| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Today in National Review Dinesh D'Souza says that I don't believe something that I have affirmed here seven times recently, and discussed in several of my books.
On January 17, I quoted Dinesh D'Souza speaking about how my work risks "driving the traditional Muslims into the radical camp," and responded that "no one has ever yet explained to me why describing Islam as containing elements that incite to violence will make otherwise peaceful Muslims become violent or begin to condone religious violence."
I didn't say that I didn't believe that the people he calls "traditional Muslims" don't exist, did I? Of course not. In fact, I took their existence for granted.
On January 19, I quoted him saying that "the traditional Muslims are the recruiting pool of radical Islam," and added, "Indeed." Did I say that the "traditional Muslims" didn't exist? Nope. In fact, I was agreeing with him on this point.
On January 29, I wrote that "Dinesh D'Souza recommends the American conservatives ally with what he calls 'traditional Muslims,' who are actually cultural Muslims who have little acquaintance with or interest in violent jihad. The problem is that such people are always susceptible to the jihadist appeal, based as it is on the Qur'an and Sunnah." Did I say that such people don't exist? No, in fact I merely repeated here the point D'Souza himself has made about jihadists recruiting among peaceful Muslims.
On March 2, responding to an earlier instance of his claiming that I don't believe there are any traditional Muslims, I wrote that "I call them cultural Muslims, and if he had actually read my books he would know that I know there are hundreds of millions of them."
And again on March 6, responding again to his renewed charge that I don't believe there are any traditional Muslims, I wrote: "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."
Maybe he doesn't read Jihad Watch, right? Of course he doesn't. But he knows about this. That same day, March 6, I sent him an email which I posted here on March 7: "In reality, as I explained to you on the Lores show, for a variety of reasons the jihad ideology was deemphasized, particularly in Central & Southeast Asia, West Africa, and Eastern Europe for several centuries. Muslims lived devout lives with no emphasis on it. Were they not practicing Islam? Of course they were practicing Islam. But these teachings were not part of that practice at that time. Unfortunately, however, they were never formally rejected, and are being reasserted today by jihad recruiters who quote Qur'an, Sunnah, and fiqh in order to support their positions."
On March 12, yet again, I wrote that D'Souza "has used me as a straw man, falsely claiming on several occasions that I believe there are no such people as those he calls 'traditional Muslims,' when in fact I have written about the plight of peaceful Muslims in several of my books -- which he claims to have read."
Why am I telling you all this? Because this morning, Dinesh D'Souza has written at National Review: "Robert Spencer cannot bear the idea of an alliance with traditional Muslims to defeat radical Muslims because he refuses to believe that there are such people as traditional Muslims."
In Islam Unveiled (2002), I wrote: “I do not mean…to indict Muslims in general or Islam as a whole….If the seeds of terrorism are found to lie at the heart of Islam, that does not make every Muslim a terrorist.” Dinesh D'Souza need not have read far to find that; it’s on page five.
In Onward Muslim Soldiers (2003), I wrote: “Obviously not all Muslims in the United States or around the world – indeed, not even a majority – subscribe to the Islam of modern-day terrorists. Most Muslims, like everyone else, want to live their lives in peace.” D’Souza would have found that in the Introduction, on page xiii.
In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (2005), I noted that “there are enormous numbers of Muslims in the United States and around the world who want nothing to do with today’s global jihad. While their theological foundation is weak, many are laboring heroically to create a viable moderate Islam that will allow Muslims to coexist peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors” (p. 45). Would Mr. D’Souza take issue with my assertion that their theological foundation is weak? But he himself observes that his “traditional Muslims” have no theological differences with the jihadists – and that makes them a fertile recruiting ground for jihad groups.
Were the statements I have just quoted pro-forma acknowledgements of something I effectually deny? No; in chapter eight of Onward Muslim Soldiers I discuss at length some historical reasons why the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, as well as the schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhahib), about jihad fell into abeyance in the Islamic world, and in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), in a section entitled “But what about moderate Muslims?,” I explore some cultural reasons why the jihad ideology is in many areas of the Islamic world deemphasized today, and has been for quite some time.
