| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
In "Bernard Lewis vs. the Islamophobes," (thanks to Ian), Dinesh D'Souza demonstrates an apparent eagerness to retail manifest inaccuracies about what I say and the positions I take. I am disheartened to see someone whose early work I admired descending to gutter tactics worthy of a CAIR operative.
Having debated Robert Spencer at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington D.C. a few days ago, and Serge Trifkovic on a radio show just yesterday, I have gotten a full and repulsive dose of the anti-Muslim hatred masquerading as scholarship that these guys represent.
Ad hominem attack. Not substantive.
Authors of books with titles like Islam Unveiled and Sword of the Prophet, Spencer and Trifkovic contend that radical Islam is the true and only Islam.
Oversimplification. I have demonstrated, as I mentioned in my CPAC debate, that jihad warfare against infidels is taught by all the Islamic schools. But I would never say that that means it is the "true and only Islam." The Ahmadiyya, as I have often pointed out, reject violent jihad -- and for that they are persecuted as heretics by other Muslim groups. But are they not true Muslims? I would never say that. I would only say, and it is obvious, that many other Muslim groups do not regard them as orthodox Muslims.
They deny that there is such a thing as a traditional Muslim--at one point Spencer challenged me to name a single traditional Muslim.
Here Mr. D'Souza, whether out of carelessness, ignorance, or malice, completely misrepresents what I said at the CPAC debate, and what appears in all my books, which he clearly has not read, despite his claims to the contrary. I asked him to name a single traditional Muslim with whom we should ally, and he named Ali Gomaa, Mufti of Egypt, a Hizballah supporter. But I granted him the point, which is not in serious dispute by anyone, that there are millions of Muslims who are not waging jihad against anyone. Hundreds of millions.
In fact, during our debate on the Lores Rizkalla show, I offered some reasons why, in many parts of the Muslim world, the doctrine of jihad fell into abeyance, such that millions of Muslims have for generations heard little or nothing about it -- until these latter days of jihadist recruitment. And he responded to that point. So has he forgotten that I ever discussed this -- the existence and plight of millions of cultural, non-jihadist Muslims? Or is he deliberately misrepresenting my position in order to knock it down more easily?
Trifkovic compares Islam to Nazism and Bolshevism, and he'd like to see the earth rid of this menace. For them Islam is the problem and the only good Muslim is a Muslim who has renounced Islam.
Sure, Dinesh. That's why Tashbih Sayyed, editor of Muslim World Today, a Muslim who has never renounced Islam, is on the Jihad Watch Board. But don't let me trouble you with facts.
This foolish doctrine that would make enemies of 1.2 billion Muslims--one in five people on the planet--is advanced in the name of an interpretation of Islamic theology that only a radical Muslim like Bin Laden would endorse. Bin Laden thinks that because the Koran says "slay the infidels," therefore Muslims are obliged to kill everyone who is not a Muslim. Bin Laden's doctrine is emphatically rejected by all the classical schools of Islamic teaching
Bin Laden doesn't believe that Muslims must kill everyone who is not Muslim, and the classical schools of Islamic teaching don't reject what bin Laden actually does believe. All of them teach that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers in order to subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. I'd like to see D'Souza substantiate his claim here.
...and no Muslim empire from the Umayyads to the Abassid dynasty to the Mughals to the Ottomans, actually enforced a policy of slaying all the non-Muslims.
Straw man. Of course they didn't, because that was never Islamic teaching.
Two thirds of Muslims in the world today live in democratic societies, and they certainly aren't wiping out the infidels around them...
In our debate he mentioned Turkey and Indonesia -- two paradises for non-Muslims. Just search the archives at Dhimmi Watch and see for yourself.
...yet Spencer and Trifkovic have found their Koranic reference, and they are sticking with it all textual and empirical evidence to the contrary.
No acknowledgment by D'Souza here of the stages of Qur'anic development of the doctrine of jihad as delineated by Islamic theology, although I have brought them up to him several times now. Once again: don't trouble his sloganeering with facts.
In his sira, Ibn Ishaq explains the contexts of various verses of the Qur'an by saying that Muhammad received revelations about warfare in three stages: first, tolerance; then, defensive warfare; and finally, offensive warfare in order to convert the unbelievers to Islam or make them pay the jizya (see Qur'an 9:29, Sahih Muslim 4294, etc.). Tafasir by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti and others also emphasize that Surat At-Tawba abrogates every peace treaty in the Qur'an.
In the modern age, this idea of stages of development in the Qur'an's teaching on jihad, culminating in offensive warfare to establish the hegemony of Islamic law, has been affirmed by Qutb, Maududi, the Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik (author of "The Qur'anic Concept of War"), Saudi Chief Justice Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid (in his "Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah"), and others. It is, of course, an assertion of no little concern to non-Muslims, since it encapsulates a doctrine of warfare against non-Muslims and their ultimate subjugation under Sharia rules, with all that implies.
I'm Catholic and not Muslim, yet I have lots of first-hand knowledge of traditional Muslims--I grew up with many of these folks in India--and my mind reels from the one-sidedness and distortions of ideologues like Spencer and Trifkovic.
Well, that makes two of us, Mr. D'Souza, for my mind is reeling as we speak at your disingenuousness and lack of concern for accuracy and honest dealing.
Sometimes I wonder if Spencer and Trifkovic know any practicing Muslims.
I am quite certain that I know many more practicing Muslims than does Dinesh D'Souza, but in any case this is a silly point. The doctrines of Islam are established by the Islamic texts. If the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is immoral, 90% of Catholics practicing contraception doesn't change the content of Church teaching. If the overwhelming majority of Muslims ignore jihad warfare, that doesn't mean that the schools of Islamic jurisprudence don't teach jihad warfare.
At one point in our CPAC debate Spencer referred by name to a Muslim "friend," giving people the impression that this fellow was on his side, but after the debate the very same man came up to me and said, "I agree with you completely. I don't know why Spencer mentioned my name in public. I think what he is saying is wrong and counterproductive."
I didn't give the impression that the man was on my side. I wasn't talking about "sides" at all. In fact, I called upon this man, Ahmed Younis, until recently of MPAC, to do genuine work for Islamic reform by acknowledging the aspects of Islamic teaching that the jihadists are using to justify violence and gain recruits among Muslims, and to formulate positive ways to mitigate the violence these aspects of Islam inspire. Like Ali Eteraz, who actually thought I was calling D'Souza himself my friend in some serious manner, D'Souza seems unable to recognize irony in the use of the word "friend."
And in any case, while I have no way of knowing whether or not Ahmed Younis actually said what D'Souza has him saying here, I do know that after the debate Mr. Younis smiled broadly, shook my hand, thanked me more than once for giving him a "shout-out," and reiterated his desire to have a discussion with me -- which I am very eager to have also.
I know that some conservatives have drunk deeply in the wells of anti-Islamic polemic, and recovery may take some time. For starters I'd recommend the detoxifying works of historian Bernard Lewis, who knows the Muslim world and speaks the local languages and exhibits in his work a judiciousness and balance utterly lacking among the rabble-rousers. Here, for example, is Lewis in a passage from his book Islam and the West. While firmly outlining the problems with Islamic toleration, Lewis shows that Muslims have throughout history coexisted with non-Muslims and he goes on to make the startling point that historically speaking Islam was more tolerant than Christianity."The level of willingness (of Muslims) to tolerate and live peaceably with those who believe otherwise and worship otherwise was, at most times and in most places, high enough for tolerable coexistence to be possible...The character and extent of traditional Muslim tolerance should not be misunderstood. If by tolerance we mean the absence of discrimination, then the traditional Muslim state was not tolerant, and indeed a tolerance thus defined would have been seen not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. No equality was conceded, in practice or even less in theory, between those who accepted and obeyed God's word and those who willfully and by their own choice rejected it. Discrimination was structural and universal, imposed by doctrine and law and endorced by popular consent. Persecution, on the other hand, though not unknown, was rare and atypical, and there are few if any equivalents in Muslim history to the massacres, the forced conversions, the expulsions, and the burnings that are so common in the history of Christendom..."
