist, nor his agent Suhail Khan, nor the sound-biter Dinesh D'Souza, was willing to give you enough time. That's why, at the last minute, they told you it was being reduced to five minutes. They stacked the deck as best they could.
Posted by: Hugh at March 6, 2007 9:45 AM
Re: " Yet Lewis actually explains in The Jews of Islam that Qur'an 9:29 'deals with the need for the holy war against the unbelievers and the imposition on them of a poll tax.' Of that tax, or jizya, Lewis says that it was 'not only a tax but also a symbolic expression of subordination.'"
Lewis is correct here. On the other hand, D'Souza is in complete denial about Islam. D'Souza doesn't have much integrity as an intellectual to face up to the facts.
D'souza has a tendency to take the moral high ground against the west by beating over and over like a drum how intolerant Christian Europe was when kicked out the Jews during the Inquisition during the 15th century.
Today in the 21st century, it is Islam and the East that are intolerant towards non-Muslims. Try conducting a non-Muslim prayer service today in Saudi Arabia and watch how tolerant the Saudi Sunni Muslims are towards other religions inside their country. Ask Muslims in the Middle East to eliminate the jizya against non-Muslims and treat all foreigners as equals.
Clearly, Islam that poses the greatest threat to the civilized world, not Christianity and the west.
Posted by: Johnathan at March 6, 2007 9:45 AM
You know I am really sick of listening to "intelectuals" debating the finer points of Islam - this guy is just another oportunist trying to boost his pathetic ego by being noticed and Robert and co. are helping him do it. The best thing for these cynical careerists is to ignore them and to politley remind them that when the shit hits the fan , and hit it, it will we will remeber his lies and deceit and he will be first up against the wall!
f**** c***
at March 6, 2007 9:52 AM
"D'Souza claims he spent 4 years studying islam. Seems to me it was time wasted." ....
BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
We have 2 rules in the west. If you want to debate a topic, know your shit, or shut the hell up. Misleading info just wastes everyones time... and patience.
at March 6, 2007 9:54 AM
Anyone debating D'Souza should be sure to do exactly as Serge Trifkovic did. Simply ask D'Souza a question or two, about the most obvious and elementary of matters.
If nothing else, it will force him, after his "four years of studying Islam" to little effect, to actually have to start studying it, if only so as not to play the fool in public. Why who knows? It may force him to learn something.
I can think of a dozen things, right of the bat, that Spencer or Trifkovic or others could ask D'Souza -- very elementary things, but things I am sure he will not be able to answer.
He now has three choices:
1) Be shown up for an ignoramus, prating about things he knows very little, almost nothing, about.
2) Be forced to study Islam, and in so doing, he may have to modify some of his views.
3) Never appear where anyone can debate or even cross-question him about his knowledge of Islam.
I think Dinesh D'Souza will choose #3.
#1 is something he obscurely realizes he is, but like the mountebank hawking his wares at the County Fair, he has assumed, but can no longer assume, that no one will call him on his hollow claims.
#2 requires work. It requires study. It requires thought. It requires making sense of many different things, of connecting the thigh-bone to the ankle-bone, in order the Hear the Word of the (Islamic) Lord. D'Souza long ago lost the habit of study, like so many of the pontificators of our day.
#3 it will be.
No more debates, for Dinesh D'Souza, with anyone at all. But what if -- for him, a hellish What If -- some of those interveiwing him started to bone up on Islam, and asked him questions. What if on Talk Shows there were callers who would call up pretending that they were about to ask one thing, and then suddenly asked D'Souza one or more of those questions, the ones he cannot answer, to what should be his own great shame and chagrin. Then where would he be?
And the same can be done at those appearances he solicites for "Corporate Audiences" and "University Audiences." It is perfectly legitimate, it is hardly harassment, to simply ask him a few questions to see if this self-minted and self-described "expert on Islam" who has "studied it for four years" in fact knows anything.
Why, let's begin with the isnad-chain, and the work, and relative authority, of the muhaddithin. Or with "naskh." Or "fiqh" or "tafsir." Or for that matter, "Jihad" (give support for various definitiions), or "dhimmi" or "Ahl al-dhimma."
