| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A few days ago Hugh and I answered Dinesh D'Souza's question: "Can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni?" D'Souza asked this question in the course of writing a paragraph that demonstrated yet again, as if fresh demonstration were needed, his abysmal ignorance of all things Islamic, and in this case, Islamic history:
Ask youself this question: can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni? I didn't think so. Neither can I. Because there aren't any. The Shia and the Sunni have not been fighting for centuries. Historically speaking, they have not been fighting at all.
But instead of noting the information we gave him and admitting he was wrong, D'Souza digs himself in even deeper in a new piece, "Robert Spencer's History for Dummies":
Taking up the gauntlet, Robert Spencer purports to answer my challenge to name two wars fought between the Shia and the Sunni. The context for my question was this. I argue that the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq is not a religious war. Nor have the Shia and the Sunni fought religious wars in the manner of the Catholic Protestant conflicts in Europe. Rather, I contended that this is a gang fight between two groups over who gets to rule the country.
D'Souza says it's not a "religious war," it's a "gang fight between two groups over who gets to rule the country." By making this distinction he betrays his lack of awareness that there is no traditional delineation between the sacred and the secular in Islam (although reading farther into the one authority he claims to have read on Islam, Bernard Lewis, would have apprised him of this). It's not a "religious war" OR a "gang fight." It's a "religious war" AND a "gang fight." Like so many Western analysts, D'Souza is transposing Western assumptions about what a religion is and how religious people act into an Islamic context, where those assumptions don't hold: he assumes that if wars have a political dimension as well as a religious one, the very presence of political considerations means that the conflicts' religious character must be secondary -- as in the cultural identity politics of the Catholic/Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland. But in a cultural and religious setting that considers the religious to be political and the political to be religious, and earthly dominion to be a sign of Allah's favor, this is a false assumption.
Spencer proceeds to give a list of Shia Sunni conflicts of the past. Interestingly, all but one occurs before the middle of the seventeenth century. That's right! Spencer can name only a single Shia-Sunni clash in the past three hundred and fifty years. So my argument isn't holding up badly at all so far.
One sign of desperation in a debater is when he tries to change the terms of the debate in mid-conflict: he realizes he has lost on the original grounds, so he tries to shift the focus to a fight he thinks he can win. Note here that D'Souza is crowing because I can allegedly "name only a single Shia-Sunni clash in the past three hundred and fifty years." But in his original post did he say a word about limiting the question to the past 350 years? Nope. He asked: "can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni?" No time limit. But when you're losing on the original point, shift your point.
Anyway, I noted that my previous list was not exhaustive. Here are some more Sunni/Shi'a conflicts, from the last 350 years. Andrew Bostom emailed to remind me of the Sunni Afghan invasion and domination of Iran that resulted in intermittent strife for around 70 years, from 1722 until the Shi'ite Qajars regained control in 1795 and reestablished a Shi'ite theocracy. Then there are the frequent Persian/Ottoman conflicts between 1499 and 1822, although since D'Souza imagines that the political and religious are distinct in Islam, he will say those are all political conflicts only. And Hugh reminds us here of the ongoing conflicts, going up to today, between the Sunnis and the Shi'ite Hazaras in Afghanistan. (I wrote about that conflict in Islam Unveiled, a book D'Souza has named in his writings and claims to have read.) There are plenty more still, which I will list if he responds again.
Spencer gets no points for mentioning the battle of Karbala, since I mentioned that in my original post. That was one of the earliest battles in Islam, and it defined the dividing line between Shia and Sunni. Every other conflict that Spencer lists is not a religious conflict. Spencer is simply listing dynastic and political wars that happened to have Shia and Sunni on opposite sides. For example, Iran used to be a Sunni country. When the Safavid rulers came they imposed Shia rule on Iran. That's how Iran became Shia. For the Safavids this was a way to consolidate power and to build alliances. Spencer lists their arrival as a Shia-Sunni war, as if the two sides were fighting over theological issues.
They were, of course, or the conquerors would not have imposed Shi'ism on Persia.
Similarly Spencer lists the ongoing power struggles between the Ottomans and the Safavids as a Shia-Sunni clash. But when there are five Islamic empires all trying to expand, we can expect these dynastic clashes. They occured just as often between Sunni and Sunni as between Sunni and Shia. That's because religion had very little to do with it.
Sure. That's why, again, the Safavids imposed Shi'ism on Persia. Here D'Souza is again reasoning in a deeply flawed manner, assuming that because people sometimes fight about things other than religion, they must never fight about religion.
To test Spencer's logic here, ask yourself this question. Was the 30 year war between England and France a religious war because there were Protestants on one side and Catholics on the other? Of course not, because the parties were not fighting about religion. Transubstantiation was not the issue. This was a war over territorial control and power. Another example: in the seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the British and the French fought several battles in India. Were these Anglican-Catholic wars? No, both countries wanted India as their colonial prize.
Using Christian examples to prove something about Islam is based once again on the assumption that the distinction between the religious and the political is identical in both religions. If D'Souza would actually read his Lewis books instead of admiring them on his shelf, he would know this is not the case.
Now I come to Spencer's recent example, and please don't laugh. It is the Iran-Iraq war. Here we see Spencer's power of discernment in full gear. Saddam was a secular dictator whose Baathist party drew its inspiration more from European fascism than from Islam. How can his eight-year fight with Khomeini be counted as a Shia-Sunni struggle? Spencer is unfazed. After all, Saddam was himself a Sunni and many of his henchmen were Sunni. Yes, Spencer, but the majority of Iraqis are Shia. If this truly was a Shia-Sunni conflict, why didn't the majority of Iraqi Shia fight on Khomeini's side? Khomeini was the leader of the Shia armies of Iran. The very fact that the Iraqi Shia fought on Saddam's side and were willing to kill their fellow Shia in Iran shows that they did not view this war as a Shia-Sunni conflict. Khomeini tried to make it one, in order to win Shia defectors from Iraq, but in this he was completely unsuccessful.