I quoted Lewis saying some quite different things here. But in any case, what is D'Souza's point here? Even if Lewis is correct that the Ottomans were better to minorities than Catholic Europe, what does that prove? No one is trying to bring back the society of Catholic Europe, but jihadists are trying to reimpose Sharia, including dhimmitude for non-Muslims, on the rest of the world. Is D'Souza suggesting that, well, it wasn't so bad after all, and so we shouldn't be resisting it now?
Dinesh D'Souza just goes from bad to worse. Mr. D'Souza, if you are a man of honor, I call upon you to retract these false statements about my positions -- or else substantiate them, if you believe they are accurate, with actual quotations from my books.
If, and only if, you are a man of honor.
Posted by Robert at March 6, 2007 9:26 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Yes!!!! I have contributed!!! I can retire now in peace..
Oh but it gets better who would you think would be the firt to chime in the comments section at the D'Souza Blog why the glourious Tariq Nelson (contributer to ever site including (Dean Esmay and Eteraz.org) in which he claims Robert is Osama Bin Laden!
He states:
"He doesn't see that he has become essentially the polar opposite of bin laden and the people who follow his way"
Dam I am a crusader and Robert is our leader???? On to the crusade!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 6, 2007 10:08 PM
Robert:
You should send a copy of the post above to National Review. Let the debate spread. If you send something to Hanson---I think he will at least mention the core of your response.
at March 6, 2007 10:12 PM
D`Souza has given us the reson why he is writing as he does, not caring about what Spencer actually says and without knowing or wanting to know what the Koran actually says or mandates others to say and do.
D`Souza, like many of us, grew up with kind decent people who are Muslim.
That experience does not produce intellectual impulses but rather emotional.
That is an issue which is very hard to address while keeping a perspective on the issu at hand; does Islam itself threaten or harm the West?
Its a hard question because the fact is, my feelings about Islam being what they are, I cannot help but think of the Muslims with whom I have passed goods on a handshake, whose children I know about and watch growing up.
Secondly, Lewis in particular is a master of balance. I agree with D`Souza that --Islam and the West-- is more balanced because, well it is. That is one type of scholarship.
I don`t pretend to have a solution, but D`Souza is not being irrational and a bad scholar for nothing, but for that powerful human experience in his heart and in his memories.
Posted by: tokyobk at March 6, 2007 10:13 PM
This is absolutely wonderful in watching D'Souza evolve psychologically from a fascination point of view.
D'Souza in early psychopathy overcame his heritage by transference to "white, anglo" success in dealing with his personal failures.
Now though, we are seeing an evolution which is remarkable in D'Souza having learned in his logical computer mind "success", he is now attacking the fundementals of Conservatives and the west which he once clung to, but is now proving him wrong.
In analysis there is nothing which touches upon the dual factor of the Stockholm Syndrome merged into the Martyr Complex and this is the psychosis D'Souza is suffering from.
D'Souza is "punishing" America for his not fitting into America and has chosen the known enemy of Islam in a Stockholm Syndrome of his capitivity here in reverse psychosis. He has now though "under attack" literally taken up the Islamic Martyr Syndrome in choosing the former enemy as his friend.
He uses excuses of "I know many Muslims from my past" are but a feminine deduction of making a point to a conclusion he has already made his mind up on. He is seeking refuge in Islam from Conservatives and yet he knows in reality that Islam would destroy him anywhere he went in the world.
It should prove very interesting as this fracturing occurs. D'Souza has lost reality in being defeated in the only bastion he had in his intellect. He is currently lying, smearing and jousting at windmills. It should only get worse as pressure builds in the exposure of his weakness which he has been running from. His weakness being the little boy, Dinesh D'Souza of long ago.
Fascinating watching this unfold.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 6, 2007 10:17 PM
I sometimes get the impression that Dinesh D'Souza would have made a good Real Estate salesman and then a broker with several offices. He has a good personality for that (I don't mean that as an insult). However, I don't think he's really the stuff of scholars or truly a great intellect. He sounds in this response-comment like his ego has been wounded and that he resents being shown he doesn't know what he's talking about. He may be in the wrong profession.
Posted by: Frank
at March 6, 2007 10:17 PM
firt = first
and I meant to say...
(contributer to every Islamic PC site including Dean Esmay and Eteraz.org)..
Must be too excited! Also check out D'Souza as he explains his strange future alliance with Traditional Muslims and Christian Conservatives in a interview with Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburg Tribune-World.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_495870.html
In which he says....
"You can build coalitions on traditional morality to block things like the assertion of abortion as an international right, which is being promoted right now by groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other groups. So the traditional Muslims, by seeing this, will realize right away that we are not trying to interfere with them governing their own societies and living by their own values. And it undermines bin Laden's idea that we are some sort of an atheist, immoral society."
"These are people who are totally in favor of democracy. They like the idea of being able to live wherever you want, to speak your mind. They believe in religious toleration. However, they don't believe in the right of blasphemy. Or they don't want their daughters to be given condoms before they get married. They don't believe in the social permissive liberalism of modern day America. So that's my point: that the cultural left, by pushing this liberalism on the rest of the world, is producing a backlash from traditional Muslims that is making those Muslims more vulnerable to the appeal of radical Islam."
Trust me there are more howlers from D'Souza in this one interview! enjoy!
at March 6, 2007 10:19 PM
"But in any case, what is D'Souza's point here?" RS
Clue? "I know that some conservatives have drunk deeply in the wells of anti-Islamic polemic, and recovery may take some time." DD
Why is D'souza pushing his "recovery" agenda so fast and hard?
Did he dream up this position all on his own?
Who would benefit if he suceeds in selling it?
at March 6, 2007 10:31 PM
As a people, non-Muslim Indians generally seem terrified of Islam.
There have been a few Indian posters here at JW recently, explaining the dhimmitude of the Indian leaders and the habitual policy of appeasement towards Islam there.
A Catholic parish near me recently had appointed to it a priest from India.
I asked him for his views on Islam and he described it as a "beautiful religion".
That floored me, considering the vast slaughter of Hindus and Buddhists described in K.S. Lal's The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India.
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tlmr/
Just recently, he even quoted from the Qur'an during a sermon.
That was very disturbing.
D'Souza seems to be afflicted with the same terrified "don't make them mad" attitude.
There really is something to the Islamic quote,
Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'"
Terror works, D'Souza and India are proof.
at March 6, 2007 10:38 PM
"Two thirds of Muslims in the world today live in democratic societies, and they certainly aren't wiping out the infidels around them..."
-- from Dinesh D'Souza
He then goes on to list these "democratic societies" in which Muslims "certainly aren't wiping out the infidels around them." They are: India, Turkey, Indonesia. As to India, there is one good reason why Muslims have not gone beyond terrorsit attacks in Mumbia and even on the Parliament Building in Delhi, and that is in India the army and security services are in the hands of non-Muslims, who make up nearly 90% of the population. Isn't that the real explanation for the failure of Muslims to ruthlessly attack "the infidels around them"? And isn't it true that in 1947, at the time of Partition, in West Pakistan (now Pakistan) Hindus made up 15% or more of the population, and now make up less than 1.5%? And isn't it true, as well, that in what was then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) Hindus and other non-Muslims (there are still some Buddhists in the Chittagong Hills area, and some Christians), made up 35% of the population, but now make up about 8%? And what explains that? And what explains the expulsion of 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits by the Muslims into India?