And say, just what did happen at the Khaybar Oasis? And who was Asma bint Marwan? And who was little Aisha, and of what contemporary relevance is her story? And who can issue a fatwa, and what is the difference between a fatwa and a rukh? And what is the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, and why does it matter? And who was Abu Bakr? Ali? Hussein? And what does the phrase "al-masjid al-aksa" mean, and who decided what that phrase must refer to?
As I said, let's keep it very simple -- at first. By degrees, the questions can become more difficult.
Don't worry. I have faith that no matter how hard Dinesh D'Souza starts studying now, he simply won't be able to figure it all out. Not given the list of his authorities. Not given his mental incapacity.
Posted by: Hugh
at March 6, 2007 10:12 AM
D'Souza Keeps on Talking
*****
D'Souza keeps on talking,
Beginning to conceive
that the words of Muslim spokemen
are not what they believe.
The Muslim spokesman smiles and lies,
D'Souza smiles in stress.
As D'Souza keeps on talking,
we know less and less.
D'Souza has a fine career,
explaining Muslim thought.
Yet sometimes he may wonder
About the fog he wrought.
Study now, D'Souza,
back off the speaking biz.
The way to start to win the war
is to learn what Islam is.
at March 6, 2007 10:22 AM
And say, just what did happen at the Khaybar Oasis? And who was Asma bint Marwan? And who was little Aisha, and of what contemporary relevance is her story? And who can issue a fatwa, and what is the difference between a fatwa and a rukh? And what is the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, and why does it matter? And who was Abu Bakr? Ali? Hussein? And what does the phrase "al-masjid al-aksa" mean, and who decided what that phrase must refer to?
Posted by: Hugh on March 6, 2007 10:12 AM
The same sort of questions need to be asked of all the other so-called 'experts' on Islam such as Karen Armstrong or John Esposito. These people do more harm than the Islamists themselves by continually portraying Islam as a benign religion.
at March 6, 2007 10:24 AM
I see this a lot - a refusal to reassess conclusions based on new facts. You see this in Bush and many politicians. You see this in intellectuals like Dinesh and Lewis. They have reached their conclusion and no amount of contradictory facts, observations and events that disprove their conclusion make no difference.
Of course in business this leads to bankruptcy. I work in real estate. With my partner, we evaluate a property and make a decision to purchase that property. But that is not the end of our decision. Even after we gather more facts, more observations of the surrounding market and more facts about the individual property, we may reach the conclusion that we were wrong, and we quickly take action to get rid of that property with a little profit or as little loss as possible. Yet for intellectuals like D'Souza and politicians like Bush, they have made the purchase and they are going to throw more precious resources at that property to 'make it work' regardless of the diminishing returns or losses those subsequent decisions cost because the 'original purchase' cannot be recognized as a mistake.
That is why America is being bankrupted in the war against 'terror.' The wrong purchase was made and for five years we have been building in that 'war on terror' swamp and wondering why the results have been so bad and the cost so high.
at March 6, 2007 10:26 AM
"Never before have Muslim mullahs, or clergymen, ever ruled a Muslim country. All Muslim countries have been ruled by non-clergymen until Khomeini."
This shows complete ignorance of the history of Muslims from his part.
First, Muhammad was not a clergyman or mulla, he was a self-proclaimed Prophet. A Prophet is higher than an ordinary mullah. Even in Judaism or Christianity.
Second, all the companions of Muhammad are considered as faqihs because they took shariah law from its source Muhammad. Caliphs Abu-Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Mu'awiyah are all considered faqihs. And for those who are confused, faqih is the Arabic name for clergyman or mulla.
