| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
They're getting farther and farther apart.
In "Memo to Christians: Convert or Die," a piece he posted today about this story from Pakistan, D'Souza says this:
Typically Muslim empires have distinguished between conquering a country and bringing it under Islamic rule and law--this is allowed--and forcing people to become Muslims--this is not allowed. The Islamic radicals, in trying to compel conversions on pain of death, are breaking with the Koran and the Islamic tradition. Only two schools of Koranic interpretation--the Bin Laden school and the Robert Spencer school--consider Taliban-style "convert or die" jurisprudence to be consistent with what the Prophet Muhammad taught and what the Koran says.
Here yet again, D'Souza is setting up a fantasy Robert Spencer to knock down. And this time his straw man game is particularly egregious, because this question has come up in our exchanges before, so there is no reason for him not to know where I stand on this. On January 17, I wrote in a post here about D'Souza's book that "Muslims don't want to 'convert or kill everybody.' That is a false oversimplification. Muhammad commanded Muslims to convert or subjugate or kill everybody." I included a link there to Sahih Muslim 4294, in which Muhammad explains those three choices. The next day, in another post about his book, I wrote that "forced conversion is forbidden in Islam, although this law was often honored in the breach. And the choice, as I explained above, was not 'convert or kill non-Muslims,' it was to convert or subjugate non-Muslims, or go to war with them."
Of course, D'Souza doesn't read Jihad Watch, so maybe he never saw those. But I know he saw my FrontPage review of his book, because he responded to it later. And in it is this:
D’Souza takes no notice of the fact that these conquests were inspired by the same theological ideology that fuels today’s global jihad. Yet even Islamic apologist John Esposito acknowledges the reality of this theological ideology: “As Islam penetrated new areas,” Esposito writes, “people were offered three options: (1) conversion, that is, full membership in the Muslim community, with its rights and duties; (2) acceptance of Muslim rule as ‘protected’ people and payment of a poll tax; (3) battle or the sword if neither the first nor the second option was accepted.”[5] This triple choice was based on Muhammad’s words: “Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim 4294).
This is an important distinction, although I am not sure that D'Souza grasps its importance. The existence of the third alternative -- subjugation -- along with "convert or die" allowed for the existence of Jewish and Christian communities in the Islamic world for centuries, although they were indeed subjugated and never enjoyed equality of rights with Muslims. The fact that this triple choice is rooted in the words of Muhammad and the teachings of the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence allows jihadists today to reassert it -- as we have seen gangs doing recently in Baghdad.
Anyway, I suppose if D'Souza numbers me among the "Islamophobes," he has to count Esposito among that company as well, since he too writes about the triple choice. Watch for next week's column, when D'Souza will say that only Osama, Esposito and I think that Islam contains any mandate to convert or subjugate unbelievers.
The fact is that the jihadists in Pakistan who have told the Christians "convert or die" are transgressing against the letter of Islamic law. Yet D'Souza asserts that I endorse their view, in plain defiance of what I have written numerous times -- in my books which he claims to have read as well as in the citations above. It makes me wonder, since he has done this to me and to others before: Why does anyone still take this man seriously? Isn't the Hoover Institution embarrassed to be associated with him? If it isn't, it should be. Is any other high-profile writer so careless of the facts and happy to retail falsehoods about his opponents? I don't know of one.
Posted by Robert at May 17, 2007 1:43 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
My apologies for being off topic:
Comic in US 'hate speech' row
Article and URL to video here.
Posted by: ummahnewslinks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 17, 2007 2:31 PM
I'm a fighter, not a lover!
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 17, 2007 2:33 PM
Dinesh's luck that his family was from Bombay. Had they been from Karachi, he might have been more sympathetic to his co-religionists from Pakistan, and recognized what they faced.
I didn't know that Pakistan has a significant Christian population anywhere outside Karachi. Too bad they didn't flee with Hindus & Sikhs during partition. They probably thought they had more in common with 'Abrahamic' Muslims, and chose Pakistan over India. Well, a rather expensive choice to make...