What could possibly explain all this? It doesn't have to be the result of large-scale massacres. It can be, and indeed is, the result of implacable discrimnation, official persecution and the other, unofficial kind, and killings -- a Hindu village here, a temple there, an accusation of blasphemy against Islam over there, and over time, if it is horrific enough --and it has been horrific enough - this leads not a few thousand, not even tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, but millions upon millions of people, in the main Hindus, to simply pack up and leave both Pakistan and Bangladesh.
What about those other Islamic "democracies" that Dinesh D'Souza refers to. Let's take Turkey. In Turkey, in 1914, 50% of the population of Constantinople was non-Muslim. It is now 1%. In 1914, 20% of the population of
Turkey was non-Muslim -- Armenians, Greeks, Jews. It is now much less than 1/2 of 1%. How did this happen? Has Dinesh D'Souza heard about the Armenian genocide, or rather the several genocides, including that of 11894-96, in which the Kurds as well as Turks participated to actively? Has he read the accounts -- say that in the book on the first massacre, in which American missionaries and consular officials offer their eyewitness accounts, in which Muslim Turks and Kurds attacked the "giaour" (that is, the non-Muslim, the Infidel), and took special pleasure in killing Armenian priests and destroying all signs of Armenian churches. Does he, Dinesh D'Souza, know about the masscres of the Greeks, and why the Pontic Greeks (does he know what the Pontic Greeks were?) left Turkey? Does he know about the pogroms against the Jews in Turkey, or about what British diplomats reported on the treatment of Jews in Turkey, which contradicts this dreamy idea, fondly believed by some Turks and Jews alike, that for Jews the situaton in Turkey was simply splendid. It was nothing of the kind. Does Dinesh D'Souza know about the cult of "the Turk" -- who could not be anything other than a Muslim Turk -- the cult that the Kemalists used to dampen or dilute single-minded enthusiasm for Islam? Does he know of the special war-time (World War II) taxes, placed by the Turkish government only on non-Muslims? Has he heard of the attacks on the Greek community of Istanbul in September 1955, under the Menderes government, and does that book by Speros Vryonis, "The Mechanism of Catastrophe," have a place in Dinesh D'Souza's little library of books on Islam?
And as for Turkey being a "democracy," what does Dinesh D'Souza make of the need for the Turkish army to intervene, in 1970, and 1980, and 1991? Does he think that compatible with true democracy? Does he have an opinion about the play in which Erdogan used to take a role as a young man, "Makomya," a hate-filled little thing the title of which refers to the "Masons" (Ma) and the "Catholics" (Kom) and the "Jews" (Ya-hud)? Does he think that in the "democracy" of Turkey non-Muslims are fully equal citizens?
And what about that "democracy" in Indonesia? Has Dinesh D'Souza ever heard about the mass killings of ethnic Chinese, by some reports a half-million or more, and also of nominal Muslims, who were massacred for their apparently tepid interest in Islam? Has he heard about the killing, by Muslim Indonesians, of one-third of the Christian population of East Timor, afteer it was seized from the Portuguese. Isn't it just a little surprising that an Indian Catholic named D'Souza seems not to know about, or perhaps is deliberately choosing to ignore, the mass killing of people who were converted, as presumably were his ancestors, by the Portuguese missionaries?
Is Indonesia really a place today where the Infidels are safe? What is happening in the Moluccas? In Sulawesi? Has Dinesh D'Souza been keeping up with the reports of attacks on thousands of churches, and on Christian worshippers? He did hear about the three schoolgirls who were decapitated, no doubt, but has he kept up with the reports of the Barnabas Fund, very detailed reports, on the many other attacks, including murder, that are intended to terrorize Christians? Does he recall Bali, and how on that island populated by Hindus and visited by Western, non-Muslim tourists, Muslims put a bomb? Has he been following the disposition of justice since, and what has happened to those who were accused of being behind the bombing? Has he followed the public remarks of those involved in the plot and other plots, and how they have been treated not as criminals but as heroes by many Indonesian Muslims?
He just can't be bothered, can he, to find out any facts, any details, about those esemplastic shapes - "India," "Indonesia," "Turkey" -- that he enjoys airily summing up, for an audience he must have great contempt for, because he never pays it the tribute of real fact, based on detailed knowledge, but instead treats those audiences, for his lectures, his articles, his books, as so many lazy ignoramuses who will be well-satisfied with his pap.
He disgusts. And the more frantic he becomes, and the more he flails out, and the more he reveals himself to be what perhaps he always was all along, the more he should be shunned by anyone who thinks that some minimum standards must be maintained. He has been weighted, and found wanting. No, rather, he's had himself weighed for the purpose of being rewarded, like the Aga Khan (whose Ismaili followers would give him his weight in diamonds, or some other precious stones), but instead of a reward, he deserves only ridicule, not unmixed with rancor.
Posted by: Hugh at March 6, 2007 10:49 PM
And one more thing. He has another column, that appeared yesterday, in which he claims that the Sunnis and the Shi'a have always gotten along, and that their mutual attacks in Iraq are not "religious" in nature but "political." That fits right in with the latest predictable Muslim propaganda, which blames America for somehow causing this "sectarian violence" that "didn't exist before the Americans arrived." It's all nonsense, but exactly how nonsensical it is deserves a separate piece, which I will try to write tomorrow. D'Souza is a sort of genius in reverse: he is not only wrong, but so completely wrong, that he provides the perfect prompt to set things lucidly right.
Posted by: Hugh at March 6, 2007 10:52 PM
Robert, what's with this "man of honor" stuff, anyway?
Posted by: Hugh at March 6, 2007 10:55 PM
"I have demonstrated, as I mentioned in my CPAC debate, that jihad warfare against infidels is taught by all the Islamic schools. But I would never say that that means it is the "true and only Islam." The Ahmadiyya, as I have often pointed out, reject violent jihad -- and for that they are persecuted as heretics by other Muslim groups. But are they not true"
Who really cares what some Islamic schools teach, and others don't teach?"
The bottom line is that just about all terrorism in todays world is done in the name of Islam.
That should tell any thinking person that there's something very dysfunctional in Islamic theology.
Muslim terrorists are very clear about what they believe to be authentic Islamic teaching, and justify their murderous acts on those teachings.
Mr. D'Sousa should stop quoting the "classical schools of Islamic teaching, and start listening to what Bin Laden has to say. If Bin Laden says that "slay the infidels" means to kill everyone that's not a Muslim, that's what it means. He's as much an authority on Islam as any Mufti in Cairo -- and far more influential, with a far greater following.
I think Mr. D Sousa should open a dialogue with Bin Laden. He can tell Bin Laden what the classical schools of Islamic teaching have to say about Jihad, and Bin Laden can tell him what the Koran and Hadieth says and means on the subject of Jihad.
I'll put my money on Bin Laden.
at March 6, 2007 11:01 PM
"Mr. D'Souza, if you are a man of honor, I call upon you to retract these false statements about my positions -- or else substantiate them, if you believe they are accurate, with actual quotations from my books.
If, and only if, you are a man of honor."
Robert, one more good shot and you'll be hearing from his seconds. This will give you choice of weapons. I recommend axes. He might have a reach advantage, but if you charge him with your eyes full of business, he's bound to wet himself and run.