Third, there are several examples in the history of Islam where faqihs were warriors and kings:
1. Omar dan Fodio who between 1804-1817 ruled in Sokoto, Nigeria, and founded the caliphate of Sokoto.
2. Muhammad al-Mahdi, who rose in Sudan at the end of the 19th century, claiming to be the Mahdi.
3. During the time of Shah Tahmasp I of Iran son of Shah Ismail founder of the Safavid state, Nurduddin Ali ibn Abdul-'Ali al-Karaki known as al-Muhaqqiq al-Tani, born in Karak Nuh a village near Baalbak in what is now Lebanon and one of the highest Shiite mullas of his time, was made the first man of the kingdom by Shah Tahmasp himself. The Shah ordered his subjects to obey the orders of al-Karaki because he had the right to rule, being the representative of the Mahdi on earth. al-Karaki was responsible of spreading and consolidating Shiism in Iran and of oppressing Sunnis.
4. al-Nasir Salahuddin Yusuf ibn Ayyub, Saladin, was also a faqih.
And there are plenty of other examples.
at March 6, 2007 10:40 AM
Wow. Even I knew that the suras were arranged by size, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the Koran as D'Souza does
Posted by: kelisw at March 6, 2007 10:47 AM
Got him and got him good. That was refreshing and wonderful. D'Souza was cornered without having a chance to escape. I am waiting for the full transcript and also the audio of the entire conversation.
Posted by: Ishwar at March 6, 2007 11:08 AM
I spent one day studying Islam. On 9/11. I understand it fully. Spencer's books further confirmed my initial suspicions. I'll never read another D'Souza book again.
Posted by: PRCalDude at March 6, 2007 11:30 AM
I don't like DD and his Islam slant but at least he is debating other authors. It may not be the best venue or the debate might be semi rigged. But at least the careerist is out there maximizing sales and profits of his tome
Posted by: dennisw at March 6, 2007 11:38 AM
Props to Serge. One of the first Islam books I read. "Sword of Islam"
"The Haj" by Leon Uris also helped a lot
Posted by: dennisw at March 6, 2007 11:43 AM
See.... I told you he was a muslim.
It's somewhat comforting seeing people like Spencer and Trifkovic in their element chewing them up and spitting them out...
at March 6, 2007 11:51 AM
The interview goes on for another 10 minutes or so. Meanwhile, Serge tells me: "To avoid misunderstanding, let me point out that my 'explanation' to D'Souza about the arrangement of the Suras in the Kuran ('They happen to be arranged by SIZE, from short to long!') was not a slip, it was the final proof-positive of his fraud, as HE DID NOT CORRECT ME but went on babbling..."I hope Trifkovic pointed this out to Hennen as they went on, rather than leave an impression to those who knew that he'd slipped on this one.
Any idea where the audio of this show might be archived?
I'm missing something here - what's wrong with either of those spellings?My point is simply this: ultimately I think that we have to draw traditional Muslims away from radical Islam, because the radical Muslims are fishing in the pool of traditional Islam. So for this reason I think that these attacks on Islam -- the Koran [sic!] is a gospel of violence, Mohammed [sic!] is the inventor of terrorism
dennisw, that would be 'Sword of the Prophet'. That book was pretty good as well. Some day, I hope to see a book out that details the years of conquest between 732AD to, say, the 1800s, and detailed in each country - Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Turan, India, East Indies. Somehow, I couldn't help but come away with the feeling that both Robert and Serge covered it very skimpily, in both 'Onward Muslim Soldiers' and 'Sword of the Prophet'.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 6, 2007 12:06 PM
Infidel Pride (WHEN PRIDE STILL MATTERED : A Life of Vince Lombardi)
First book I read was --->>>
Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries by Paul Fregosi
at March 6, 2007 12:25 PM
SCORE!
Posted by: traeh at March 6, 2007 12:54 PM
Sweet!
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at March 6, 2007 1:04 PM
"Stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims." And who, in his view, is attacking Islam and blaming Islam? Serge and I. So we should stop. That is not just a disagreement; it is a call for us to be silenced, or to be silent.
If he isn't a muslim, he sure should be.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 6, 2007 1:06 PM
The more people have contact with Mr. Spencer the more they realize he and his associates have these character traits.
Truth
Honesty
Intelligence
Thorough
Amiable
Mr. Spencer, Mr. Pipes, the people associated with Jihad Watch and the linked sites comprise some of the most genuine people of the highest quality to ever walk this planet.