D'Souza demonstrates here that he knows as little about Saddam Hussein and the Iran/Iraq war as he does about Islam in general. Yes, most Iraqis are Shia. Does D'Souza think it would have been an easy thing for them to leave Iraq and cross the lines to fight on Khomeini's side? Does D'Souza think it would have been an easy thing to decline an invitation to join Saddam Hussein's military? He actually says, "The very fact that the Iraqi Shia fought on Saddam's side and were willing to kill their fellow Shia in Iran shows that they did not view this war as a Shia-Sunni conflict" -- as if they had a free choice in the matter, and Saddam's regime was gentle toward conscientious objectors.
How hospitable was Saddam Hussein toward the Shi'ites? Let me count the ways. Before 1963, there was considerable Shi'ite involvement in the Ba'ath Party. When al-Bakr (and his deputy Saddam) took power in Iraq in 1968, Shi'ite membership in the Ba'ath Party fell to six percent. Of the 15 members of the Revolutionary Command Council, none were Shi'ite. Saddam's persecution of the Shi'ites is well documented: in the 1970s and 1980s, he had numerous Shi'ite clerics tortured and killed, and during the war, he appealed to Iranian Sunnis to turn against the mullahocracy.
Anyway, in the "argument weak here, yell like hell" tradition, D'Souza concludes his latest farrago with a bit of chest-thumping:
With intellectual adversaries like Spencer, I never have to worry. He specializes in launching boomerang strikes that leave him gasping in a heap. I wish him well, but the poor fellow is quickly establishing himself as the Alan Wolfe of the right.
Gasping, yes. In a heap of laughter and chagrin at how this man continually backs himself into a corner and refuses to admit it, and continues to expose his own ignorance and carelessness with the facts. Rishwain scholar of the Hoover Institution, eh? I should think they would be backing away from Dinesh D'Souza as quickly as they can at this point. Anyway, I was trying to think of a good rejoinder to "the Alan Wolfe of the right." Hugh and I tossed around some ideas -- maybe D'Souza is the "Walter Duranty of the global jihad," or the "Clifford Irving of the right," but let's have some fun with this. It's a Jihad Watch Contest: come up with the best "D'Souza is the ____ of the ____," and you'll win an autographed Truth About Muhammad. Post your entries in the comments field here.
Posted by Robert at May 28, 2007 9:13 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The Karen Armstrong of the Hoover Institution.
Posted by: StillBreathing![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 28, 2007 11:00 AM
He plays the Alex Jones on the Jihad front.
Ejecting misinformation like flak to enable jihad.
at May 28, 2007 11:11 AM
I would say "Prime example of public education". I assume this D'Souza fellow has some sort of following? He was on a local talk show awhile back; he's very glib. The moderator could hardly get in a word edgewise.
Posted by: Bulletswaiting at May 28, 2007 11:12 AM
The "Taqiyya"-Teller of Stanford.
Posted by: darcy at May 28, 2007 11:28 AM
... the ass of the jihadi elbow
Posted by: juniortk at May 28, 2007 11:35 AM
is the elmer fudd of the ummah.
he always injures himself ya know
Posted by: unperson at May 28, 2007 11:40 AM
The Hamlet of Newspeak
Posted by: darcy at May 28, 2007 11:45 AM
Deeply pleasurable and educational reading. Bat him about some more, please.
Posted by: Dane at May 28, 2007 11:47 AM
Dinesh D'Souza the Artful Dodger of Hoover
How'm I doing, LOL!
Posted by: darcy at May 28, 2007 11:51 AM
'the daft of the left'? (pronounced 'lafft').... eh.
'the prize of despise'?....... Cassius Clay keeps sneaking in here, sorry about that.
Posted by: Gary at May 28, 2007 11:53 AM
I'd say "The Wiley Coyote of Academe".
Posted by: USBeast at May 28, 2007 12:01 PM
Elmer.....dwat that crazy Robert
Posted by: unperson at May 28, 2007 12:03 PM
It seems like there's a state of cold war and tension rather hot war between sunni and shia. Deplorable and foolish as D'Souza's recent position turns have been, he may have a point about there not being much Sunni/Shia hot war for a few centuries. And it looks like the overall impeccable Robert (whom I've admired for years, read his books, given them out) may have made a minor argument mistep, as the Iran/Iraq war does seem to be mainly an Arab vs. Persian conflict, which is something different. But this doesn't lessen the influence in the world of the vast bad blood between these two chief sects of islam.
Of course, D'Souza could confront his flaws (such as recognizing the fusing of the political and religious in Islam) instead of playing "gotcha" over one (1) single detail and thumping his chest like a juniorhighschooler (really! - I think he's doing it because he still smarts from the "order of the suras" thing). But unless I'm misunderstanding, I'd grant D'Souza the one (1) single point regarding the Iran/Iraq war. But I do nonetheless grimace at the unconscionable blather he's produced since "The Enemy at Home."
Posted by: WestwardHo at May 28, 2007 12:05 PM
Does the massacre of Shias in Mazar e sharif in Afghanistan in 1999 count ? Iraninians threatened a full scale
war to take revenge with massive war games on border.
at May 28, 2007 12:07 PM
WestwardHo:
I never denied the Iran/Iraq war was an Arab/Persian conflict. What I am pointing out is that Dinesh is making an either/or out of a both/and situation.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 28, 2007 12:07 PM
D'Souza is the "perpetual motion machine" of the "study of Islam".
Reasons:
(1) He won't shut up
(2) He is to the study of Islam what the perpetual motion machine is to the second law of thermodynamics.
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
--Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
Thus let us relate this to Islam and its role in Iraq...
"The theory that the Quran is perfect, holds, I think, the supreme position among those that accept Islam. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of Iraq is in disagreement with Robert Spencer's books — then so much the worse for Spencers's books. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the the Quran and the Faith of Islam I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 28, 2007 12:10 PM
Simple and clear...
D'Souza is the moron of the millennium
Posted by: Shivakumar at May 28, 2007 12:19 PM
Alan Wolfe is a Prof of Political Science at Boston U. I don't know anything else about him.