So: in books that Dinesh D'Souza claims to have read, as well as in emails to him and numerous postings at Jihad Watch, I affirm what he continues to insist that I deny. Yesterday when we debated again on the radio show Kresta in the Afternoon, I had the feeling at times that I was trying to debate a Chinese big character poster plastered on a wall. For while I was grappling with what he said and responding to it, he breezily ignored most of the points I made and stuck to his talking points. If I hadn't been there at all, I think he would have said exactly the same things he did say. I would have thought that we were both interested in getting to the truth, and discussing our disagreements in an honest way. But with this new NR installment of his apologia, in which he repeats manifestly false claims about my positions, I'm just not sure anymore that he is interested in that at all.
I've sent in a lengthy response to NR, which I hope they will publish in full Friday. If they don't, however, I certainly will do so here.
Posted by Robert at March 14, 2007 9:22 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
The amount of credibility given to this guy by National Review is completely inappropriate. He's sloppy beyond measure, and about a subject that is life and death. Ridiculous. Where is Buckley?
Posted by: StillBreathing![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 14, 2007 10:08 AM
Until the NR people take the icy plunge into the sea of Islamic Christophobia and Islamic Humanophobia, actually reading the holy hate from the Muslim holy hate manuals, they will continue to allow themselves to be coddled by idiots like Dinesh D'Stupid.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 14, 2007 10:18 AM
Dinesh D'Souza: My address is http://foehammer.net
Robert Spencer consistently goes out of his way to allow room for Muslims to not become entangled in "radical" Islam. I, however, do not.
I'm one of those "Islamophobes" that believes that tough love is the right prescription for Muslims in the United States, that Muslim immigration should be immediately halted and that all foreign Muslims should be expelled across our borders. I'm one of those bloggers that consistently refutes Islam as a whole, that calls it what it is, that has called for it's outlawing.
I can see that doing the work of 5 people online isn't going to be enough to get my viewpoint attacked by D'Souza. I'll have to write a book next? Wow, to just go back to 9-10 would be so much less work....
I even note that marginal blogs with almost no work are Google ranked higher than mine -- like an Egyptian woman's I just came across. I'm absolutely befuddled by this phenomenon -- and I'm almost the point of accusing Google of "fudging the numbers" in its system to control information that perhaps its Islamic readership disagrees with. So, maybe it's not just YouTube as the guilty party.
Jihad thrives while truth dies.
One of these days words just won't be enough, especially when words are lies and those that aren't are hardly read or heard because of policing and corporate control.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 14, 2007 10:19 AM
He's got his market niche to protect. And the determiination of the mountebank or Wizard-of-Oz who must never allow for the slightest admission of error, much less of colossal error that not merely misleads, but by misleading in this case creates danger for the Western world that, we are supposed to believe, Dinesh D'Souza cares so very much about. I submit that Jacques Barzun is an example of soomeone who cares about the fate of Western civiliaion, and Dinesh D'Souza an example of someone who cares mainly for the fate of....Dinesh D'Souza. He's not alone. There are others like him. Many in the same racket. But he has chosen a topic where any further misinformation has direct immediate and potentially terrible consequences. His insouciance with facts, his willingness to substitute the cheapest sound-bite for any semblance of coming to grips with the matter at hand, his comical complacency and self-satisfaction, his solipsistic self-promotion and ishness -- - these are no longer to be endured.
Posted by: Hugh at March 14, 2007 10:26 AM
Regarding "Moderate Muslims":
I always walk away from conversations with Muslims with the feeling that while they claim to reject the violent jihad theology, they seem resolved to just keep their opinions to themselves and within the confines of the masjid. Their voice, the voice of the anti-jihadist, needs to be as loud as that of the civil rights movement but aimed at the Wahabbis, the Imams of hate, and the violent jihad movement across the globe with a particular focus and ire at the protected groups in the west.
If they don’t, and quickly, the good wheat may well be pulled up with the weeds.
-XRDC
at March 14, 2007 10:30 AM
This is totally unPC, but here goes.
Dinesh D'Souza is an Indian. As one who lived for five years in India in my younger days, there are a few things I've learned. Indians love to talk, philosophize, intellectualize, debate.
And they are also smart, intelligent people. Like many other immigrants, they often "learn the American system" quicker and better than we slow-on-the-draw natives. They are often able to come here and become financially successful by using the system to their advantage.
No problem in that - more power to them all. But Dinesh is a perfect example. He's found the way to work the American conservative base. His books and lectures guarantee him millions from that base. And he doesn't have to worry about his future - they will continue to invite him to give costly talks and pay him to write liberal-attacking books. The market is and will be there.