My highest compliment is the only other group of selfless, modest and well intentioned people America has produced were our founding fathers which people can equate with the quality of Mr. Spencer and his compatriots for truth.
at March 6, 2007 1:06 PM
"Some day, I hope to see a book out that details the years of conquest between 732AD to, say, the 1800s, and detailed in each country - Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Turan, India, East Indies."
posted bi infidel_pride
Try "Islamic Imprealism A History" by Efraim Karsh.
(from the bookjacket - I couldn't write as well)
The author explores the history of Islamic imperialism and the persistence of the Ottoman imperialist dream that outlasted World War I to haunt Islamic and Middle Eastern politics to the present day.
.....
The House of Islam's war for world mastery is traditional, indeed venerable, and it is a quest that is far from over.
at March 6, 2007 1:21 PM
Serge tells me: "To avoid misunderstanding, let me point out that my 'explanation' to D'Souza about the arrangement of the Suras in the Kuran ('They happen to be arranged by SIZE, from short to long!') was not a slip, it was the final proof-positive of his fraud, as HE DID NOT CORRECT ME but went on babbling..."
Ooooh, busted! Good work Serge. I was disgusted after the first time D'Souza stalled on the question. My fat orange cat could have answered correctly. When I first saw Serges own answer I gulped, and waited for the correction, which didn't come. A brilliant way to bring home the point! I would add, however, (Bonus question) that the first sura is an exception to the rule of arrangement.
I've been one to believe that D'Souza is just starting with correct understanding and applying it incorrectly, coming to conclusions driven by his right-wing moralistic instincts. I think I've taken him too seriously. How he has managed to perpetrate the fraud for so long, I don't know.
Maybe next time, ask D'Souza to explain what the Qur'an says on the subject of Love...or to use his methodology to explain the current jihadistic slaughter in Thailand under the banner of "Kill all the Buddhists in the name of Allah". (Thai Buddhists are well known, after all, to be ardent supporters of the U.S. war effort and George Bush pawns ... arent' they??? /sarcasm)
at March 6, 2007 1:37 PM
"Here again, it is hard to escape the impression that D'Souza either doesn't know the facts of Islamic history and law, or actually wishes to give his audience a false impression."
He wishes to give his audience a certain impression.
I don't think this is just because he recognizes that towing a certain line makes him more popular and richer.
I think it is because it is painful and disillusioning to face the fact that there are serious disagreements in the world, and serious fundamental conflicts, on a large scale, than cannot be dealt with peacefully unless other people make decisions you don't control.
He'd prefer that it be really a matter of decisions we control. If only we'd reform Hollywood, if only we'd not point out inconvenient things about Islamic texts and their mainstream interpretations, everything would be fine.
He'd too cowardly to consider that maybe in this case, like with many others, we don't always get what we'd prefer. He's not alone in this among American conservatives, especially politically and intellectually powerful ones.
It is a perversion of a principle that makes Christianity and derivative philosophies really quite good: question whether or not the fault is with you, before blaming others (in this case, 'question' -> 'insist on, despite evidence to the contrary'). Sadly, as with other good principles, even this principle can be contorted into a harmful and unreasonable perversion.
C.S. Lewis has written clear, basic works on both cowardice and perversion. Conservatives today would do well to read him.
at March 6, 2007 1:59 PM
The vast number of infidels don't yet HATE Islam, but soon they will.
mrsmomomoto, your point about being cowardly and not facing what is out of our control is RIGHT ON THE MARK.
The infidel community has not yet personalized this struggle. Trying to blame Jihad on a "tiny fraction of extremists" is just a way of pushing it away.
We have to move from Islamophobia to Anti-Islam.
We infidels need to become haters; not of all Moslems but of Islam, in its entirety. Muslims want us to be afraid! It's a small step from fear to hatred.
I'm not afraid of Islam, I'm revolted by it.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 6, 2007 2:50 PM
Infidel Pride
"My point is simply this: ultimately I think that we have to draw traditional Muslims away from radical Islam, because the radical Muslims are fishing in the pool of traditional Islam. So for this reason I think that these attacks on Islam -- the Koran [sic!] is a gospel of violence, Mohammed [sic!] is the inventor of terrorism
I'm missing something here - what's wrong with either of those spellings?"