Mr. Spencer or a JW'er - why is calling Mr. Spencer the Alan Wolfe of the Right an insult? I've just been going on my own knowledge of D'Souza to come up with my entries.
Posted by: darcy at May 28, 2007 12:22 PM
He is the Zepplin of the blogosphere.
He is the Grammaphone of the liberal aristocracy.
He is the fart of Delphi.
at May 28, 2007 12:34 PM
Hey everyone, I came across this great quotation by Orwell and want to share it:
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
You see we are all Revolutionaries here.
Posted by: darcy at May 28, 2007 12:35 PM
The Baghdad Bob of the Awakening.
Posted by: pez at May 28, 2007 12:36 PM
Darcy
Wolfe reviewed D'Souza's latest book in the NY Times, quite negatively. D'Souza has responded, and evidently preens himself on having destroyed Wolfe's arguments, but given how he has dealt with mine, I imagine that Wolfe has nothing to worry about.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 28, 2007 12:37 PM
Dinesh D'Souza - "Putting the "me" in Dhimmi since 2007"
Posted by: BunrattyBill at May 28, 2007 12:41 PM
D'Saouza is the Igor to Muslim apologists, assisting in trying to reanimate and pump life into a body of bogus facts.
Posted by: rational at May 28, 2007 12:43 PM
The Baghdad Bob (Moham-med Saeed al-Sahaf) of the Hoover Tower.
Or The Hooper of Hoover.
Posted by: justask at May 28, 2007 12:50 PM
I can't touch darcy's "Hamlet of Newspeak"-- I'll be giggling over that one for the rest of the day.
The nearest I can come is: The Candide of Islamic analysis.
Posted by: Abscedere at May 28, 2007 12:51 PM
Dinesh D'Souza does not know any more Western history than he knows Muslim, and I am surprised that nobody has yet bothered to pick him up on his howlers. There was no "thirty years' war between England and France"; there was a Hundred Years' War between these two countries, and yes, Dinesh, it did have a religious dimension (cf. Great Western Schism and cf. Jeanne d'Arc, Saint) even though both sides were Catholic. There was a Thirty Years' War in Germany, two centuries later; and it was the mother and great-granddaddy of all wars of religion, although it ended inconclusively. And the conflict between France and Britain, which dominated European politics for centuries - not decades - and went on with interruptions until 1904, was certainly religious in nature, especially from the moment when the rulers of England broke away from the Catholic religion. It is significant that the secret Treaty of Dover, in which Charles II of England more or less promised to bring his country bag and baggage into the French camp, was predicated on Charles being Catholic (which he secretly was) and using French Catholic arms to suppress his own Protestant nobility. Or, to quote Dawn Summers - "Jeesh, D'Souza, crack open a book some time!"
Posted by: Paolo at May 28, 2007 12:56 PM
I mean, come _on_ "a braggart escorted by three dependants and a parasite". Anyone care to cast those for this?
Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at May 28, 2007 1:01 PM
The war between Iran and Iraq, of course, could not have been openly presented by Saddam Hussein as a Sunni-Shi'a war, for obvious reasons. But that is not the same thing as saying that it had nothing to do with the initial fear, and hatred, felt by those who ran the Sunni Arab despotism (disguised behind "Ba'athism") of Saddam Hussein for the mad-dog Shi'a, as they saw it, of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In that war, Saddam Hussein referred to battles from early Islam between Arabs and Persians, and played up -- as other Sunnis have more recently done -- the "Persian" business. Some, such as Al-Zarqawi, and his successors, have reinforced the resentment of Sunnis at losing control of Iraq to the Shi'a be describing those Shi'a, inaccurately, as "Persians" or mere collaborators of the "Persians."
One of Bernard Lewis's most useful books is "The Multiple Identities of the Middle East." One is not only a Shi'a Muslim or a Sunni Muslim. One can be more than one thing. One can be an Arab and a Muslim. One can be an Arab and a Sunni Muslim. One can be an Arab and a Shi'a Muslim. One can be a Berber, and a Muslim. One can be a Kurd, and a Muslim. In the case of Arabs, so strong is the identification of Islam and "Uruba" or Arabness, that even among some of the Christian Arabs, above all among those we have been carefully taught to call "Palestinians," the identification with Islam as interwined with "Arabness," and a need to be able to identify with permanently threatening Muslim Arabs (as a way to fit in, as a way to win them over), one finds the phenomenon of the "islamochristian" (much less common among more numerous, self-conscious, and historically less cowed communities, such as the Maronites of Lebanon, or even the Copts, especially the Copts once they leave Egypt and can think, feel, speak freely about Islam).
All this escapes Dinesh D'Souza. He's too busy. So many books to sell, so many CDs to flog. Step right up. Get your latest Dinesh D'Souza here. Just for today, at No Extra Cost, a Guide to Absolutely Everything.
Posted by: Hugh at May 28, 2007 1:03 PM
I never denied the Iran/Iraq war was an Arab/Persian conflict. What I am pointing out is that Dinesh is making an either/or out of a both/and situation.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
----
Yes, true. I agree that he recasts the argument falsely, and grasps at a tree but seems oblivious of the forest ("Historically speaking, they have not been fighting at all.") He seems persistently blind to Islam's dense core of bigotry and inhumanity toward infidels -- and its analogous Sunni/Shia antipathy.
But I just felt that this one point about the Iran/Iraq war perhaps warranted concession, in the course of reemphasizing the heart of the argument.
Hmm, now that I see Paolo's point above, dear God, how can D'Souza be so glibly misinformed about history?
Posted by: WestwardHo at May 28, 2007 1:05 PM
The carpetbagger(or snake oil salesman) of the post 9/11 PC crowd.
Posted by: RecoveringHog at May 28, 2007 1:08 PM
Dinesh is such an ass. Keep digging, buddy. Keep digging.