By the way, I don't suppose Mr D'Souza offered any explanation for the ignorance of the Qu'ran he demonstrated here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015527.php#comments
Didn't think so.
Posted by: USBeast
at March 6, 2007 11:03 PM
If D'Souza knows he is making false statements, and his intention is to defame Robert, why not end the bickering and file suit for defamation? It seems to me a simple presentation of papers will cause D'Souza to either put up evidence of that he is not falsifying statements or he will shut up. Robert may be asking for a man of honor to act appropriately in preparation for such an act if D'Souza doesn't act honorably.
Posted by: Joe Bag O Donuts at March 6, 2007 11:08 PM
Perhaps D'Souza is a disguised blessing. He is obviously not going to stop trash-talking Robert and other clear-eyed commentators on the present crisis. This may drive traffic to the JW/DW and allied sites simply to see if they are as awful as D'Souza makes them out to be, and people will discover that Spencer and company make better sense of the present crisis than D'Souza does.
That would be sweet.
Thanks, Robert, Hugh and company for your outstanding work.
Sincerely yours,
Sam Conner
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at March 6, 2007 11:10 PM
If you count death threats, you probably know hundreds (thousands?) of practicing Muslims.
Where he puts words in your mouth, saying the only conclusion which can be reached is war on all Muslims proves beyond any doubt he hasn't read any of your books.
Oh well, new Enlightenment or bust here we come. Lots of people are going to die on our way there, and people like Dinesh are partially responsible for the casualties. If we can't name and describe the problem without personal attacks, no progress will be made.
Confronting "traditional Muslims," dragging them into modernity is the only solution. There's no doubt they will get angry. But Dinesh seems to favor dhimmitude or sharia, much worse.
Posted by: Beagle at March 6, 2007 11:10 PM
I think the fact that D'Souza even wrote this column demonstrates that he is definitely not a "man of honor". I'd be shocked if he retracted any of those statements.
Posted by: staff_of_magius at March 6, 2007 11:18 PM
D'Souza is clearly "not a man of honor." He is, and has been since his first appearance in the spotlight, a man who is willing to lie rather than admit a mistake. He is wrong on Islam and wrong about the culture of America. He is wrong on why America has been under attack be characterized as "Blame America First" with regards to 9/11. He is a poster-child for what is wrong in American higher education today, both on the right and the left. He preens, politicizes and prevaricates. Only a deeply hypocritical, deeply insecure and intellectually shallow man could point out the moral flaws in others, while he spreads lies and missrepresents the good and useful works of others.
Posted by: teachingmyown at March 6, 2007 11:26 PM
The Jews of the former Hungarian Empire (Galitziana) used to sing:
"Every man is a man of honer if he is a galitzianer"
Don`t suppose it works for the Indian descendents of Portuguese tradesmen.
Posted by: tokyobk at March 6, 2007 11:31 PM
He is wrong on why America has been under attack by the Islamists and has taken a position that can only be characterized as "Blame America First" with regards to 9/11.
Please pardon my confusing omission in line 4.
at March 6, 2007 11:32 PM
My suspicions are if D'Souza is right, why isn't he over in India trying to sell this stuff?
I have a couple of dozen Hindu friends and work colleagues, most from India. I specialize in cracking them open on the subject of Islam. Usually in the lunch room, sometimes in the bar.
But, because Islam is a verboten subject in the homeland (and in Hindu culture generally), in those few cases where I've succeeded in eliciting free speech on the subject of Islam from the Hindus I know, they are at first exhilirated, and then a little punchy like maybe they did something wrong and that something bad would happen as a result.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
I think that this is what is pushing D'Souza --- a one time star among non-Marixsts noted for his historicism and rationality --- into the squalid gutter of intellectual dishonesty and, yes this is APF speaking here, the terribly dishonorable act of reinforcing the Islamic Fictive Reality.
He doesn't have it in him to come clean. Whether subliminally or not, he fears not just for his reputation, which is his carrer, but also for himself, his family, and his neighbors.
He fears the 6th Pillar of Islam.
But, as a professional and public intellectual, he had no choice but to step up to the subject of Islam --- by a wide margin the most important subject in the world right now --- and in light of his background had little choice but to shit his pants and still not go to the laundromat, and in so doing further stink up our already low level of public discourse on this critical subject.
Had he been a Leftist, he could've foisted some pure unmitigated Marxist bullshit dwelling on Moslems-as-exploited-victims to stake his position. But, as a putative conservative, he had no choice but to inch closer to reality than such fantatism of that sort.
For these reasons, and his own lack of backbone, Dinesh, a native Indian, looks bad right now.
But, keep in mind that, at the rate we're sinking over here in the West, we'll all be in the same sad depth 20 years hence, hesistant to speak ill of Islam for fear that that tall and heavy black Pillar will fall on us, or our loved ones, or our neighbors.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 6, 2007 11:32 PM
Well I think this about says it all. Outside of the poor chap asking the same questions Serge Trifkovic asked who would think would appear to comfort D'Souza in the comments section at his blog...
(1) Tariq Nelson
(2) Ali Eteraz
(3) Aziz Poonawalla
All three have commented giving the praise of D'Souza. Poonawalla admits to be a "Traditional Muslim". Then Poonwalla once to make alliance with D'Souza:
"I don't think that dialouge is the answer. Perhaps the only answers are long term. We certainly do need to articulate a new political identity that can bring people who recognize the problem together; you are a conservative, I am a liberal, but I think we are allies here."
My god remember the song "World turned upside down". The british played it when they surrendered at Yorktown and no doubt this is one of those moments.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 6, 2007 11:37 PM
once = wants
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 6, 2007 11:39 PM
Dancers and prevaricators like D'Souza need to be pinned down, and the best way to do that in a context of debate (whether live or on paper) is to insist on focusing on one point at a time -- and don't move on to the next point until that one point is finished to the satisfaction of both parties.
If instead the participants are allowed to address a multitude of points and their radiating threads, this will provide the prevaricators like D'Souza a way to dance indefinitely, and also makes each debate needlessly complex.
Posted by: remote_control at March 6, 2007 11:53 PM
One more shot at D'Souza before I log off to prepare for tomorrow's Latin classes (where we will be celebrating the truly great values of Western Civilization).
I noticed in D'Souza's blog that he appears as a regular on the radio show of Adam Carolla (Comedy Central's "The Man Show" and MTV's "Ask Dr. Drew") and Danny Bonaduce (The Partridge Family, numerous "reality shows" and a few news-making arrests for various drug offenses). I do not believe D'Souza cares one whit about American culture when he is willing to yuk it up with precisely the types of reprobates whose influence he blames for the deaths of thousands of Americans. Is there a bigger hypocrite in America today? He gives Al Gore and his energy-gobbling mansion a run for his money.
Posted by: teachingmyown at March 7, 2007 12:18 AM
It's disturbing. Is Dinesh about to go britney on us? Dinesh has a problem. Islam's texts, history and Muslim's actions as states, groups and individuals in our time contradict his conclusions. Because he chose not to study Islam beyond a book by Lewis who has been roundly criticized for his many omissions and conclusions, he made conclusions himself that do not stand up under scrutiny. Proclaimed scholars like Dinesh just cannot deal with it. It's sad. Nothing is going to change in future events, things will get worse. As long as Islam has the money from oil, it will become more beligerent, it's the nature of the beast.
I do agree it's fascinating watching Dinesh become unhinged. I expected more of him and I am deeply disappointed. I think the embarassment that Trifklovic laid on him regarding his knowledge of the Quran's structure wounded him and like a wounded animal he strikes back wildly.