I think the sic! refers no to the spellings but to the ideas D'Souza attributes to Robert, which Robert never said, i.e. that the Koran is a gospel of violence, etc. What DD is doing is indeed outrageous: he is deliberately and knowingly falsifying Robert's language and message, one of the lowest forms of conducting a polemic.
Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 6, 2007 6:03 PM
D’Souza would be better off to shut up and and just read this site! Does this man know no shame? he was showed up as the fool and the stil rants! D’Souza shut up and read JW!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 6, 2007 7:09 PM
Waking up to reality
“And make ready for them who fight you whatever you can of armed force and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may frighten the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you know not, but Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of Allah, it shall be paid back to you in full and you shall not be wronged.” Says Koran in chapter 8; Al-Anfal V61.
Above is a clear commandment of God Almighty for the believers in Islam to act and strive in way of Allah in order to deter their adversaries and escape any possible persecution or enslavement at their hands.
To be at Peace with the neighbors comes through being at par and on equal footings and be recognized as such with the adversaries on equal status basis. The down trodden, destitute and poverty ridden nations may not opt for peace with the power full and hostile, oppressing neighbors. Gazelle (antelope) and Hyena can never be said to be at peace. Gazelle may be admired of having their slender necks, annulated horns and lustrous eyes and may bear their graceful movements, but all this is of no use. It does not give them protection. Gazelles always fall prey to Hyena because Gazelles simply do not carry any venom or sting to counter the savagery and the vicious attacks of Hyena or to keep it at the bay. On the other hand Scorpions may be known as most venomous killers but all the scorpions enjoin peace among them selves and live in an atmosphere of harmony and order because each one of them carries …a ‘deterrent of ready primed sting and an obvious visible twist in their tails.
Muslim Ummah in general had some how remained in a state of self imposed hibernation after collapse of their Ottoman Empire. Their short sighted advocates of the time suggested them to stay aloof and take a leave of the worldly affairs and retire into some inner self in order to repent for their misgivings of their Empire which had ended up in a colossal disaster toward the end.
Obviously water does not stop flowing under the bridges when Beavers retire into hollows of their burrows for hibernation in winters and Lilly in the ponds do not stop growing in the absence of Beavers. During the long period of self imposed hibernation of Muslims to exercise a search of their souls, the post war era of two world wars had elapsed by. During this period, world has excelled in leaps and bounds in the fields of science, technology and communications.
Knowledge and to be the owner of advance sciences and technology is the answer of down trodden, destitute Muslims to catch up to present day world and be at par. Although Muslims have started awakening now but on opening their eyes they find them selves sitting on the pits of world top economic and energy resources like oil and minerals. But they also find them selves fixed in the jaws of evil forces who are bent to snatch these resources from them; they are being crushed and dismembered and are bleeding heavily from the savage attacks of their oppressors. Where ever they are trying to awake and to raise their voice; those areas are invariably being turned into war zones for them. There assets are being set ablaze and life for them is but a misery.
The entire Muslim Ummah is perturbed and baffled. They are bound to try the desperate moves to catch up with the world and at the same time ward off the oppressors and safe guard the honor and restore their lost glory. You may name their awakening as 'terrorism' but their awakening--- it is very much there.
It may be said that sacrificing one’s own life by becoming a human bomb, is the last option left with the Muslims to save guard their lost respect and honor, when fixed in the situations; like the one in Iraq, Palestine or in Afghanistan. But it is a dilemma that after all why they have come to this stage of their last resort to make bombs out of them selves? How come they don't have any other options available to them like advancement in technology and devising of appropriate deterrence instead? Who took away their options and their right of choices from them? These are the areas where the require their soul searching.
It is no bravery to make a juvenile to stand bare handed in front of advancing Merkava Israeli tanks and see blasting them into pieces or to brainwash them to devise the ways to sacrifice their lives by making a human bomb out of them and win some media clips. This may be the approach of cowardice to solve their problems and not of the people who believe and have their trust in God Almighty.