Posted by: deseeded at May 28, 2007 1:08 PM
Using the Alan Wolfe analogy, DD is the Michael Moore of the Conservative movement (both having the same POV vis a vis the Mohammedans, albeit different groups)
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 28, 2007 1:09 PM
Note the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on this, which includes numerous facts of which D'Souza is apparently unaware:
As long as the secular, Westernized shah ruled over Iran, traditional Iraqi Shi'ites remained politically quiescent. When Khomeini came to power in February 1979, however, his example inspired many Shi'ites in Iraq to engage in greater political activism. Mass pro-Khomeini demonstrations and guerrilla activity became regular occurrences. The man who encouraged these activities, and in whom many saw an Iraqi Khomeini, was the young and charismatic Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr. The regime cracked down on the Shi'ite movement with great ferocity, and hundreds were executed, some 10,000 were imprisoned, and tens of thousands were driven across the border into Iran. In April 1980 Saddam ordered the execution of al-Sadr and his sister; by July demonstrations had ceased, and guerrilla activity had come to a virtual halt.Still, the Ba'th regime feared that as long as Khomeini was in power, his Islamic revolution could serve as a source of inspiration for Shi'ite revolutionaries in Iraq. Further, Saddam saw an assassination attempt against Tariq 'Aziz, the foreign minister and the president's close associate, by a Shi'ite activist as an insult directed against him personally. Under normal circumstances such developments would likely never have led to war, but Khomeini had isolated himself from the international community and had crippled his own armed forces through extensive purges of the shah's officers' corps. In addition, when Khomeini came to power in Iran, Iraq had a large, well-organized, and well-equipped military and a fast-growing economy. No less important, it enjoyed friendly relations with most of its neighbours, and all its armed forces had since been recalled to within its own borders.
It was those conditions that convinced Saddam he could win a blitz war against the less-organized and internationally isolated Iran, despite the latter's greater size and superior natural and human resources. In doing this, the Iraqi leader's likely goals were to remove Khomeini from power and replace his regime with one more friendly to Iraq, demarcate the border (particularly along the Shatt al-Arab) in Iraq's favour, secure autonomy for Khuzestan (an oil-rich region in southwestern Iran inhabited largely by ethnic Arabs) under some Iraqi tutelage, and give Iraq hegemonic power in the Persian Gulf.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-232293/Iraq
Posted by: jihadwatch at May 28, 2007 1:10 PM
The huckster of the highbrows.
Posted by: RecoveringHog at May 28, 2007 1:13 PM
Westward Ho & Paolo
Let alone Western history, DD doesn't even know Indian history. The 6th Moghul emperor Aurangzeb was on hostile terms with Shah Abbas II of Iran - both of them battled over Kandahar - but it was the former's hatred of Shia that drove him. In the late 1600's, Aurangzeb went to war against the Shia sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda, even though he was already neck deep in wars with the Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs and Jats - but that didn't convince him of any need for Muslim allies. Instead, he went to war against these 2 sultanates, captured their capitals and their rulers, and ended any Shia rule in India.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 28, 2007 1:16 PM
The Elmer Gantry of the ummah.
Posted by: RecoveringHog at May 28, 2007 1:17 PM
One more thing.
Who is most likely to insist that there never has been a Sunni-Shi'a divide, and that therefore whatever trouble there is in Iraq of what is demurely described as "of asectarian nature" (you know: those bombs that blow the gold-tumanned roof off of venerable Shi'a mosques, those revenge drillings into live flesh by the Shi'a militias in return)is the responsiblity of the Bad Old Infidels, the Bad Americans?
One group consists of those who will find a way to blame America for the inability of the people in Iraq to engage in sensible political compromise, to refrian from violence as their main means for obtaining their goals, and their inability to see the world through other than Muslim lenses,with the inculcated violence and aggression, and understanding that there are only two categories -- the Victors and the Vanquished -- which is exactly what Islam teaches them as the right way to think of Believers and Infidels, which lesson is not lost on them when they begin to think about other kinds of enemies.
The second group, of course, consists of the Bush loyalists, the people who thought that it made sense to remain in Iraq for Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations purposees. But no one, even those of us who believed the Administration's information about WMDs, should have thought it wise for the Americans to remain in Iraq beyond early 2004. Why then? Why not, say, Nocember 2003? Well, because it was important to be assured both that the country had been scoured for WMDs, and that Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and the face cards, in that famous pack used by the Americans in their imaginative game of Fifty-Two Pickup, were either killed or captured. But that was it.
The removal of the regime set in motion what was inevitable: the transfer of power to the Shi'a, and the loss of power by the Sunnis, a loss which they do not, inside and outside Iraq, accept. And in their unwillingness to acquiesce, and in the obvious fact that the Shi'a of Iraq have won and have no intention of giving up power (what can the Sunnis do? The Shi'a don't need Anbar Province, and they have been quite able to empty Baghdad of many of its Sunnis, and are quite prepared, if need be, to continue that particular operation until the madinat al-salaam, the fabled first city of Islam, is almost entirely in Shi'a hands.
But Bush loyalists cannot admit that. They cannot admit that history demonstrates the depth and duration of Sunni-Shi'a hostlities goes far beyond Saddam Hussein's mistreatment of the Shi'a, goes far beyond the history of modern Iraq, or even the history only of Iraq, but can be found wherever Sunnis and Shi'a are mixed together in sufficient numbers for the latter to be noticed, and discriminated against, or attacked, or persecuted.
They ignored history, and now they have a stake in re-writing history, because of what they should have known, did not bother to find out (and were any of the smiling westernized secularized Shi'a in exile going to inform them about the likelihood of a Shi'a takeover, and a Sunni refusal to acquiesce?), and ignored, and are continuing to ignore in the hallucinatory presentations by Bush, by Cheney, by Rice, and by all those so-called "conservative" commentators whose reputations should suffer for their blind and late-in-the-day seeing of the light (where they do, or must pretend to) about Iraq.
Posted by: Hugh at May 28, 2007 1:20 PM
The "both/and" observation by Spencer is key. The power of human societies comes from the genetic predisposition to form cohesive cooperative groups based on various group identities. Blood/tribal or hero/alpha male ID can hold small groups together. Territory/nationalism helps with larger groups. Divine/Religion is perhaps even stronger. Almost all wars combine multiple groupIDs to bind and motivate. Even the crusades were territorial, racial, and religious. Given these complex identity combinations, the argument can go on forever.
