| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Brett_McS is our contest winner, and Dinesh D'Souza is hereby crowned the Dilettante of Dhimmitude. Congratulations to Brett and Dinesh also -- send your address, Brett, to me at director[at]jihadwatch.org, and I will send you an autographed copy of The Truth About Muhammad. And thanks to all those who entered the contest. The entries were all terrific, and I think Dinesh richly merits the titles "Hooper of Hoover" and "Lawrence of Taqiyya" as well as the winning entry.
Meanwhile, Mr. D'Souza himself, unable to deal with the facts Hugh and I gave him in response to his challenge to name two Sunni/Shia conflicts, has resorted to making things up, attributing them to me, and then refuting those. And I can see how that is a much easier task.
In "More Religious Wars, Mr. Spencer?," he says this:
Today's New York Times reports on escalating sectarian conflict in northern Iraq between Sunnis and Kurds. I'm sure Robert Spencer would be on the case, spouting his nonsense about religious wars, except that the Kurds happen to be Sunni as well!Ah, yes, but Robert the history major can find examples in history of clashes between the Kurds and other Sunnis. Indeed there have been clashes, but that's because most of the Sunnis in the Middle East are Arab, while the Kurds are not. Ethnic and tribal identity--not religion--is the source of the conflict.
Saladin was a Sunni Muslim of Kurdish descent, and I'm sure Spencer can find some ancient conflict over territory to convince his gullible followers that the Sunni-Kurd clash has been going on for centuries. Actually this is nonsense, but fortunately for Spencer none of his readers actually knows what any of the internecine Islamic conflicts were about. So Spencer relies on the argumentum ad ignorantium: the argument that relies on the ignorance of the reader.
Now have I actually said that the Sunni/Kurd conflict was religious? Of course not. Meanwhile, however, the other straw men D'Souza sets up turns out to have teeth: if Mr. D'Souza cared to do any research, he would have discovered that the Kurds have been in conflict with the Arabs, Turks, and Persians for centuries. When the epic poet Ahmad Khani called for the creation of an independent Kurdish state, free of Arab and Turkish domination, in the Kurdish national epic Mem-o-Zin in 1695, modern Kurdish nationalism was given its first great boost. The Kurdish Zand kingdom flourished in the latter half of the 18th century, but by the mid-19th century it and other Kurdish principalities had been destroyed by the Ottoman Turks and the Persians.
But in fact, I have never written about this before. That's because it has little to do with jihad, which, as you may have noticed, is what I do write about. D'Souza's whole column is just made up. But all is not lost: as his career as a pundit continues to implode, I see a bright future for him...as a novelist.
Posted by Robert at May 30, 2007 5:34 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Seems that when Muslim apologists like D'Souza cannot beat a real man they will construct a straw man and claim to have beaten it, when in fact, they cannot even do that.
Posted by: Timur![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 30, 2007 6:02 PM
"Now have I actually said that the Sunni/Kurd conflict was religious? Of course not".
The Sunni/Kurd conflict does not address the issue of the Shia/Sunni conflict. It's an ethnic conflict. D is mixing apples and pears. One issue at a time, though they often overlap. There is no question that the Shia/Sunni conflict is real and deeply rooted in Islam. That's reality.
I'm beginning to think D is a oneupmanship kind of guy. It's a drag to deal with people like that. They are usually insecure people.
Posted by: Frank at May 30, 2007 6:07 PM
"So Spencer relies on the argumentum ad ignorantium: the argument that relies on the ignorance of the reader." - A hypocritical comment of special magnificence.
"Spencer... convince his gullible followers" - Ouch. Assuming regulars here can be described as "followers", this is all getting personal :)
A note to Mr D'Souza, if you would care to misquote me; I, and many others here, look at the full picture through websites and other means and are intelligent enough to work out where the truth is. If you could produce for me an argument which isn't full of holes and red herrings, I shall start to take you more seriously as a debater.
Cheers!
Posted by: Uriel Septim at May 30, 2007 6:10 PM
Robert:
While I admire your efforts at dialogue, I remain bewildered as to why you waste so much time with that pat buchanan-esque *ahem* character, let alone giving him the time of day.
However, I also believe you barely broke a sweat swatting that fly-on-a-radar-screen. He deserves nothing more than address in the 3rd person.
You have the patience of Job, my friend...lol.
at May 30, 2007 6:10 PM
I have seen his efforts with fiction and have no interest in seeing any more.If I want to read Islamic aoplogetics I'll read Vince Flynn.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 30, 2007 6:22 PM
Because New York Times sez soooo. . . .
They are like priest with a one way agenda and it is not about God!
at May 30, 2007 6:51 PM
D'Souza says: ...except that the Kurds happen to be Sunni as well!
Bzzzt, wrong, but thank you for playing, Dinesh. SOME Kurds happen to be Sunni Muslim, but not all, some Kurds happen to be Jewish and Some Kurds happen to be Christian... I don't know about Shia, but it wouldn't surprise me if some Kurds happen to be Shia too. Kurdish is an ancient national/ethnic identity not a religious one.