At any rate, regardless of whether or not he's accurate about Islamic theology, he's wrong about Islamic history, particularly in that part of India. In Mamluk, Khilji, Tughluq, Sayyid, Lodi, Moghul and post Moghul times, Hindus, and later Sikhs, always had only the two options - conversion or death. In the rest of India, while Muslim rule came and went, in the Punjab and Pakhtoonistan, they never reverted to any Hindu rule later, except for a short interlude with the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh. The Pathans, who ravaged that area in the post Moghul era, kept up that act. What today's Taliban is doing is no different from what their predecessors did in medieval India.
It was well known that to DD, Hindu lives are worthless. It's revealing that he thinks no more of Christian lives. Well, at least one can't accuse him of being a hypocrite.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2007 2:43 PM
The distinction that D'Souza will not admit that Spencer makes is an easy one to understand. So... why does D'Souza keep saying the same thing?
He doesn't care. So... and he's still employed by a prestigious think tank ... why, exactly? Perhaps the contract will end.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 17, 2007 2:47 PM
From DD's priceless article:
There is a problem with traditional Islam, but it doesn't concern converting in but rather converting out. Classical Islam allows voluntary entry into Islam, but once you're in you cannot leave. Indeed the traditional remedy for apostasy is death. (No wonder Rushdie got into so much trouble.) I don't think this is consistent with any Western understanding of religious freedom. Fortunately there are traditional Muslims like Tariq Ramadan who are calling for a reassessment of these teachings, not in the name of secularism or liberalism but in the name of a renewed Islam that is well adapted to the needs of the twenty-first century.Robert
You've sometimes asked him to give you an example of a traditional Muslim. Well, here you have one more, in addition to Goma - Tariq Ramadan. Nice that he has a scion of the founder of the Ikhwan touted as an example of a 'traditional' Muslim - thereby demonstrating that traditional vs radical Muslims are a distinction without a difference.
Oh, and I'm guessing his new brand - Classical Islam - is something between Traditional and Radical Islam? Maybe he can define a new spectrum of 'Islamicity' - and pigeonhole various Islamic groups into each of them. Of course, they'd be more useful as a study of him, rather than a study of either Muslims or Islam.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2007 2:53 PM
One more small point, which I brought up on DD's blog - Rushdie didn't get his fatwa for apostasy - he received it due to the book Satanic Verses. When he apostatized in Britain, it went ignored, since few knew of or heard of him, other than a few elites who read 'Freedom at Midnight' and other really obtuse writing that would make Hugh look like an author of children's books.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2007 3:06 PM
"would make Hugh look like an author of children's books"
Had to laugh out loud at this one---I do so enjoy Hugh's writing style. The next WFB when it comes linguistic flair used for important substantive ends.
So how many outside reference books would a typical JW/DW reader need to consult in order to understand a typical paragraph?
Posted by: JSobieski at May 17, 2007 3:11 PM
You've sometimes asked him to give you an example of a traditional Muslim.
I haven't been able to understand what DD claims to be the difference between traditional and radical muslims. The triple choice of "convert, submit or die" does not come from the Taliban, Bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, Khomeini or ibn Wahhab, but from the Koran itself (and thus, in the eyes of muslims, from God Himself), and thus IS traditional Islam. The only distinction I can see is that "radical" muslims take this teaching very seriously and have tried to wage jihad accordingly, while "traditional" muslims have been content to leave non-muslims alone.
Another thing DD claims is that attacks on Islam are driving "traditional" muslims into the "radical" camp. What does DD mean by "attacks"? More precisely, is it possible in his mind to criticize Islam, such as by pointing out various unpleasant verses, without such criticism constituting an "attack"?
Posted by: Bigfoot at May 17, 2007 3:38 PM
I think D'Souza is more focused at this point on selling a product-- the Dinesh D'Souza mindset as a trendy "conservative" commodity -- than truth.
He can selectively choose "facts" and sources and spin them to fit into the package, which consists in large part of telling people who want to agree with him what they want to hear -- constructing reassuring arguments for what they want to believe -- with some factoids and his supposedly more authoritative take on things in the Islamic world due to his Indian heritage.
If he has to question what he's written or admit mistakes, it diminishes his "sage"-like aura as a pundit who has an answer for everything, which is what some fans want. And the whole Dinesh D'Souza Experience, including the wealth and recognition he has garnered, finds itself on shaky ground.