Posted by: justask at May 28, 2007 1:24 PM
Paolo
"Dinesh D'Souza does not know any more Western history than he knows Muslim, and I am surprised that nobody has yet bothered to pick him up on his howlers."
Trust me I would have but god there so many where to begin.
I noticed the things you did but I am still trying to comprehend how he makes the claim that...
"Similarly Spencer lists the ongoing power struggles between the Ottomans and the Safavids as a Shia-Sunni clash. But when there are five Islamic empires all trying to expand, we can expect these dynastic clashes. They occured just as often between Sunni and Sunni as between Sunni and Shia. That's because religion had very little to do with it."
Is he mad! The Ottomans under Salim wasted a whole bunch of Shia and the Safavids wasted a whole bunch of Sunnis under Ismail I...
Then they went to war with each other. I would call that religious. They both called each other heretics and infidels. I guess they did not mean that in the world of D'Souza.
at May 28, 2007 1:27 PM
D'Souza is the Geraldo Rivera of the Dhimmisphere
It's not a "religious war" OR a "gang fight." It's a "religious war" AND a "gang fight."
Awesome....
at May 28, 2007 1:30 PM
Dinesh D'Souza is the Alan J. Weberman of the conservative garbage can.
Posted by: anti-uffe at May 28, 2007 1:35 PM
D'Souza said
Spencer is simply listing dynastic and political wars that happened to have Shia and Sunni on opposite sides.
Aye-yai-yai. Very [cough] skillful way to wave away an entire mountain of evidence. Ask for examples, and when given, respond with "Coincidence!". Just like every single jihad attack "just happens" to have Muslims and non-Muslims on opposite sides.
This reminds me of watching the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, where the more evidence given of his involvement, the more the jury took it as proof of a police conspiracy and therefore of O.J.'s innocence.
The more evidence presented to D'Souza, the more he digs in his heels against it. The more proof that Islam has been violent long before the United States was even a gleam in the Founding Fathers' eyes, the more he claims that as proof of our corruption and prejudice against the noble Religion of Peace, proof that we need to follow their moral example in the hopes that they will lose their justified anger at our obvious depravity. No amount of debating, no amount of facts will sway him. He's got the intellectual capacity to see it, that's not the issue. He is the ultimate example, of which there are many, including in the Administration, of pride taking precedence over intellect.
Dinesh D'Souza is the King of the Blind.
Or at least a minor vassal.
Posted by: special_guest at May 28, 2007 1:38 PM
"D'Souza is the pied piper of the idio(t)cracy"
at May 28, 2007 1:41 PM
D'Souza is the Dhimmi of the Decade
Posted by: champ at May 28, 2007 1:42 PM
Spencer: 2
Dsouza: 0
This gem was telling:
With intellectual adversaries like Spencer, I never have to worry. He specializes in launching boomerang strikes that leave him gasping in a heap. I wish him well, but the poor fellow is quickly establishing himself as the Alan Wolfe of the right.
-Dsouza
Such a nice ad hominem attack.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 28, 2007 1:43 PM
The Ted Turner of Terrorism?
By the way, keep this up. A lot of conservative writers seem to think that D'Souza has been so thoroughly debunked and distanced from as to be irretrievably irrelevant. However, he has an energizer bunny persistence and a vested financial and intellectual status stake in outlasting his critics. Don't let that happen!!
Posted by: dforsmark at May 28, 2007 1:57 PM
The Hoover Dam does to water what the Hoover Institute does to truth. When it’s finally released it undergoes such violent treatment that much of it turns to vapor and floats away on the wind.
Posted by: FloatingRock at May 28, 2007 2:03 PM
Dinesh D'Souza is the vapor. The Institute should let him float away.
Posted by: FloatingRock at May 28, 2007 2:22 PM
Daffy Duck of the War on Terror
Posted by: champ at May 28, 2007 2:22 PM
Fine then lets pull out of the middle east completely and allow the caliphate to form.....will there then be a religious war?
Who will dominate this caliph,sunni or shiite?
D'souza (fly) is to islam (pile of crap)as nuts are to a brownie.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at May 28, 2007 2:28 PM
D'Souza is the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st Century.
Posted by: Amillennialist at May 28, 2007 2:39 PM
D'Souza is the Grima Wormtongue of the West
Posted by: Amillennialist at May 28, 2007 2:43 PM
So what would D'Souza consider a Muslim "religious war", if the Muslim equivalents of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and Duns Scotus got into a fistfight over whose interpretation of the Shari'a was correct? At least then, the sullying influence of fighting for imperial and material gains would not impede upon the religiosity of the conflict!
Posted by: venividivici at May 28, 2007 2:44 PM
The "Walter Mitty of Islamic Studies"?
It fits in part: aging, senescent, with a vivid fantasy life.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at May 28, 2007 2:59 PM
greatcometof1577 wrote, “D'Souza is the "perpetual motion machine" of the "study of Islam".â€
Excellent analogy and great post.
D’Souza seems to expend all of his research trying to prove his hypotheses are correct rather than on seeking to establish the truth.
Posted by: FloatingRock at May 28, 2007 3:17 PM
"The Jimmy Carter of academia"?
In the sense of a comprehensive failure who industriously seeks to impart of his knowledge unto the unenlightened masses.
Posted by: David B. Greenberg at May 28, 2007 3:21 PM
D'Souza is the Three Monkeys of Intellectual Integrity.
He neither sees it, hears it, nor speaks it.
Posted by: Amillennialist at May 28, 2007 3:25 PM
D'Souza, putting the dim back in dhimmi
D'Souza, the Jerry Lewis of jihad
........ the Lou Costello of the caliphate
........ the Rufus T. Firefly of the 4th World War
........ the human shield of the jihaddi left
........ the Shari Lewis of sharia (remember lambchop?)