But he's been caught. His intellectualizing generalizations have gotten him into deep water with people who know much more than he does. He's unable to extract himself, so he continues to repeat the same crap. He's not secure enough to admit his mistake, so he continues to attack. He probably won't change. Maybe it's time to just leave him with his conservative allies and move on.
Posted by: ed at March 14, 2007 10:34 AM
Mr Spencer
I heard your discussion with Mr. D'Souza on Kresta, and I can honestly say I never heard you say "there are no traditional Muslims."
What I heard you say is 1) it is absurd to believe traditional Muslims with whom we could ally would be swayed to violence over cultural issues; 2) the differences in morality between traditional Muslims and traditional Christians would make an alliance completely unworkable; and 3) even if such an alliance were possible the concessions to freedom of expression Americans would be expected to tolerate would be appeasement of violence and would only encourage further demands and violence. (Wow, that's a long sentence.)
However, the challenge you keep issuing to Mr. D'Souza to "name one traditional Muslim" is what is fueling his distortion of your views. If you were my client, I would advise you to drop that point. You have a full tool-box of other excellent points that are not open to distortion.
Other than that point, I thought it was very obvious who "had their Wheaties" in the exchange. Please keep it up!
Posted by: teachingmyown at March 14, 2007 10:46 AM
Bugger dissecting the finer points of this frivolous debate. I'm waiting for CAIR to offer him a position on the board...
Posted by: eloivsdiablo at March 14, 2007 11:04 AM
When debating D'Souza, one should hold up a posterboard with a picture of a brick wall, one should point to the brick wall as D'Souza speaks...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 14, 2007 11:11 AM
I just read D'Souza's NR article. To contradict Victor Davis Hanson as to his interpretation of the present conflict is arrogance personified. Just as Spencer understands religion and Islam, Hanson understands military history, the classics, and the current political scene. The left in this country is nothing more than the philosophical descendants of Marism/Leninism and is more consistent with stupidity than any other point of view.
I concur, D'Souza is blinded by dollar signs.
Posted by: Crusader at March 14, 2007 11:30 AM
...However, the challenge you keep issuing to Mr. D'Souza to "name one traditional Muslim" is what is fueling his distortion of your views. If you were my client, I would advise you to drop that point. You have a full tool-box of other excellent points that are not open to distortion.......
Posted by: teachingmyown
The point that Robert Spencer was making in issuing this challenge, as far as I understood, was that while there may be individual muslims with moderate views none of them are in any prominent position within the Islamic clergy or power structure to make a difference. So it really doesn't matter if even 80% of muslims espouse a peaceful version of Islam, if they have no way to control the other 20% who own the Islamic power structure (and whocan quote the Koran with far more authority then them in justifying their actions). I believe Robert has made this point quite forcefully in his many talks.
Posted by: Razdan at March 14, 2007 11:56 AM
Yesterday when we debated again on the radio show Kresta in the Afternoon, I had the feeling at times that I was trying to debate a Chinese big character poster plastered on a wall. For while I was grappling with what he said and responding to it, he breezily ignored most of the points I made and stuck to his talking points.
You have to call him on this in real time. In the situation. That repeating taking points is discourteous and dishonest. He pulled this stunt with Serge Trifkovik (sp?)
But I have a premonition that this was your last head to head with D'Souza
Posted by: dennisw at March 14, 2007 11:57 AM
Good Lord D'Souza is still at Robert?! This is getting ridiculous now it's not even funny. This is hindering Robert's work and is a huge distraction. I wish he would just stop.
Posted by: wrathofasma at March 14, 2007 11:57 AM
About the distortions going on here...
Spencer writes: "there are millions of Muslims who are not waging jihad against anyone. Hundreds of millions."
But, at crucial moments, one has to ask -- "Where are they?" Where are the protests against terrorist attacks? This question has been asked by many, many people -- including Muslims. Thus, there was a Muslim who attempted to organize a rally against terrorism. The rally attracted far more non-Muslims than Muslims. The organizer was extremely disappointed.
Glenn Beck has also asked why the moderates do not come forward. Daniel Pipes in considering the low turn-out for the anti-terrorism rally wondered/speculated if this was not an illustration of the growing radicalization within the local Muslim community. There is also a poster here at JihadWatch who terms those Muslims who do not come forward as "the unicorns."