Beg borrow or steel or lick even the boots of nations who possess the knowledge and own technology and … bring the knowledge back home. Be in right full possession of it; make use of it and attain a mastery in defensive weapon system to display at the frontiers. As a positive deterrent; to frighten the oppressing forces and other adversaries. Muslims don’t have to invent the wheel; they need just acquiring it…. in a genuine way.
There are clear commandment of Almighty God for the believers that they should come forward to lead the world and build a God fearing societies and spread the rule of law and justice. The prosperous and civilized advance society promotes peace; where peace and plenty prevails and the grace and contentment triumphs. A civilized and well to do society is in it self a deterrence to ward off the forces of evil. If the believers don’t take the necessary steps to come forward and attain superiority in the field of governance, knowledge, Science and technologies and use them for the well being of masses and save guard their environ; then forces of evil are always there to emerge to fill the vacuum and hijack and force ably take over the society. The oppressors only believe in mayhem and anarchy in order to subjugate and enslaved the masses to full fill their plans of greed. They are quick to spreads the webs of fallacy and deceit. Soon the entire society lands in the dark ages for the benefit of few.
The Koran Chapter: 7 (Al-A`raf) Verse: 182. says;” And of those We have created, there are a people that guide men with truth and do justice therewith”. In Chapter: 8 (Al-Anfal) Verse: 9 “That He might establish the Truth and bring to naught that which is false, although the guilty may dislike it.”
The old post-Ottoman era thoughts since adopted and practiced by Muslim have generated enough of deprivation for them. The strange belief to defer their well being in this world; over an exchange for the rewards in the here after is proved to be an absurd. This has made Muslims a sick society, and now they are finding themselves subjugated and lying enslaved at the feet of power full world forces. There are rewards reserved in the hereafter but those rewards are reserved for the brave, resolute, steadfast and righteous and knowledge able people only; who are able to serve the world; and not for cowards, hypocrites, brain washed suicide bombers and their advocates or affiliates.
Jesus was the reformer. His teachings were although discovered and recognized long after his departure by the followers coming after him. But earlier the masses; so called chosen people of God- Israelites for whom he had to come; had grown arrogant and become hard hearted. It was the defiance and disobedience of Israelites that God even took away the common privilege and honor from among them to father a reformer; a prophet… like Jesus*. God has to devise his special alternate ways to manage a birth of Jesus*.Ever since Israelite could never enjoin a sigh of relief and are unable to muster any peace in their society. It has become a far cry for them to achieve peace and security for last many centuries.
Koran in Chapter: 4 (Al-Nisa') Verse: 134 states; “If He please, He can take you away, O people, and bring others in your stead; and Allah has the full power to do that.”
Where as in chapter : 24 (Al-Nur) Verse : 56 Koran says; “Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will, surely, make them successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will, surely, establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will, surely, give them in exchange security and peace after their fear; They will worship ME and they will not associate anything with ME. Then whoso disbelieves after that, they will be the rebellious.
And Koran warns in chapter: 5 (Al-Ma'idah) Verse: 55; “O ye who believe! Who so among you turns back from his Religion, then let him know that Allah will soon bring in his stead a people whom He will love and who will love Him and who will be kind and humble to the believers, and hard and firm against the disbelievers. They will strive in the cause of Allah and will not fear the reproach of a fault-finder. That is Allah's grace; He bestows it upon whomsoever He pleases and Allah is Bountiful, All-Knowing.”
In the words of Abaid ullah Aleem;
When He ceases his hand of blessings; even the kings may not find any refuge.
The aggressor may not know what all is hidden in the flowing tears of an oppressed; that when they may turn into tsunami and sweep away every thing.
-------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none
at March 6, 2007 7:18 PM
"We infidels need to become haters; not of all Moslems but of Islam, in its entirety. Muslims want us to be afraid! It's a small step from fear to hatred."
Ynkedoodl2 :
You are right. We can't fool ourselves into believing that it's only "a few radicals" who have "hijacked" a great religion. We have to admit to ourselves that what we saw in Utah and in New York was Islam on full display. It's just that for most of the 20th century they were repressed, first by colonialists and then by the cold war. Either we shut ourselves off from the Islamic world or we stand up for our own beliefs, as they do theirs.