........ the Margaret Dumont of dhimmitude
........ the Funny Professor of the 4th World War
........ the T. E. Lawrence of taquiya
........ the designated spear catcher of the jihaddi olympics
........ the banana peel of the march for freedom
D'Souza, putting the damn back in Hoover
==================
I argue that the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq is not a religious war. Nor have the Shia and the Sunni fought religious wars in the manner of the Catholic Protestant conflicts in Europe. Rather, I contended that this is a gang fight between two groups over who gets to rule the country.
Now check me on this ... The distinction here is what?
at May 28, 2007 3:25 PM
D'Souza apparently thinks that because many of the conscripts in Iraq's army were Shi'a, then Saddam Hussein could not have been prompted to declare war against Iran as a Shi'a state. But that is exactly why he declared war (see the "Encyclopedia Britannica" entry above).
He understood that the secular Shah did not appeal to the devout Shi'a of Iraq, and that whatever his differences with Iran under Shah Reza Pahlevi, the Shah's regime was not for Saddam Hussein life-threatening.
But Khomeini, the militant Shi'a cleric (who had been kicked out of his exile in Iraq, stupidly offered asylum by the French, and from his perch at Neauphle-le-chateau the revolution against the Shah was launched. Had the French government, been better informed it would have cooperated with agents of Savak and had Khomeini done away with while he was in France) was a different matter.
That is why, as early as 1980, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran -- or rather, attacked the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran which, he understood, was a mortal threat to him because of its dangerous appeal to the formerly cowed ("quiescent") Shi'a of Iraq.
Dinesh D'Souza appears to believe that the army of Iraq was "60% Shi'a." That is, he thinks the army of Iraq reflected exactly the percentages in the general population. But of course the army was Sunni-officered, strictly Sunni-controlled. He, Dinesh D'Souza, appears not to realize how police states can stay afloat, when they set their diabolical minds to it. What percentage of the officer corps in the Syrian army, for example, in a country where only 12% of the population is Alawite but the country is run of, by, and for Alawites, does he think is Alawite? 12% exactly? Or 50%? Or 80%?
What naivete. Does he really think that the Sunni despots who have run Iraq ever since the British left, even though they were always a distinct minority (and have become more so over time), would do so without total control of the army? Can he not imagine how those Shi'a conscripts would have been pushed forward, fed whatever anti-"Persian" propaganda could be fed them, and then at the first sign of any recalcitrance, executed on the spot? He is lacking in the imaginative faculty.
In the imaginative faculty. In general knowledge. In specific knowledge about Islam, a subject he presumes to know enough to write a book about.
The Hoover Institution should not be mocked. It no doubt is mortified that he is still there, and no doubt looking forward to getting rid of him at the earliest opportunity. He will find some other place to exploit for his own self-promotion, though no doubt he will be sorry not to be able to wave around the phrase "Hoover Institution" and bask in its reflected prestige. He'll do fine, somewhere. People like that always do.
Posted by: Hugh at May 28, 2007 3:31 PM
D'Souza is the Tantalus of Fact.
It's always just out of reach.
Posted by: Amillennialist at May 28, 2007 3:37 PM
D'Souza is the George W. Bush of Islamic Theology.
Posted by: Amillennialist at May 28, 2007 3:41 PM
D'Sousa is the useful idiot of the mullahs.
Posted by: PMK at May 28, 2007 3:46 PM
Amillenialist: I guess that makes him Bush League?
Posted by: Gary at May 28, 2007 3:47 PM
What does it say about the religion of peace that the Shia and Sunni fight one another at all?
If there is no conflict between Shia and Sunni today then why are the Saudis terrified that the US might leave Iraq in the hands of a Shia majority? Why would the Arab Sunnis of Iraq have anything to fear from the Shia? After all, they're both Muslims and they're both Arabs.
When does Dinesh's next book come out:
"What's so great about Islam?"
Posted by: PMK at May 28, 2007 3:53 PM
Dinesh: the idiotic infidel
or
Dinesh: the dupe of the ummah
Dinesh the dupe (for short)
Posted by: PMK at May 28, 2007 3:57 PM
Dinesh D'Souza...The Frenchman of Islam
Posted by: TheBigH at May 28, 2007 4:13 PM
from admin comment above:
D'Souza has responded, and evidently preens himself
Huic maxime putamus malo fuisse nimiam opinionem igenii atque virtutis. - Nepos, Alcibiades, 7
(What hurt him most was his outrageous opinion of his own worth.)
DDS take note -
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare. - Cicero, Philippicae, XII, 2, 5
(Any man can make a mistake; only a fool keeps making the same one.)
Posted by: justamomof4 at May 28, 2007 4:19 PM
I see that Chamberlin has been suggested as a name but I much prefer:
D'Souza is the Chamberlin of Christianity.
at May 28, 2007 4:20 PM
I see that Chamberlin has been suggested as a name but I much prefer:
D'Souza is the Chamberlin of Christianity.
at May 28, 2007 4:20 PM
D'Souza is the ____ of the ____,"
D'Souza is the "mouthpiece" of " why cant we get along crowd".
D'Souza is the Judis of Christianity , Western Culture.
D'Souza is the sellout for sowdi petro dollars
D'Souza is the crowd pleaser for the Ophra crowd.
D'Souza is the wannabe expert on all things islam for Western consumption
D'Souza is " all good conservatives" of the world
can get along.
my God D'Souza is a gold mine to make parodies of his words.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 28, 2007 5:01 PM
D'Souza is the Dangerous Pawn of the Death Cult
Posted by: champ at May 28, 2007 5:05 PM
D'Souza is the Captain of the "Intellectual Titanic."
- Because he refuses to admit that his theory is sinking like a lead boat!!!
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at May 28, 2007 5:25 PM
The Dilettante of Dhimmitude.
Posted by: Brett_McS at May 28, 2007 5:54 PM
Dinesh D'Souza is the Palim of Psest.
(He keeps scraping away and revising his own arguments to the point of self-parody).
at May 28, 2007 6:10 PM
Dinesh D'Souza - the new Jayson Blair of Journalism...if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls***. Just so long as it sells!!