Frankly, the non-appearance of Muslims to counter-act what's being done in the name of their religion IS problematic, and people will naturally wonder: "Where are they?" I simply cannot imagine a group of say Christians, or Jews, murdering X number of innocents (say, beheading someone picked up off the street and recording it on video) and NOT having mainstream Jews and Christians rising up in outrage.
But, here's the rub. This is NOT to say that there are not millions and millions of non-jihadist Muslims. There may be any number of (what Robert Spencer refers to as) "cultural Muslims" -- but on matters of principle (such as getting aroused about how their religion is being used or misused) they don't seem to mind all that much. (Unless, of course, it's a cartoon of Mr. Mo inked by an Infidel).
Posted by: J.S. at March 14, 2007 12:18 PM
The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (Hardcover)
by Dinesh D'Souza (Author)
Hardcover: 352 pages
Publisher: Doubleday (January 16, 2007)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0385510128
ISBN-13: 978-0385510127
Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.4 x 1.2 inches
Shipping Weight: 1.30 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: based on 95 reviews. (Write a review.)
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,578 in Books
at March 14, 2007 12:21 PM
Robert
I'm beginning to agree with wrathofasma. It might be time to move on to others who partially agree with Dinesh, like Jonah Goldberg. Maybe you have a better chance convincing him. You've given Dinesh enough attention, and might be either getting to the point of diminishing returns, or providing the negative publicity that fuels his book sales.
Remember, he is already hated by the Left*. His only market is on the Right, which is already split on this issue. You are better off trying to convince those who might partially agree with him, than convincing him.
*On a side note, googling 'Dinesh D'Souza vs Robert Spencer' (while I was hunting for transcripts of yesterday's program) threw up the Huffington Post, of all things, where they liberally (in a manner of speaking) link to JW. I was intrigued as to whose side the Left would take on this issue, and was pleasantly surprised to see that it's ours. And getting back to the Kresta show, are there transcripts or recordings of that show anywhere?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 14, 2007 12:29 PM
"Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,578 in Books"
and falling....
at March 14, 2007 12:31 PM
Dinny's explanation for 9/11 is the mirror-image of the Left's: They believe that US foreign policy and support for Israel were the root cause of 9/11, while Dinny believes it is the immorality that is pushed by the Left. I wonder whether he sees 9/11 as a kind of Biblical retribution sent from God for our wicked ways. It's just God giving us a wake-up call, and we should respond by joining hands with the "moderate Muslims" and waging a cultural war against the Left to stamp out fornication, drugs, etc.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 14, 2007 12:35 PM
Dinesh D'Souza's Amazon sales rank is in the basement sump pump bobbing along with Karen Armstrong's Mo' book
RS-#409
DD-#1,578
KA-#13,099
And 409 is lucky, it's a Beach Boys song
Posted by: dennisw at March 14, 2007 12:46 PM
Razdan -- I agree, and I understand Mr. Spencer's point. I was kibitzing in regards to the sound bite "...name one traditional Muslim...." Mr. D'Souza appears not to be an honorable man, and he loves to "cherry-pick" this kind of comment to distort the views of those who disagree with him.
I would agree also with your point and take it one step further with an analogy from World War II. National Socialism never achieved an electoral majority in Germany, but it held support across a wide spectrum of the German people. As Hitler scored victories over the appeasing West in the run-up and first three years of WWII, Germans who were lukewarm and even opposed him earlier became ardent supporters, sacrificing their lives and the lives of their sons and daughters to his cause. I think the same dynamic is taking place in the Muslim world today, and it will only accelerate as our own "Chamberlains" seek accomodation with the jihad.
Posted by: teachingmyown at March 14, 2007 1:00 PM
Everyone:
I understand your frustration at going to JW and seeing more about D'Souza. I assure you, if he hadn't mentioned my books in his, and kept it up in articles like this series in NR this week, I would never have mentioned him. But unlike some self-promoting misanthropes and raving, spitting bloggers with whom I have gotten into disputes, D'Souza has a vast audience -- and ultimately, I respond to him for the same reason I responded to them: because they represent people who think the same way, and so the interaction may be instructive in various ways for people of good will.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 14, 2007 1:06 PM
For some reason, I view this as wonderful news. The MSM will not invite Mr. Spencer to express the Truth.....so here comes Double D again calling attention to the invincible Robert Spencer which brings more people to this site and hopefully National Review will provide equal time...if not the editors have now become educated that D'Souza is wrong.