Posted by: John Sobieski at March 7, 2007 12:24 AM
D'Souza doesn't debate fair; how can he? So he calls his opponents names, talks up the credentials of Lewis, demeans his critics, mentioning again and again are we at war with 1.2 billion Muslims.
With this preambe, no refutation of Mr. Spencer's points are needed. It's like I'm looking at the weather channel and the wind picks up and I see a forcast for a tornado. I tell my friend this and he notes I don't have a PhD in tornados, so nothing to worry about.
Now, if your a brilliant Dartmouth conservative, things like Islam are 'easy' for you. Hell, you know the score anyway. Your test scores are high and you are full of yourself. That was my take on D'Souza. It was a one-sided debate with D'Souza only hitting Robert's point in an oblique, demeaning fashion. Indeed, the very idea of debate is pointless in D'Souzas mind.
I don't like analogies to the holocaust, but in this case it is apt. His points of reference would be like a Jew denying Hitler's rage, or an armenian in cahoots with an Islamist historian avout Armenia. Sadly, there are plenty of such scum. D'Souza won't be the first or last, and I would bet this is an economic move for him to sell books, perhaps one day get some funny green money from a Saudia Arabian foundation . . . maybe the Carter Center will make a donation.
It's more than a little unfair. For he not only puts up a straw man, he demans the whole idea of Robert's points as being somehow beyond the pale. Perhaps we should wash out our hard drives of all the video horror of 911. But Dinesh is unreal. There is no problem with Islam or Islamist thought. No the only problem in America is soft porn on cinemax or hookers in Vegas? Maybe next time, Bin Laden will hit the bunny ranch since that's where the "action" is.
Posted by: biorabbi at March 7, 2007 1:11 AM
Perhaps D´Souza is intentionally neglecting to engage the specifics of Robert´s arguments because D´Souza has no good answers to those specifics. And thus instead of D´Souza engaging the argument and accepting the correction he´s got coming, he is merely covering himself up with slogans masquerading somewhat cleverly as argument. D´Souza is using his sloganeering rhetoric to shield against the factual and logical blows Robert has been raining down on him. But argument gets more interesting if the losing side would even permit the KO rather than retreat endlessly round and round the ring while talking trash and refusing ever to really engage the opponent.
Or, maybe D´Souza is failing to engage the details of Robert´s arguments not in full consciousness, but in the main as a result of ignorance about Islam and due also to overconfidence that he already knows what he´s talking about with regard to Islam and Robert´s position.
Posted by: traeh at March 7, 2007 1:11 AM
D'Souza needs to realize that it's better to eat crow while it's still warm. But I doubt he will.
Posted by: wrathofasma at March 7, 2007 1:18 AM
D'Souza also is illustrative of another point. One can be a conservative and be a boob, and one can be a liberal, but honest and consistent. Reagan never wavered, what you saw is what you got . . . same for FDR. Love them or hate them, they were consistent. I watched this Clinton lawyer tonight calling the indictment of Libby as a politically motivated witchhunt, destroying a man's reputation.
Some conservatives and some liberals are straight shooters, some deceptive like the Clinton, and some completely unhinged, off the reservation like D'Souza. I wouldn't place Ann Coulter in his class since she uses funny, sometimes warped logic to prove her point. She's consistent. I like her even though I don't agree with your politics, but I think she speaks with passion. Dinesh seems to think with dollar signs, because he simply cannot believe the whitewash he's bought into. Then to connect the rage of Bin Laden to abortions or hookers or Brittany or whatever dysfunctional cultural symbol in America is warped to the extreme!
Do you think what enraged UBL in his cave was hookers or bad TV. Did he watch a VCR of Dallas and grow enraged as JR cheated on Sue Ellan? What did he do? did he say? "That's crazy, we ought to kill those perverted yankees. What a complete farce. Next time you debate Dinesh, Robert, wear a bikini with a pro choice button; that will be sure to enrage the ire of Dinesh and UBL and those traditional Muslim allies of ours.
Just shut down the hookers, the bunny ranches, playboy and M TV and UBL will turn into a wise old softie.
What logic. We got hit on 911, so what did we do to deserve it. As a conservative, does Dinesh wonder what America did to deserve the Jap attack on Pearl harbor? Was it some riske ditty by Glen Miller?? He masks his appeasment under bogus straw man arguements of social problems. Even if you agree with Dinesh on abortion or whatever, what the hell does that have to do with UBL.
Wasn't racism wrong in the 30's in America? Using this cretins thought processes, the attack on Pearl Harbor must have been due to the US treatment of blacks, or Indians. In otherwords, you turn away from the expressed, documented ideology of the killers, and look deep into the mirror for whatever wrinkles might be found.
Posted by: biorabbi at March 7, 2007 1:24 AM
D'Souza seems typical of a lot of people who approach this subject with a little knowledge who think that they know a lot more than they do.
These are like many of the official experts, the ones who get us ensnared in unrealistic democratization adventures in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, who concoct preposterous peace schemes for Israel that get innocent people killed, who make up facile explanations involving Infidel immmorality for 9/11, the ones who personify the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Someone who has studied thoroughly will realize that our expectations for changing Islamic cultures must be modest. They also respect the fact that Muslims do not just react to what we do to define themselves because they understand Islam for what it is.
at March 7, 2007 2:01 AM
I have heard that portugese forcefully converted many indians into catholicism during the Goan conquest. But seems like they did a poor job with D'souza he is almost a muslim .....or a dhimmi at the very least.
Posted by: Birbhadra at March 7, 2007 3:06 AM
I'm disgusted by DD's juvenile behavior. He must think because he's at Hoover Inst. that he can steam roller over his critics by lying about them.
Posted by: dennisw at March 7, 2007 3:59 AM
remote_control , you hit the nail on the head. Every debate should challange one point , explore what he says, and expose his story based on one thing, the facts.
He can perhaps still be turned, but he must be shown the light through the facts, and only the facts. One point at a time.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at March 7, 2007 4:07 AM
This is the old "....yes but they're not all bad" position. I have read most of Spencer's books and I think he would heartily agree to that as I would and most would. The problem comes when that position yields a pohibition against even noticing that some millions of Muslims are, in fact, driven by an irrational hatred that expresses itself in Quran-sanctioned violence. We cannot ignore that aspect of Islam and hope that it will go away especially when it is cultivated and endorsed so widely throughout the Islamic world.
www.SaveCivilization.org
Posted by: Mr. Burke at March 7, 2007 6:01 AM
Dinesh D'Souza is but a Muslim puppet on a string, his dialogue is rehearsed and practiced...In his speeches and debates he never wavers from his prepared statements...he is blind to the truth and is not listening too carefully to the opponent...yessir, a puppet on a string....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 7, 2007 6:38 AM
Dinesh D'Souza titled his piece "Bernard Lewis vs. the Islamophobes," which is misleading for at least a couple of reasons:
1. The term Islamophobe according to D'Souza's definition, which he has already given us, includes anyone who criticizes Islam publicly.
2. Bernard Lewis would not necessarily disagree with what Spencer and Trifkovic--D'Souza's alleged "Islamophobes"--have to say regarding the substantive issues at hand. But if D'Souza wants Lewis vs Spencer or Trifkovic, why not arrange the actual debate? By appealing to Lewis, D'Souza is tacitly admitting that he can't argue for himself, probably because he hasn't bothered to take the time to read the original source material--something any ordinary conscientious student would do.
D'Souza might want to consider these statements from Lewis. (Note that each of these statements by Lewis undermines claims made by D'Souza in these exchanges with Robert and Trifkovic).