Posted by: mepeteart at May 28, 2007 6:16 PM
Like I posted before. Dinesh has to be on some meds that are warping his thinking. Dinesh is a dishonest debater who purposely misrepresents the statements of Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic and others who have countered him. His fun house mirror brain thinks he can get away with this forever. He won't. He's skating and will fall through the ice this year or next
Posted by: dennisw at May 28, 2007 6:34 PM
In not grasping the significance of the strong fusion of religion and state from the beginning of Islam's history as grounded in Quran, Hadith, and sacred biographies of Muhammad, D'Souza shows himself, whether willfully or not, illogical and fact-challenged.
Posted by: traeh at May 28, 2007 6:52 PM
Thank You, Mr. Spencer, for explaining, and Thank You, "Abscedere" for your compliment concerning "The Hamlet of Newspeak." As for your "Candide of Islamic Analysis," Abscedere, - Yes, he (D'Souza) certainly is an optimist, isn't he? LOL! Oh, Islamic societies - the best of all possible worlds - NOT!!!!!
See ya, Darcy
Posted by: darcy at May 28, 2007 7:31 PM
D'Souza is the Saladin of wishful thinking.
Posted by: I<3Crusades at May 28, 2007 7:34 PM
Can anyone tell me if this is Shia or Sunni? I am so confused.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAPuIRzvNDg#_zOVrF7SCrk
Posted by: QuadoLama at May 28, 2007 8:41 PM
A little more on Dinesh D'Souza from an article in the San Diego Reader:
"In 1992, D'Souza married Dixie D'Souza, whom he first met during his time in Washington, D.C. She is described by the San Diego Reader as: "blonde, petite, California-tanned, and effervescent about her husband...wearing a stylish pink plastic-leather rain jacket." They have one daughter and reside in Fairbanks Ranch, California.
...................
"Since Dartmouth, the conservative fray has been quite remunerative for D'Souza. Six years ago, he and his wife bought their home in Fairbanks Ranch. The nearly 8000-square-foot house has six bedrooms, seven and a half baths, and a four-car garage, where they keep their maroon 1992 Jaguar XJS. A circular drive fronts the French country stone house. The cathedral-like front room, with its full-length mirrors and tapestries, has an 18th-century French decor of (veneered) golden maple burl furniture. The slick floors echo like a museum as one walks through. In his office, there's wall-to-wall leopard-print carpet; floor-to-ceiling bookcases are stocked with titles in history, politics, and philosophy. The view out back features a bright blue pool and the arboretum-like landscape."
Mr. and Mrs. Veneering, to a T.
at May 28, 2007 9:11 PM
The Sparky Anderson of cogent thought.
"This race is going to go as clean as you cut the pie. Let the Coroner pronounce you dead"
Posted by: Martin Beauchamp at May 28, 2007 9:24 PM
Not one supportive post for DD...Well, his mother loves him...Actually, I dont know that for sure, I did not check with her prior to posting this...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 28, 2007 9:50 PM
D'Souza is the Mutt of the month
Posted by: Rdma12 at May 28, 2007 11:08 PM
Dinesh is the C. Eric Lincoln of Muslim polemicists. Lincoln wrote a book in the late 1950's about the Nation of Islam in America. He later recanted much of what he had written. His own son became a "Black Muslim".
Posted by: kharee at May 28, 2007 11:51 PM
D'Souza is the Mr. Magoo at seeing the truth about Jihad.
Posted by: Freedom1776 at May 28, 2007 11:54 PM
D'Souza is the Indian Faker of facts about Islam.
Posted by: Freedom1776 at May 29, 2007 12:17 AM
In fairness to the D'Souza the Dhummi of Dhimmitude, I found this argument, more cogently argued than he could manage on The Captain's Journal
under the headline: Why There Is No Insurgency in Iraq
To summarize:
... Sunnis are not fighting for an idea of what's best for all Iraqis; they are not trying to persuade Shiites that a Sunni government would be good for them. They are fighting for the self interest of Sunnis against the self interest of Shiites -- and vice versa. Because it is not a war of ideas you cannot expect to win it by changing people's minds. It's a war of identity. ...
Mind you, I am not by any means convinced that the European "religious" wars were not gang wars over identity and the petty racissm of minute local differences, Little Endians vs Big Endians as it were. But at least this Stephen Biddle guy could articulate the issue a little more clearly.
Certainly he captures the racism that seems to occupy the heart of savage man-in-the-street mohammedanism.
That said, and the over-extension of my ethical consideration toward D'Souza the Khomeini of Cracked-Pot Conservativism exhausted -- as an earlier poster above noted, the identity of race/nation/state/church in mohammedanism makes such nice differentiations between ordinary command-control gang war and romantic, upscale battle-of-ideas gang war, purely academic.
Besides, the virtual genocide of the French Huguenots in Catholic France was hardly what one would call a war of ideas.
And I don't recall any of the IRA running around downtown Dublin with theological tracts on the inferiority of the Protestant church.
Fact is, the Dhummi of Dhimmitude is also the Weak-Sister of Wahabbi White-Wash.
Posted by: joeblough at May 29, 2007 12:32 AM
"Spencer proceeds to give a list of Shia Sunni conflicts of the past. Interestingly, all but one occurs before the middle of the seventeenth century."
So we have an admission that the roots of this civil conflict certainly predate the seventeenth century. Congratulations,sir, all that remains now is to realise and grasp the connection between those Shia Sunni conflicts of the past(most vitally those prior to 350 years ago ) and the daily violence today, which ironically enough, does nothing to conceal itself from unbiased eyes.
Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at May 29, 2007 12:33 AM
I'm reminded of the myopic, superficial cartoon character Quincy Magoo who created his own predicaments (as a result of his myopia), amusingly solved them to his own satisfaction (actually leaving everyone else to deal with his trail of disaster), and smugly pronounced his own self-worth on a job well done.
So ... Dinesh is the Mr. Magoo of the Islam-is-misunderstood contigent.
"Oh, Dinesh. You've done it again!"
Posted by: LoneRanger at May 29, 2007 12:55 AM
Dinesh D'Souza is the Rosie O' with the VIEW of Islam.
at May 29, 2007 1:26 AM
ENTER AS OFTEN AS YOU LIKE, NO PURCHASE REQUIRED?