Do not change one thing nor drop one tactic Mr. Spencer. It is working as you are under the skin of the uncomfortable D'Souza.
Forgive the analogy, but Conrad Dobler of the NFL stated, "You know it has been 20 years and Merlin Olsen of the Rams is still talking about me.....kind of feels good."
Well D'Souza is talking about you, so let him be your voice as Truth will win out for you as well as other attributes the public will see.
Another win for Robert Spencer.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 14, 2007 1:09 PM
Excellent, Robert - 'so the interaction may be instructive in various ways for people of good will'. When I saw yet another post about D'Souza, I thought along those lines, too - after my initial reaction of "again?".
You hone your skills with every D'Souza/Esmay/Emory controversy, and many get to see your excellent reasoning powers at work. Though I'm sure it gets tiresome for you eventually. You know, like gnats flying around your head at dusk...
Posted by: Vee at March 14, 2007 2:34 PM
Mr. D'Souza appears not to be an honorable man, and he loves to "cherry-pick" this kind of comment to distort the views of those who disagree with him.
Posted by: teachingmyown
That is precisely the problem. No matter what Robert Spencer may say or write, Dinesh D'Souza will keep finding a way to distort it in order to keep making the silly arguments that he has (arguments that IMHO Mr. Spencer has thoroughly dismantled).
I would agree also with your point and take it one step further with an analogy from World War II. National Socialism never achieved an electoral majority in Germany, but it held support across a wide spectrum of the German people. As Hitler scored victories over the appeasing West in the run-up and first three years of WWII, Germans who were lukewarm and even opposed him earlier became ardent supporters, sacrificing their lives and the lives of their sons and daughters to his cause. I think the same dynamic is taking place in the Muslim world today, and it will only accelerate as our own "Chamberlains" seek accomodation with the jihad.
That is a terrific analogy. I'm so thankful that we have people like Robert Spencer who are doing their utmost to challenge such 'Chamberlains' like D'Souza.
Posted by: Razdan at March 14, 2007 2:35 PM
Enough with this clown D'Souza already. His blatant lies about Robert's position of the existence of moderate, traditonal, cultural, or whatever, Muslims, is embarrasing to D'Souza and D'Souza alone. He is the proverbial man in the room of 1000 people, quietly snickering to himself how the other 999, are completely wrong.
What a brilliant observation by D'Souza that not every Muslim supports and practices jihad. Just once I'd like D'Souza to differentiate between the 'traditional' and the 'radical' Muslims. Maybe the 'radicals' will agree to wear a bell around their neck so us depraved Americans can hear them coming. Until then, the point of identifying the two types is absolutely moot. The number of 'radical' Muslims probably range between 1 and 1.4 billion.
This has gotten completely off topic, talking about the mindset of the individual Muslim. They are irrelevant as they stand collectively today. They share a common ideology and a common impetus....ISLAM. Who's to say which group is pious and which is heretical. When jihad is enacted, Muslim chants of praise abound and quite oppositely, from the gallery of the Muslim dissenters of jihad, only the crickets are heard.
The whole concept of the 'traditional' versus the 'radical' Muslim reeks like one big stinking taqiyya burrito. Islam itself, derived from it's immutable texts, albeit aided by other agencies, allows this obfuscation to continue:
"Islam means peace", until it means submission.
"Islam does not condone violence", until we are reminded that jihad is mandated in the Qur'an.
"There is no compulsion in religion", as long as the infidel either converts, allows for subjugation, or is killed.
"Abraham and Jesus are (lesser) prophets of Islam", but their direct ideological descendents are unfortunately, apes and pigs.
This "pissing down our collective back and then telling us it is rain", oxymoronic, taqiyya-ridden, reasoning is inherent in the ideology of Islam. It is open-ended, with loopholes big enough to drive the Moon through. That is Islam's power. The power to diametrically switch meaning, as the situation calls for, working towards the continued success and spread of Islam and Islam alone.
The texts accomplish that on their own. It has been fine tuned so that it's true nature is nearly incomprehensible. This was realized about 1000 years ago by the 'scholars' who shaped the texts, so ijtihad was closed, officially, for in their estimation the "blade of Islam was already sufficiently sharp. The ideology of Islam supersedes any individual Muslim thought...period.