Re Myth of so-called Golden Age of Islamic Tolerance, Bernard Lewis in "The Pro-Islamic Jews," Judaism, (Fall 1968, p. 401.) wrote:
"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented in 19th-century Europe as a reproach to Christians -- and then taken up by Muslims in our time as a reproach to Jews ... European travellers to the East in the age of liberalism and emancipation are almost unanimous in deploring the degraded and precarious position of Jews in Muslim countries, and the dangers and humiliations to which they were subject. Jewish scholars, acquainted with the history of Islam and with the current situation in Islamic lands, can have had no illusions on this score. Vambery [1904] is unambiguous: "I do not know any more miserable, helpless, and pitiful individual on God's earth than the Jahudi in those countries."
Next example of D'Souza's wonderful Islam:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html
Bernard Lewis. Race and Slavery in the Middle East
Oxford Univ Press 1994.
Chpt. 1 Slavery
Lewis: “A Muslim slaveowner was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. While free women might own male slaves, they had of course no equivalent right.”
For support on this point, re D'Souza's native India, see http://voi.org/books/mssmi/ch12.htm
CHAPTER XII: SEX SLAVERY
Muslim Slave System in Medieval India
K.S. Lal. Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi
A more recent example from Lewis. (If either Robert of Trifkovic uttered these statements, D'Souza would be crying "Islamophobe!"
Bernard Lewis has recently given his thoughts on the issue of Muslims' pursuit of the goal to conquer the whole world, all of humankind, as reported in this article this article.
note that direct quotes from Lewis are in quotation marks:
“The fact that some of the societies are acquiring, or will soon acquire ... weapons of destructive power beyond Hitler`s wildest dreams ... is something that we should be very concerned about,” he said.
Muslim believers consider themselves “the fortunate recipients of God`s final message to humanity and it is their duty not to keep it selfishly to themselves ... (but) to bring it to the rest of mankind,” Lewis noted.
In their first attempt to do so, they emerged from the Arabian Peninsula and conquered vast territories from Iran across North Africa to Spain, Portugal and parts of Italy. Converts conquered Russian lands and established an Islamic regime in Eastern Europe. There are even reports of an Arab raid into Switzerland. But that attempt to conquer Europe failed, and the Crusaders recovered the Christian holy places in Jerusalem.
In the second round, the Ottoman Turks crossed southeastern Europe and reached Vienna. Twice they tried to capture it and failed. Western imperialism halted and reversed the Ottoman push.
The current, third invasion, is not done by armed conquest or with migrating hordes, but by a combination of migration, demography, “self denigration and self abasement, totally apologetic,” Lewis said.Posted by: Khaybar Oasis
at March 7, 2007 6:59 AM
The fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that she cannot have a public discussion anywhere in the Islamic world about the role of Islam in modern society without being killed says everything we need to know about Islam.
Posted by: Peter Boston at March 7, 2007 7:03 AM
D`Souza is showing he is a man of no honour! Rather than admit he made mistakes, he rather go out an trash other people's names. this past year l had spoken with some people who never read Robert's books, but only heard bad about him, and its from idoits like D`Souza to cannot find actually facts to prove his points, so they attack the person. Fools beleive fools, and people who want the truth seek it out eventually. mr D'Souza you should be ashamed of yourself!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 7, 2007 7:18 AM
D'Souza keeps talking about traditional Muslims and how he has so much in common with them in terms of core values. Let's therefore introduce Dinesh D'Souza to some traditional Muslims. Of course, these Muslims do not represent all traditional Muslims, just some rather important ones:
Traditional Muslim # 1. Muhammad.
Muhammad: "I have been made victorious with terror" (Sahih Bukhari).
Muhammad: "Booty has been made legal for me." (Sahih Bukhari).
Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 33 (see 30-35): It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Traditional Muslims # 2. Muhammad's companions.
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (3371-3388):
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Traditional Muslim # 3. Saladin.
“I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah" --Saladin, 1189.
Traditional Muslim # 4. Khomeni
"We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world" --Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Traditional Muslim # 5. Husseini
"If the objective circumstances materialize, and subjective there are soldiers, weapons, and money--even if this means using biological, chemical, and bacterial weapons--we will conquer the world, so that “there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah” will be triumphant over the domes of Moscow, Washington, and Paris." --Iraqi ayatollah Ahmad Husseini
Traditional Muslims # 6. Jihadists quoted in the Sira
Ishaq, p. 531.
"Get out of his way, you unbelievers, make way.
Every good thing goes with His apostle.
O Lord I believe in his word,
I know God’s truth in accepting it.
We will fight you about its interpretation
As we have fought you about its revelation
With strokes that will remove heads from shoulders
And make friend unmindful of friend."
Ishaq, p. 580.
“…By us God’s religion is undeniably strong.
We added a like number to the clan that was with him.
When we came to Mecca, our banner
Was like an eagle soaring to dart on its prey
(Riding) on horses which gazed upwards.
You would think when they gallop in their bits there is the sound of jinn among them,
The day we trod down the unbelievers
And found no deviation or turning from the apostle’s order.
In a battle mid which the people heard only
Our exhortations to fight and the smashing of skulls
By swords that sent heads flying from their base
And severed the necks of warriors at a blow.
Often we have left the slain cut to pieces
And a widow crying Alas! Over her husband.
‘Tis God not man we seek to please;
To Him belongs the seen and unseen.”
at March 7, 2007 7:25 AM
Traditional Muslims # 7 and 8: Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas.
Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas tafsir, Koran Verse 9:33 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=21037
Ibn Kathir, tafsir of 9:33:
"Islam is the Religion That will dominate over all Other Religions Allah said next, (It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth.) `Guidance' refers to the true narrations, beneficial faith and true religion that the Messenger came with. `religion of truth' refers to the righteous, legal deeds that bring about benefit in this life and the Hereafter. (to make it (Islam) superior over all religions) It is recorded in the Sahih that the Messenger of Allah said, (Allah made the eastern and western parts of the earth draw near for me [to see], and the rule of my Ummah will extend as far as I saw.) Imam Ahmad recorded from Tamim Ad-Dari that he said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, (This matter (Islam) will keep spreading as far as the night and day reach, until Allah will not leave a house made of mud or hair, but will make this religion enter it, while bringing might to a mighty person (a Muslim) and humiliation to a disgraced person (who rejects Islam). Might with which Allah elevates Islam (and its people) and disgrace with which Allah humiliates disbelief (and its people).) Tamim Ad-Dari [who was a Christian before Islam] used to say, "I have come to know the meaning of this Hadith in my own people. Those who became Muslims among them acquired goodness, honor and might. Disgrace, humiliation and Jizyah befell those who remained disbelievers.''
http://www.altafsir.com/ Ibn Abbas
"(He it is Who hath sent His messenger) Muhammad (pbuh) (with the guidance) with the Qur’an and faith (and the Religion of Truth) the religion of Islam, and with it the confession that there is no deity except Allah, (that He may cause it to prevail over all religion) that He may Cause the religion of Islam to prevail over all religions which came before it until the Day of Judgement, (however much the idolaters may be averse) that this should be so."
Ibn Kathir, Koran verse 48:28 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=48&tid=49630
"The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
Allah the Exalted and Most Honored said, while delivering the glad tidings to the believers that the Messenger will triumph over his enemies and the rest of the people of the earth, (He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth,) with beneficial knowledge and righteous good deeds. Indeed, the Islamic Shari`ah has two factors, knowledge and deeds. The true religious knowledge is by definition true, and the accepted Islamic acts are by definition accepted. Therefore, the news and creed that this religion conveys are true and its commandments are just, (that He may make it superior to all religions.) all the religions of the people of the earth, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, whether having certain ideologies or being atheists or idolators. (And All-Sufficient is Allah as a Witness.) that Muhammad is His Messenger and that He will grant him victory. Allah the Exalted and Most Honored has the best knowledge."