Brigitte Gabriel illustrates the depths of their morals:
Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs and then rejoice at their deaths as well the deaths of their victims. This intentional, indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified and glorified in the name of Islam.
Neville Chamberlain did his darndest, but we found out the hard way that we couldn't coexist with Nazis. It becomes more and more obvious that we can't coexist with Muslims. One side or the other must ultimately prevail.
at March 6, 2007 7:28 PM
"...then forces of evil are always there to emerge to fill the vacuum and hijack and force ably take over the society. The oppressors only believe in mayhem and anarchy in order to subjugate and enslaved the masses to full fill their plans of greed. They are quick to spreads the webs of fallacy and deceit. Soon the entire society lands in the dark ages for the benefit of few."
A perfect description of the actions of each and every "radical" Muslim leader in the Middle East, from Ahmadinejad to the late (thank God) Arafat to Assad (the first three letters say it all) to the nincompoops in Sudan, Egypt and just about every Muslim-dominated country in the world.
The only oppressors of Muslims are other Muslims.
at March 6, 2007 7:38 PM
Alex wrote: ". Time and again he demonstrates a remarkable lack of knowledge about his chosen subject, yet he carries on regardless.
He has a remarkably thick-skin. Many, many others would feel ashamed at being proven ignorant, time and time again."
It looks to me that D'Souza's shamelessness verges on the sociopathic. I am impressed --negatively of course.
at March 6, 2007 8:01 PM
I really wish I could listen to a recording of that debate between DD and Trefkovic. Even a caveman like me knows that the Koran chapters are ordered by length.
DD always likes to cite the Spanish Inquisition and the forced Christianization of South/Central America (also by the Spanish) as a moral equivalence rebuttal to ruthless jihads waged by Muslims. To what extent was the Spanish cruelty and oppression due to the fact that they had just broken free of 700 years of Islamic domination? Do you suppose that they learned the strategy that Aggression Pays from the Muslims?
I keep trying to figure out the motives of Dinesh D'souza and Ralph Peters, both of whom are conservative pundits who have decided they need to defend Muslims from A Growing Mob of Bigoted Islamophobes. D'souza may be part of a Republican elite who think of Muslims as just another exploding group of immigrant voters that they can't afford to alienate. Therefore, the Replublicans must squelch The Mob if Muslims are ever to be wooed away from the Democrats. Peters seems to be afraid of a vigilante uprising.
Posted by: TheVeiledThreat at March 6, 2007 8:22 PM
It appears D'Souza has responded today on his blog with a bonzi charge up the hill of reason!
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/03/06/bernard-lewis-vs-the-islamophobes/#cont
In which he continues to call Robert Spencer and Serge Trifkovic Islamophobes and breaks his trust Benard Lewis defense!
He then does something really wild in this entry:
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/03/06/its-not-a-religious-war/
In which he claims Iraq is not a religious civil war and Shia and Sunni love each other.
at March 6, 2007 9:01 PM
I meant to say "Breaks out his trusty Benard Lewis defense" oh well just read it...
at March 6, 2007 9:03 PM
Dinesh's inability to state such a simple fact such as koranic sura arrangement indicates, if nothing else does, that he is incapable of and unworthy of debate. It is a waste of time to argue with someone who is so bereft of knowlegde on the subjact matter.
For those do not understand how pathetic Dinesh was in this debate, here is an analogy.
Imagine two mortgage loan officers were both trying to convince a customer to go with their loan product. Broker one is recommending a 30 year fixed rate. Broker two recommends a monthly adjusting interest-only adjustable rate mortgage with a teaser rate and potential for negative amortization. In an attempt to dissuade the customer from going with broker two's product, broker one attempts to put on display broker's ignorance of mortgages.
Broker one asks broker two to define the "P" in "PITI." Broker two stutters, stumbles, and ultimately concedes he is unaware of what the "P" in "PITI" means.
Broker one explains what the "P" stands for and then spells it out for him: P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E
That's basically what Trifkovic did to D'Souza in today's debate.
at March 7, 2007 12:27 AM
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.)