Even standing in a room of 1000 people, surrounded by 999 'traditional' Muslims, can I be convinced otherwise.
Posted by: awake at March 14, 2007 2:43 PM
Robert Spenser has a right, a duty even, to protect and defend his knowledge, ability and credibility.
Challanging Islams hegemony by jihad, and other tactics, is hard and dangerous work.
As far as I am concerned , there is no such thing as a 'moderate' muslim. There are no doubt some muslims, maybe many, who just dont see themselves as warriors. Thier form of jihad is to mentally and/or physically support the active jihadists. According to Islams own literature, 'jihad is an 'obligation', incumbant on all muslims. Those who refuse die a hypocrite'. Hypocrites dont go to Allahs heaven.
Mohammad ordered everyone to fight except the blind and the lame. If a muslim does not take every one of Allahs words seriously, pays no attention to Mohammads edicts, he may be a moderate, but he is not a muslim. The Quran was written by Allah this morning, Mohammads words, this afternoon.
They are new, not old, they are 'now'. If you dont believe that, you are not a muslim. When Allah says it's time to strike that man down, it is time to strike that man down. Allah has been talking a lot lately, it would be better if he would just shut up...
at March 14, 2007 3:15 PM
Robert
It's amazing what patience you have with twerps like Ali Eteraz, Dean Esmay, and Dinesh D'Souza.
Posted by: wrathofasma at March 14, 2007 4:47 PM
Mr Spencer has the patience of a saint. In my view it's been proven long ago that D'Souza doesn't know anything about Islam (and is therefore lying when he says he's studied it), and no one, no matter how powerful and articulate an argument they're capable of producing, is going to penetrate his denial. So many times in my battles over on the Hannity forum I've run into his type, people who haven't the slightest clue what Islam is yet feel qualified to tell me I'm wrong at best, a bigot, racist, Islamophobe etc at worst (labels I wear like badges of honor - it means you've spent your intellectual capital and are resorting to ad-hominems - I win). Sooner or later you figure out that you're wasting your time and energy on someone who's not going to change, and who has already been completely discredited by anyone paying attention objectively.
How long, I wonder, if ever, before NRO becomes fed up with D'Souza's lies and intellectual laziness and stops allowing him to pollute their site and magazine with his nonsense? If they give Mr Spencer a forum their readers will demand it.
Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 14, 2007 5:39 PM
"The amount of credibility given to this guy by National Review is completely inappropriate. He's sloppy beyond measure, and about a subject that is life and death."
Exactly the same could be said about Ann Coulter or David "The darkness of the Negro has always repulsed other races" Yeagley. Just insert the relevant medium instead of National Review. The amount of bullshit the conservative American public is ready to swallow from self-proclaimed "conservatives", as long as they add some exotic or sexually ambiguous or "First Nation" tinge to their drivel, is amazing. The more as one would expect conservatives to be free from such modish folly.
And I agree, it's not outlandish views, which are so irritating, but sloppy research, writing and reasoning and the tedious and transparent straining after effect.
The fact that this site is free from it makes coming back always worthwhile.
Posted by: The Editrix at March 14, 2007 6:41 PM
Robert, I've been doing some thinking on this and have come to the conclusion that the problem is that this is theater.
D'Souza has an exotic name. He looks like he ought to know something about the Middle East. He has a theory that panders to the crazy aunts of the right.
If you'll allow a baseball metaphor, he walks up to the plate with a count of 3 and 0.
You, on the other hand, have a name that's easy to spell and you look like a rabbi which, for some people, discounts your opinion. You walk up to the plate with a count of 0 and 2.
Result: the MSM umpires give him a base on balls and you have to fight for singles.
What can be done? I don't know. I'm still thinking.
Posted by: USBeast at March 14, 2007 7:13 PM
Yes D’Souza has an exotic name, and that’s why I find it interesting that with this exchange between Robert and Dinesh going on, the person at Target, the one who the cashier would not ring up the bacon for, the customers name…Dsouza. Coincidence? Irony?
Posted by: tgusa at March 14, 2007 7:53 PM
Why are people 'tired' of this? I love it. I mean, its obviously a lot of work for Robert but I think this debate is a good thing. The fact that this can only force more people to ponder the "why do they hate us" question will inevitably lead some to the truth.
Honestly, its not as if people in our camp are leaving.