If Spencer were a woman, and all we were looking at were the braggadocio of D'Suosa we could call him the Bobby Riggs of ... some "tendentious something", . . . or something that's Islamic but sounds like tennis. ( hey, gimme a break! I'm just warming up, o.k.?! )
or, how about . . .
(1) --the "Keystone Cop" of "political correctness?"
hmmmm, no. It probably should be a contemporary someone known for having little credibility in his field, like . . .
(2) -- the "Keith Olberman" of "___ . . .
no, D'S isn't gauche enough. ok, what about . . .
(3) -- the "John Kerry" (or, "John Edwards") of "the history of Islam" [you know, like: "What I meant was . . ."]
or . . . (still 'warming up', I guess) . . . maybe . . .
(4) -- the "Michael A. Hoffman" or "Juan Cole" of "Islamic History"
or . . .
(5) -- the "Bert Lahr" of "Islamic Studies"
am I getting warmer? . . .
(6) -- the "James Wollcott" of "Islamic history 'comb-overs'?"
or, ... I don't know. He writes so much like an Arab; are you sure he's not a convert or something?
. . . o.k., what about . . .
(7) -- the "Bagdad Bob" of "Islamic History" ("Everything was peaceful until the Zionists and Americans came.")
hmmmm, maybe I should find out who Alan Wolfe is? After all, frequently the accuser's own words are best reflective of how to characterize him..
O.k., that wasn't very helpful. Perhaps if I knew something about Wolfe's work I might understand why D'S thinks this is an insult. As of now, it looks to me like neutral at best, and possibly even a compliment? I mean, unless there's something in his writing that's pertinent, this seems like a meaningless comparison.
Which makes me think that perhaps . . .
(8) -- a "borderline Wernicke's aphasiac" of "Islamic studies"
might be the most appropriate?
I don't know. This is a lot more difficult than I thougjht, especially at 3:30 AM.
Anyway, he's a typical Leftist.
Good Night.
at May 29, 2007 3:54 AM
D'nesh D'Souza is the officer Barbrady of the Hoover institute. (Any South Park fans around?)
Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at May 29, 2007 4:08 AM
In Monty python and the holy Grail, King Arthur (Spencer), encounters a challenge from the brash and boastful 'Black Knight'.
After a brief but fierce swordfight in which the Black Knight is literally cut down to size, Arthur resumes his quest for the Holy Grail (truth?), as the Black Knight, now a limbless torso, hurls abuse after him: 'you yellow bastard, running away eh?, I'll bite your legs off!' etc.
D'Souza:-
The Black Knight of Jihad Watch
at May 29, 2007 5:41 AM
D'nesh D'Souzas foot must be getting very sore, he keeps shooting it....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 29, 2007 6:52 AM
D'nesh D'Souza is the soup for the pc islamic soul
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 29, 2007 6:58 AM
D'Souza is the Grima Wormtongue of the Islamophobia-accusers.
Posted by: surly at May 29, 2007 7:41 AM
D'Souza is the Nutty Professor of the Islam insta-scholars.
Posted by: surly at May 29, 2007 8:07 AM
D'nesh D'Souza is the failed antidote for Robert Spencer's Truth about Islam.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 29, 2007 8:09 AM
D'Souza is the Inspector Clouseau of Islam investigators.
Posted by: surly at May 29, 2007 8:14 AM
Dinesh does not seem to remember the very many attacks on mosques in Pakistan by Muslims of other 'denominations'. I remember these acts being perpetrated by Sunnis against Shiites and vice versa but my memory might be failing me there. But does it really matter since we all know about the history of the antagonism between the two?
From a Malaysian perspective, the country is Sunni. Any attempt at bringing in Shiite beliefs is regarded as an offence. Such people are labelled deviants and are immediately corrected.
And we are all aware of how the origins of Sunnis and Shiites arose: It was hardly peaceful.
Dinesh should have done the respectable thing and admitted that he was wrong. There is more honour in that. I think Robert's credentials hardly need amplifying in this instance.
I have him to thank for my copy of N J Dawood's translation, a hard copy to come by in this neck of the woods!
at May 29, 2007 8:46 AM
A lot of entries here...Anyone win the autographed copy of "Muhammed" yet?
Posted by: darcy at May 29, 2007 9:01 AM
I like "Tantalus of Fact" by "amillenialist" and think "Tantalus of Truth" (mine) is also apt.
LOL, think D'Souza knows about this contest?
Posted by: darcy at May 29, 2007 9:09 AM
FloatingRock
Thanks, however I have seen a couple others here which are to the point and better then mine. I just could not resist the chance to compare him to ultimate impossibility of engineering and physics...
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 29, 2007 10:29 AM
....the Rosie O'Donnell of the pseudo-intellectual right.
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 29, 2007 12:11 PM
....the Rosie O'Donnell of the pseudo-intellectual right.
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 29, 2007 12:12 PM
......the Rosie O'Donnell of the instant Islamophile.
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 29, 2007 12:14 PM
I've listened to D'Souza briefly on the Young America Foundation podcasts. My what a brittle ego. He made a joke about having a dirty collar because his debating opponent tried to wipe the floor with him during lunch. "But he didn't win!" he added hastily. Huh? Even in a joke he couldn't bear the idea of anyone thinking he had lost an argument. The true mark of the non-intellectual.
Posted by: Brett_McS at May 29, 2007 12:38 PM
-The Bill Clinton of intellectual honesty.
I can't believe I actually used to look up to this guy. He has completely lost it.
at May 29, 2007 12:48 PM
"D'Souza is the "Mr. Bean" of the Muslim World."
Posted by: Timur at May 29, 2007 9:20 PM
oops!
How can you enjoy the ditty if you don't have the access info?
Just enter a "1" in both fields and hit "enter" when asked to enter access info for file
(5) -- the "Bert Lahr" of "Islamic Studies"
...probably should have been "the cowardly lion" or "Ozlamic Studies?"
at May 29, 2007 9:21 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.)