I personally know a number of Kurdish Jews, and they wouldn't be at all happy about D'Souza calling them Sunni.
at May 30, 2007 7:10 PM
I think D'Souza just called me a name.
Well, I know you are but what am I?
Posted by: pez at May 30, 2007 7:12 PM
It seems D’Souza has raised the temperature somewhat Mr Spencer. Luckily you’re stood on solid ground so any attempt to sap will come to nothing in the eyes of this ignorant reader. So let the man dig his holes and then pour intellectual burning oil on his arguments from above.
Luckily you’ve got Sir Hugh of Somewhere in America, Henry Morgan and many other ignorant followers ready to repel all boarders with heated sho… Sorry reasoned argument. Anyway, I’d say your position in the Americas is secure.
at May 30, 2007 7:17 PM
On, and re: the metaphor, nice one, but I think "the Mr. Bean of the Intelligentsia" would be most fitting.
(If you know who Mr Bean is, you might have noticed the similarity.)
Posted by: Tziona at May 30, 2007 7:20 PM
I agree with jcom Mr. Spencer. Enough about this "dilettante"! Seriously. He wastes our time, and he wastes your time.
Posted by: wrathofasma at May 30, 2007 7:21 PM
D'Souza mentality: I'm a 3rd worlder, ergo I am an expert on the 3rd world. Experts follow facts. D'Souza need only have gone to Wikipedia for bare bones information on Kurdish history. He chose to rely on whatever he needed to fit into his diatribe against Robert Spencer (May Eloquence Be Upon Him).
Posted by: supercargo at May 30, 2007 7:22 PM
D'Souza appears to think that religion -- that is Islam -- cannot conceivably have been connected to the fighting now between Kurds and Arabs, or the massacres of Arabs by Kurds, and forced arabization of Kurdish lands, under Saddam Hussein.
This shows again how little D. D'S. knows about Islam, and what he does not understand is quite significant. For the discrimation against, and persecution and murdre of, the Kurds by the Arabs is prompted by the Arab supremacism that is not called into question by, but supported by, Islam. Islam in fact is a vehicle for Arab supremacism, and owes its origins, that peculiar blend of pre-Islamic Arab pagan beliefs (those djinns), mixed with bits and pieces of stories and figures from both Judaism and Christianity, in a felt need for a "new faith" that would both justify, and promote, the Arab conquests -- justify and promote them among both those carrying out those conquests, and those non-Arab peoples, Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians and assorted others, who were more populous, more wealthy, more advanced, more settled, than the primitive Arab tribesmen who lived by raiding, and who conquered them.
Of course D'Souza is hardly the only one not to understand all the ways in which, despite its universalist pretensions, Islam is that vehicle of Arab supremacism. Many overlook the requirement that, ideally (and certainly up until recent times) the Qur'an had to be read, could only be read, in Arabic. The book that had been revealed to an Arab, and in the language of the Arabs, the best of peoples, is fully itself only in the original Arabic. Converts to Islam routinely take Arabic names -- some, such as Adam Gadahn and John Walker Lindh, find this very exciting. Muslims pray five times a day Meccatropically, and not only to they turn, wherever they are, in the direction of Arabia, but they take as the Model of Perfect Conduct, uswa hasana, as the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, Muhammad, himslf an Arab. And they carefully study the stories that convey the words and acts of this figure central to Islam, words and acts that often involve still other Arabs.
Why does this matter? Well, it might help the nicholas-kristofs of this world, who appear puzzled as to why some people who consider themselves "Arabs" are willing to mass-murder those who may look, in some cases, very much like themselves, but whom they consider to be "blacks" and therefore non-Arabs and therefore, fit to be cut down, raped, murdered, the heads of children split open, the wells poisoned, the miserable huts burned.
And it might also help the benighted and insufferably thick Bush Administration, or others for that matter, in beginning to fashion a coherent and intelligent policy of constraining the forces of Jihad, by encouraging division and demoralization within the Camp of Islam. And while sectarian fissures are most obviously present, right now, in Iraq, in the wider world of Islam it is the ethnic divisions -- the divisions between the o'erweening Arabs and the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs -- that offer the greatest promise of whittling Islam down to size.
D. D'Souza knows none of this. He cannot figure out that when Sunni Arabs kill 182,000 largely Sunni Kurds, that Islam may be invovled, that "religion" (if that is what D. D'S. thinks, like Bush, is a sufficient description of Islam) it is indeed a reflection of what is in the attitudes and atmospherics of Islam.
He's wrong every which way but up. No, including up.
Posted by: Hugh at May 30, 2007 7:23 PM
Here's an interesting link on D'Souza, many here will enjoy it.
Nothing like having an expert discuss things that they haven't even looked at.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/islamophobia_and_anti_fascist_frauds/
Posted by: The fanatic at May 30, 2007 7:33 PM
Hugh I’m not being funny now, but do you spend all your time reading history? No weeks away in the Cascades avoiding bears, or Sun drenched beaches in the Bahamas?