Posted by: MarisolJW at May 17, 2007 3:38 PM
JSobieski: "So how many outside reference books would a typical JW/DW reader need to consult in order to understand a typical paragraph?"
Dunno, but offhand you need a stellar education just to understand the linguistics from these polyglots.
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 17, 2007 3:44 PM
Mr. Spencer, The Hoover Institute has a huge problem as it will not even comment on D'Souza for the simple reason one has to understand what and not who D'Souza is.
Hoover has "fellows" who are sponsored by certain people. One can equate sponsor means money, money and more money.
When one promotes an indoctrinated person with information because of skin color as the Republicans did to show they were equal opportunity too, one gets a Dinesh D'Souza who they get to parade around as a poster boy.
In this he lands a Hoover fellowship, when Hoover is a Conservative body....and yet in conversations and insults Dinesh D'Souza states he is not a Conservative at all.
THIS IS the problem in all of this:
Dinesh D'Souza is a glory hound who uses his intellect as a weapon. He is his own travelling circus for publicity by poking at people like yourself.
He is the same creature which number in Think Tanks, Congressional Offices, the White House, Justice, DOD and various talk shows like Keith Ellison who are chosen to subvert American cultural policy and implement their own. You can find communists to Islamists now in bribes, donations and "jobs for later hire" in all the United States most prestigious bodies and the end result is.......
Screwing up Iraq policy, screwing up Afghanistan policy, screwing up the Israeli state policy, screwing up Russian policy etc.... all for the purpose of their host nations in the person they hire to subvert the United States.
One can be certain if bin Laden did not exist, that Dinesh D'Souza would be making his money on China or Putin. He chooses his opponents carefully for 3 express situations:
1. Robert Spencer is not media known so D'Souza can say things and you do not have an outlet beyond this site to refute him.
2. Robert Spencer does not have a Rush Limbaugh to champion him to create a solid several million water cooler base to refute D'Souza.
3. Robert Spencer can be counted on to respond in literal kind or Hugh Fitzgerald will become reactionary and attack D'Souza, but once again Hugh Fitzgerald is not media connected so D'Souza can simply respond in his barbie doll pull string comment, "You must be some kind of nut".
D'Souza is a plant by certain elements who want their agenda to rule America and it is in the guise of affirmative action.
at May 17, 2007 4:25 PM
Lame Cherry
I've never heard Rush champion DD. Have you?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2007 4:38 PM
From the link to D'Souza's article:
The faith that wins is not the one that bullies its opponents but the one that wins them over with hope for a better life.
But Islam's goal has never been to offer hope for a better life; but hope for a better AFTER-life.
Where in Islam does it give hope for a better earthly life? How is submission to restrictive 7th century ideals and mindless, lengthly adherence to repetitive rituals at the expense of stifling independent, creative thought considered a "better" life?
at May 17, 2007 5:03 PM
Dinesh D'Souza must be on the Sowdi payroll. l mean how stupid can a man get to print so much foolish dribble and to think people can make sense out of this worthless trash.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 17, 2007 5:12 PM
Lame Cherry:
I listen to Rush most days, and I have never heard Rush defend DD's latest book. To be honest, I don't even think he has discussed it, whici is interesting, since prior books have come up. Of course, I used to like DD before this latest seeping drivel of excrement.
Like most people in the broadcasting world, Rush doesn't appear to truly "get" Islam, but there is no way he would jump on the DD bandwagon. Rush is one of the more genuine talking heads out there.
Beyond Rush, it is a credit to the conservative movement in this country that DD's book was so poorly received. The NRO seemed to actually move in the right direction upon publication of DD's book.
Posted by: JSobieski at May 17, 2007 5:56 PM
Fortunately there are traditional Muslims like Tariq Ramadan who are calling for a reassessment of these teachings, not in the name of secularism or liberalism but in the name of a renewed Islam that is well adapted to the needs of the twenty-first century.
LAUGH RIOT HERE!!!!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2
I want to see Ramadan explain this to Allah. Now that would be funny...I want to reassess some of your teachings because, they are too old to fit in the 21st century. You dont mind do you Allah? Your teachings were fine for yesteryear but now we need new ones. I want to substitute some of mine for yours...Is that OK?