Posted by: Charles the Hammer at March 14, 2007 8:12 PM
Hi All,
Now I am curious if D'Souza can be classified as a p-sec or pseudo-secularist. This was a category of Indian "intellectuals" who always made excuses for Muslim outrages, according to the Hindu nationalist elements.
There were screenfuls of complaints about the p-secs on www.hinduunity.com some years back. Haven't kept up with them though.
Magooey
Posted by: magooey at March 14, 2007 9:17 PM
magooey
Not exactly. In India, the term 'pseudo-secular' is used to describe those with a double standard - one for Hindus, and another for everybody else, particularly Muslims (online, it's sometimes shortened to 'psecular', along the lines of psychiatry or psephologist). What Dinesh does is a tu quoque rendering, and he doesn't give his own religion - Christianity - a pass when he compares Muslims to others. It might normally have been refreshing, except for the fact that he's sucking up to Muslims, and that he's pathologically wrong.
Charles
I'm not 'tired' of this the way I was of Esmay. I do agree with Robert that Dinesh has a larger audience, but I think it's time to recognize that he (Dinesh) isn't convincable, and move on to other commentators who in some respects agree with Dinesh. That way, apart from staying interesting, it enables the argument to be moved further in terms of covering other people. That said, I'm not critical of Robert for focussing relentlessly on D'Souza.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 15, 2007 12:42 AM
D'Souza is D'Shonest.
He has stumbled into the trap that most bright, but not bright enough, public partisan eventually find themselves. They gain notoriety by intellectual provocation. When they run out of newly provocative things to say that are true or at least arguable, and that they know anything about, they sense and then fear their impending irrelevance. They suddenly realize that nobody wants to hear the same old snarky crap from an increasingly desperate uninformed quasi-celebrity. (See Ann Coulter or anybody at Daily Kos)
Desperate for the rush (pun intended) they get from all the attention and money, they do what any addict would do: make stuff up to get their next fix. Poor Dinesh. He's done.
Posted by: bobnoxious at March 15, 2007 3:11 AM
One of the points that DD makes in his Part III at NRO (3/14) is that there is a strong desire outside the West for "modernization without Westernization." I think that he is right about that, but it's another thing that seems to undermine his thesis. The hundreds of millions of Chinese who want to modernize without Americanizing are not turning in to suicide bombers. Hundreds of millions of traditional Hindus in India are presumably offended with the decadence of Western culture, but aren't being recruited into war against the West. In fact, there are hundreds of millions of Christians outside the West who are as offended by Western decadence as the traditional Muslims are (and there are more than a few such offended Christians within the West itself), but they are not waging war on us.
Where are the radical movements at war with the West among the non-Islamic traditional cultures of the world?
But DD insists that "Islam is not the problem."
In fact, it appears to me from his proposals for a union between Western cultural conservatives and "traditional Muslims", that DD's thesis is simply this:
Islam is not the problem; Islam is the solution.
So he really is a Dhimmi.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at March 15, 2007 3:40 AM
Just to add to what Infidel Pride wrote about pseudo-secularists: Psecs is the label for dhimmis. Psecs take every opportunity to blame the Hindus for every problem that Muslims have -- and most of these problems are self-inflicted wounds.
For instance, Muslims children go to madrasas and memorize the koran. It will come as no surprise that when it comes to jobs, they are not qualified. Then the Hindus are blamed by the psecs for "discriminating" against the Muslims.
Now the unPC comment by ed above where he wrote:
This is totally unPC, but here goes. Dinesh D'Souza is an Indian. As one who lived for five years in India in my younger days, there are a few things I've learned. Indians love to talk, philosophize, intellectualize, debate.
And they are also smart, intelligent people. Like many other immigrants, they often "learn the American system" quicker and better than we slow-on-the-draw natives. They are often able to come here and become financially successful by using the system to their advantage.
No problem in that - more power to them all. But Dinesh is a perfect example. He's found the way to work the American conservative base. His books and lectures guarantee him millions from that base. And he doesn't have to worry about his future - they will continue to invite him to give costly talks and pay him to write liberal-attacking books. The market is and will be there.
I am all for unPC but I am against tarring all Indians with such a broad brush. (I belong to that group -- lived and worked in the US for donkey's years.) D'Souza is not representative of Indians in the US. He is a dhimmi and most Indians in the US are not.
at March 15, 2007 4:11 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.)