Ibn Abbas 48:28:
"(He it is Who hath sent His messenger) Muhammad (pbuh) (with the guidance) with the profession of Allah’s divine Oneness; and it is also said this means: with the Qur’an (and the religion of truth) the testification that there is no deity save Allah and that Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger, (that He may cause it to prevail over all religion) such that the Hour will not come until there is none but a Muslim or someone who is in a peace treaty with him. (And Allah sufficeth as a witness) there is no deity except Allah."
at March 7, 2007 7:30 AM
There were a couple of good articles written by Muslims posted on yesterday's frontpagemag.com that speak to the pretentions of a Dinesh D'Souza:
Kaleel Mohammed, writing in the Ottawa Citizen under the headline:
To My Fellow Muslims: We Are Our Own Enemies
[...]
When the Feb. 6 edition of the Citizen put my comments on its front page, the reaction was predictable. It was no less different when in March 2004, at a conference in Montreal, I made the statement that many mosques preach anti-Jewish and anti-Christian rhetoric. I was, the leaders of some Muslim organizations declared, destroying the bridges of rapprochement that had been built between communities. On these occasions I point to translations of the very first chapter of the Koran that have interpolations that preach hatred against Jews and Christians. I can quote exegete after exegete. The truth cannot be overcome.
I write not only as an academic scholar of religion, but also in my role as a father, troubled by the pervasive anti-Jewish, anti-western teachings that I know exist in some mosques. Just a few summers before the Montreal conference, I had re-established contact with one of my sons after a rather acrimonious divorce. I had last seen him when he was but five years old, and now, here he was, 14 years old, trying to show me, his learned dad, that he too could joke the way I do: "How do you kill a Jew, dad? -- You throw a quarter on the highway!"
[...]
Read it all: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27237
Raymond Ibrahim for the March 6th frontpagemag.com:
Is Islam Worse than Other Religions?
[...]
"Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. Yahweh clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e. the Halakha).
This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e. the Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Koranic verses:
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the pagans wherever you find them—take them [captive], besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (9:5)."
[...]
and here Ibrahim provides us with the distinction, in a nutshell, between the violence and malfeasances of personalities in Jewish scripture and the Qu'ran:
"While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though recorded in the Old Testament, never went on to be part of Jewish law. Neither Abraham’s “white-lies,” nor Jacob’s perfidy, nor Moses’ short-fuse, nor David’s adultery, nor Solomon’s philandering ever went on to instruct Jews or Christians. They were merely understood to be historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by God for their less than ideal behavior."
Read it all: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27234
Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 7, 2007 7:55 AM
Introducing Dinesh D'Souza to traditional Muslim # 9. Qaradawi.
The popular, influential, and still living Muslim scholar and leader, writes:
"1. In his Sahih, Imam Muslim recorded that Thawban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) as saying: “Almighty Allah has gathered the earth for me so that I could see all its corners. My nation will rule over all that which Almighty Allah has gathered for me.”
2. Ibn Hibban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as saying: “This matter (i.e. Islam) will spread to cover all areas where there is night and day. Allah will never leave a house in a rural area or in urban community without its people being Muslims. Honor is for those who embrace it (i.e. Islam) while disbelievers are doomed to disgrace and humiliation.”
This hadith, along with many others, give us glad tidings that the patch of the Muslim state will expand to cover the whole earth and that the strength of this state will grow and become obvious to all. This also denotes good news for the long-cherished hope of revival of Muslims’ unity and rebirth of Islamic Caliphate."[ Source ]
More Qaradawi:
Sheik Al-Qaradhawi argued that there are two types of Jihad: "A Jihad which you seek, and a Jihad in which you repulse an attack." In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way. The repulsing Jihad takes place when your land is being invaded and conquered... [in that case you must] repulse [the invader] to the best of your ability; if you kill him he will end up in hell, and if he kills you, you become a martyr [Shahid]..."
The Unique Characteristics of the Prophet Muhammed Sheik Al-Qaradhawi began his discussion describing the unique characteristics of the Prophet Muhammad when compared to the prophets that preceded him: ..."The prophets that Allah sent prior to Muhammad were sent for a limited time ...and to a specific people." ... Allah established in the life of the Prophet Muhammad general, eternal, and all inclusive characteristics, and he gave every human being the possibility to imitate him and take his life as a model.""[ Source ] Posted by: Khaybar Oasis
at March 7, 2007 7:57 AM
Dinesh D'Souza, meet...
Traditional Muslim # 10. Khatami.
Ahmad Khatami:
“This victory was promised in the Koran: "The party of Allah must triumph."* On this occasion, I want to tell Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert that they should learn a lesson from this shameful defeat. They should not bare their fangs, expose their stings, or make threats against Islamic Iran. They should learn a lesson from the fact that a single party [Hizbullah] has turned their days into dark nights. If they decided to display the slightest aggression against Islamic Iran, they should bear in mind that the missiles of the Lebanese Hizbullah, with a range of 70 kilometers, have turned Israel into a ghost-country. They should fear the day that our missiles, with a range of 2,000 kilometers, land in the heart of Tel Aviv. Therefore, we hope that Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert have learned the necessary lesson. They should know that playing with Islam is like playing with a lion's tail.”
*The verse referenced there by Khatami was Koran, 5:56:
“And whoever takes Allah and His apostle and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah* are they that shall be triumphant.”
*hizba Allahi
Traditional Muslims example # 11. The two Jalals (al-Jalalayn)
Commentary/tafsir on 9:5:
"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed."
"Then, when the sacred months have passed - that is, [at] the end of the period of deferment - slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, [at every] route that they use (kulla, 'every', is in the accusative because a [preceding] genitive-taking preposition has been removed). But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them. God is Forgiving, Merciful, to those who repent."
at March 7, 2007 8:23 AM
Dis-Susa has been Dis-credited, what part of his blurb will be from study and the truth? How can we be sure? It may be that Dis-Susa is thinking ‘It’s better to be hated than ignored’. There is no profit in being ignored.
Lame Cherry: WOW! If I happen to say something that you find offensive please tell me, I don’t want you on MY case, after reading your post here, I don’t think you’re the person I want to piss off.
(QuadoLama = SteveL)
at March 7, 2007 8:35 AM
I think D'Souza is, like most conservatives, unable to answer the question, "What Would Reagan Do?" in response to Islam. On the one hand, there is a reflexive reaction that says, "Well, you know religion is good for society; it works against drunkenness and stealing and fatherless children, so let's be nice." On the other hand, Reagan was also animated by a sense of justice that was genuinely angry that East Berliners and Soviet Citizens suffered under an oppressive government. Many in the West were quick to assure us that the Soviet system was not so bad, just as those who do not live in Muslim nations or Muslim enclaves in the West are quick to assure us that their system is not so bad.
So, does D'Souza go with compassion for the victims of oppressive Islamic governments (not to mention Islamist terrorists), or with tolerance toward all religions? Well, the way out of the conundrum certainly becomes easier if, like D'Souza, you don't learn about Islam first. I also get the sense that D'Souza had no idea who Robert Spencer was and simply picked a title at random to criticize in his book. So knowing nothing of Robert Spencer, Serge Trifcovic or Islam, D'Souza has really stepped in it.
at March 7, 2007 9:27 AM
Dinesh D'Souza meet...
traditional Muslim # 12. Ibrahim Mudayris.