Posted by: duh_swami at May 17, 2007 6:39 PM
I first heard of D'Souza when he came onto Beck's show. I was a little irked that Glenn seemed to dismiss him and not let him say too much because he sorta made sense to me (albeit I only heard him for one minute ROFL). Unfortunately, on tv you just don't have the time to expose someone fully for what they really are.
I am THANKFUL for Jihadwatch for really taking the time to delve into this guy...I now see he is a bonafide fruitcake.
So hopefully you realize you do good by exposing this. Many thanks.
Posted by: Highrise at May 17, 2007 7:23 PM
D'Souza continues to try to muddy others on order to shine himself.
It never works.
Especially not with the ability to fact-check texts online instantly.
I guess he fails to realize that his fraudlent claims can be debunked in seconds.
Not only dishonest, but stupid.
A dangerous combo.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 17, 2007 8:03 PM
My 2¢ worth of speculation:
Dinesh is ugly and dark and experienced racism when he immigrated here at age 16. He harbors anti white feeling even though he married a white American woman. Racist Dinesh enjoys his passive aggressive skewering, lies and misrepresentation of Robert Spencer. He will do this to any white American if it furthers his fame, fortune and career. Dinesh gets his passive aggressive rocks off knowing he has a larger platform than does Spencer. That R Spencer's refutations won't reach as many people. Dinesh is not so stupid. He knows he is continually lying about R Spencer, mostly by misrepresentation of Spencer's writings in books and on internet. Dinesh has his fun misrepresenting Robert and others and it's due to his racial animus
Disclaimer: I like Indian people, wish them well against the Jihadists and have nothing against Hinduism. I know Dinesh is Christian
at May 18, 2007 1:15 AM
I guess he fails to realize that his fraudulent claims can be debunked in seconds.
Dinesh figures he reaches more people than Spencer. He doesn't care if he gets debunked on smaller forums. JW/DW has less reach than does Dinesh Inc.
Posted by: dennisw at May 18, 2007 1:20 AM
That D'Souza is dangerously reckless, perhaps even suicidally stupid, as evidenced by his statement quoted below, in another of his "provocative" articles:
D'Souza: "Even though the world is becoming richer, religion seems to be getting stronger. The United States is the richest and most technologically advanced society in the world, and religion shows no signs of disappearing on these shores. China and India are growing in affluence, and the Chinese government is not exactly hospitable to religion, yet religious belief and practice continue to be strong in both countries. Europe's best chance to grow in the future seems to be to import more religious Muslims. While Islam spreads in Europe and elsewhere, Christianity is spreading even faster in Africa, Asia and South America."
source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/22/INGA9LRRPN1.DTL
God knows why faith is thriving
Dinesh D'Souza. Sunday, October 22, 2006.
at May 18, 2007 7:32 AM
dennisw,
I just did a comparison of jihadwatch vs dinesh d'souza's site on Alexa. JW gets far more traffic than DD.
Granted, DD does get a fair amount of media exposure.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 18, 2007 7:48 AM
Khaybar Oasis-
True about websites. But Dinesh has an undeserved Stanford sinecure which is a great place to head up his media operations. Dinesh has more reach than Robert when all his outlets are considered. Dinesh hob nobs with more of the right wing celebrities than Spencer.
R Spencer has the truth but Dinesh has greater media exposure, Advantage D'Souza when it comes to lying and misrepresenting Robert
Posted by: dennisw at May 18, 2007 9:16 AM
Khaybar Oasis
Your 07:32 AM posting makes me think Dinesh is on psych meds. I'm serious. That's totally illogical. Part of a piece with him wanting to screw the United States
at May 18, 2007 9:19 AM
Isn't there a distinction here between People of the Book (Jews, Christians, and some other group which is nearly extinct) and others? I thought that People of the Book could be subjugated, but "idolaters" (anybody else) were to be exterminated. Strictly speaking they weren't to be offered a choice, though if anyone spontaneously happened to convert to Islam before his throat was cut, he would be spared. This was not followed consistently in India, but I thought that this was the strict Islamic teaching. Am I confused about this?
Posted by: Karl Pov at May 18, 2007 9:28 AM
Dear JihadWatch,
Why do you keep writing about Dinesh D'Souza? What are you, some kind of D'Souzaphone?
Cordially,
JSLA
at May 18, 2007 5:42 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)