The Moslem cleric, Ibrahim Mudayris, told his Arab audience,
"The day will come and we shall rule America, Britain, we shall rule the entire world, except the Jews." He explained that, unlike the Christian countries, Jews cannot be placed under subjugation. He told PA television viewers that the only fate awaiting Jews is death by extermination.
Traditional Muslim # 13. Sistani.
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/sistani.htm
Q5: What is the judgment for sodomy and lesbianism?
A5: Forbidden. Punished, in fact, killed. The people involved should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.
http://www.al-islam.org/laws/najisthings.html
"Najis Things
84. * The following ten things are essentially najis:
Urine
Faeces
Semen
Dead body
Blood
Dog
Pig
Kafir*
Alcoholic liquors
The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat.
*Kafir
107. * An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis. Similarly, Ghulat who believe in any of the holy twelve Imams as God, or that they are incarnations of God, and Khawarij and Nawasib who express enmity towards the holy Imams, are also najis. And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like, namaz and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such.
Traditional Muslim # 14. Abdul-Malik.
Michigan Muslim leader Hanafi Abdul-Malik calls for the “physical death” of those who “defile” the Prophet Mohamed. A Muslim leader of a Michigan mosque with links to a man who taught confessed shoe-bomber Richard Reid at the Finsbury Park Mosque, has called for the “physical death” of those who “defile” the Prophet Mohamed and other Prophets of Islam, describing it as “blasphemy”. Hanafi Abdul-Malik, Imam of the downtown Flint Michigan mosque Muslim House made the statements to a reporter for the Flint Journal. The article in the Journal quotes Abdul-Malik as saying: "Muslims respect God and all his prophets," Adbul-Malik said. "We would not bring harm to any of them." "For anyone to defile any of them as has been done to the prophet Muhammad is blasphemy," he said. "We think the consequence for doing so is physical death."http://islamwatch.forumup.in/viewtopic.php?t=223&mforum=islamwatch Posted by: Khaybar Oasis
at March 7, 2007 9:32 AM
Alarmed Pig Farmer,
"But, keep in mind that, at the rate we're sinking over here in the West, we'll all be in the same sad depth 20 years hence, hesistant to speak ill of Islam for fear that that tall and heavy black Pillar will fall on us, or our loved ones, or our neighbors."
That's not certain.
First, if you look at reproduction rates, conservatives outbreed liberals, and there is a good chance most conservatives will eventually reject D'Souza apologetics. Far from a certainty, but a good chance. (Lax immigration policies may throw this off, though, given how identity politics works here.)
Second, yeah there are tons of thouroughly-dhimmi folks, like D'Souza appears to be, from countries with a long history of Muslim terrorism, but you've also got folks and subcultures from long-term-Islam-terrorised countries that are enthusiastically interested in speaking out about injustice under Islam, provided the slightest political freedoms. Bat Ye'or is perhaps a good example.
It's something many Egyptian Christians get routinely mocked for by "experts", willingness to complain about oppression under Islam. Possibly other groups, too; a significant proportion of (but by no means all) Lebanses Christians are also willing to complain. There's no saying that, should Islam become a more powerful force here, Americans of various religious stripes wouldn't do likewise, contra D'Souza.
at March 7, 2007 2:53 PM
Robert,
This ongoing battle with D'Souza is distracting from your message. While it may not be trivial, it appears to be so and will cause you to lose your audience. It also appears that you are taking things too personally.
Your voice in bringing the truth to us about Islam must not be stifled. It has opened so many eyes.
Please refocus on getting the simple message of the truth of the evils of Fundamentalist Islam out to the general public.
Posted by: Cinder at March 7, 2007 4:41 PM
Khyber Oasis
Some of the characters you mention above are classified by D'Souza as fundamentalist Muslims:
Also, don't be surprised if D'Souza considered KS Lal as 'polemic'.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 7, 2007 4:56 PM
IP,
1.
Khomeini, Qaradawi, and Khatami are all traditional Muslims. Traditional Muslim, Fundamentalist, or 'Willing to Make Use of Useful Idiots,' are not mutually-exclusive categories by any means. D'Souza can dismiss them post hoc by saying "Ah, that's not what I meant by traditional Muslim." But it is only after we present some embarrassing facts that he would say this. The problem is that he simply doesn't know enough about what traditional Muslims generally believe. The example re Gomaa illustrates this idea. D'Souza said he had more in common in terms of core values with the mufti than with Michael Moore. Then we showed that Gomaa supports Hizballah, and then D'Souza stopped naming Gomaa as a traditional Muslim.
D'Souza appears to be assuming that traditional Muslims share his core values. Unless D'Souza thinks that apostates, blasphemers, and homosexuals should be punished as criminals--which is what most traditional Muslims believe--then he is simply mistaken in his claim that traditional Muslims share his core values.
2.
Sistani is a good example then. D'Souza should be pressed to give his opinion on Sistani and homosexuality. I think D'Souza is getting a free ride from the most on the right who hate homosexuals, and on the other hand is getting a free ride from most on the left who think criticism of Islam is bigotry.
3. Re K.S. Lal, it would be awkward for D'Souza to dismiss Lal as a polemic when Lal's account confirms the external validity of Lewis' claims (which I cited prominently) re sex slavery. That's why I cited Lal; only to give some other confirmation of Lewis' point. My main point there was to show where a statement from Lewis contradicts D'Souza's claims about how wonderful Islam is and how we should stop criticising it. D'Souza was appealing to Lewis as an authority to help him make his case. I cited Lewis to undermine D'Souza's case and use of Lewis. By citing Lal (and for that matter Lewis), I am not merely trying to convince D'Souza (I doubt that he'll read this), but rather to provide pertinent information to the audience.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 8, 2007 3:46 AM
Let me rephrase something:
"I think D'Souza is getting a free ride from the most on the right who hate homosexuals, and on the other hand is getting a free ride from most on the left who think criticism of Islam is bigotry."
Not having poll data on hand to support that claim, I withdraw it. I'll rephrase by replacing "most" with "those."
Nevertheless, I do think that it is probably the case that there are more on the left (than on the right) who will reflexively and belligerently defend Islam from criticism by attacking the critic with charges of bigotry etc., while there are more on the right (than on the left) who hate homosexuals/homosexuality.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 8, 2007 3:58 AM
Please refocus on getting the simple message of the truth of the evils of Fundamentalist Islam out to the general public.
Posted by: Cinder on March 7, 2007 04:41 PM
Though it may seem superficially that all this confrontation with Dinesh D'Souza serves as a mere distraction and takes away from Robert Spenser's important message to the public, in actual fact I think this debate is vital. Dinesh D'Souza, unfortunately, does speak for a vast majority of people who, like him, are unwilling to take the first step in actually reading up on Islam. However, what we have witnessed so far has really been no debate since Dinesh is totally ignorant about Islam and thus resorts to name-calling and snide remarks. I agree with Khaybar, that since Dinesh keeps quoting from Bernard Lewis, and has accepted Lewis as an authority on Islamic history, it would be wise to use the various examples in Lewis's work that completely contradicts DD's whole premise of Islam being a generally peaceful religion hijacked by a few crazy zealots.
Posted by: Razdan at March 8, 2007 12:40 PM
"They believe in religious toleration. However, they don't believe in the right of blasphemy."
It might be amusing to watch D'Souza try to reconcile his alleged love for freedom with his tolerance for anti-blasphemy laws. If his tolerance does not extend to criticism of religious doctrines and practices, then he doesn't have a clue and does not deserve respect.
Posted by: pst314 at March 8, 2007 1:41 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)