It’s just that I’ve been posting for a long while now and your always there with a thousand words day after day, subject after subject.
at May 30, 2007 7:34 PM
DD like Pres. Arbusto al Shomedamoney is part of the tiny minority of extremists in America, the ones who still think that it’s the rop. I was trying to think of an animal that I could equate him with but I don’t want to smear any innocent animals.
Posted by: tgusa at May 30, 2007 7:44 PM
Who really cares about your silly games with D'souza?
Thats all it is a pathetic game.
I just went over to TROP and read another one of those "rare to find" stories on the persecution of the christians in Iraq.
I have to admit that i find it rather difficult at this time to muster as much respect for those who seem to like to throw the articles on thier sites as if to say "see what we say is right".Big deal.I guess it makes for good t.v. and good reading though.
One can't help but wonder what the sites with millions or thousands of hits have really done about this atrocity other than use it to prove thier point.
Like a bunch of movie stars speaking for some freaking special cause.Thier "support" is as far as it goes.Like they just gave a trillion dollars to the cause when they didn't give kibbles and bits.
I am ashamed,utterly ashamed.
Even the opposing political "teams" can't find it in themselves to use this situation to thier means.Thats how dispicable this has become.
We here at JIHAD WATCH evidently don't pay that much attention to anything other than what proves the point thats been proven day in and day out.
I think in my being a rather novice at jihad watching i can put an idea or two together to tie whats being done to the christians in Iraq and elsewhere to islaimc jihad,by the verses.What more of an opening do you people need?
I would think it rather more important than shucking and jiving with some know it all know nothing loser who only wants attention.And he gets all he desires.Yea i am talking about you D'souza (spit).
It's nice that you have a game to make up what to call some ignorant slime ball but what about a game to name when thousands upon thousands of people are left to slaughter with NO protection whatsoever? OH WAIT A MINUTE THEY DO,IT'S CALLED GENOCIDE.
Perhaps in another 50 years they can get around to the first genocide of these people,then another 50 yrs for the one after that,then another 50 yrs to get around to this one.
Jihad big deal.We all know about it.All the elite and politicos know about it.Thats why they keep this hushed up.THIS PROVES IT.EVERY DAY SPENCER LOOSES AN ARTICLE,EVERYDAY HUGH LOOSES AN ARTICLE,THIS IS WHAT THEY TRY TO PROVE.
WELL HERE IT IS.ON A SILVER PLATTER.
Rosie O'donnel barks out there are over 600,000 iraqies killed by the American terrorists,it's bull and all lies.There are over 600,000 christians murdered in the islamic world....who cares.
It's pathetic.
Who has the guts to say the MSM is biased?What a joke.
I am ashamed at my country and the people in it in lacking to do whats right.I AM ASHAMED.
You're preaching to the choir about jihad.You preach to other muslims about what they should see about islam.
Yet you fail to see whats lacking for the christain responsibility for christians.Preach to the choir on that for a change.
Jihad watch? BIG DEAL....message recieved.These peoples blood is on my hands and your hands and all the rest of the jihad watch fan club.
You should all be so lucky that your kids and loved ones aren't being buthchered for no reason other than allah said so.
Sleep good and enjoy the rest of you life.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at May 30, 2007 7:54 PM
The straw man technique is near the bottom of the barrel. It's just lame.
At least D'Souza has now branched out into insulting all of the JW readers as well just making stuff up.
I gotta laugh every time I think about him stammering through his non-answer about the ordering of the Suras. "um, um, errr, um"
Posted by: Jan Sobieski at May 30, 2007 8:00 PM
Flash for Professor D'Souza!
Some Kurds are also Yazidis.
(Let the Doctor of Disinformations, D.D., look them up.)
He'll be surprised to find that they are a mixture of Shi'ite and ancient Zorastrian beliefs.
(Considered heretical by most modern Muslims, Sunni and Shi'ite.)
But, facts never stopped D.D. yet.
The Dilbert of Downward Mobility. (Intellectually.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 30, 2007 8:14 PM
Mr. Spencer...
You need to send D'Souza an autographed copy of your book too. Wait no a autographed copy of you audio CD!
In fact the gift inscription should read...
"To the Dilettante of Dhimmitude, I present you with my audio CD of "The Truth About Muhammad". It should save you the time to read my book. After all it's hard work finding those traditonal muslim allies. Cordially, Robert Spencer" (or something like that)
This of course would play off his "So enough about my book. Let's talk about my CDs. All my seven books are available in audio format" at his blog:
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/05/22/enough-about-my-book/
:)
at May 30, 2007 8:32 PM
My fellow ignoramouses:
Are you not so offended by D'S's accusation about all of us being gullible and ignorant followers of Robert Spencer? As if we are all completely incapable of developing an independent thesis on any point of global jihad? You ought to be so offended that you will want to visit his blog (link in article and above post) and inform him of of your anger.
I encourage you to do this. In his latest, he attacks Spencer and his "followers". Why attack us? He must be reading all the comments on his blog that point out his defenseless positions. We are getting under his skin.
Have you all noticed the JW site meter go from 10 mill to 11 mill in a months time? That's a lot of gullible and ignorant people. That's alot of potential comments to his blog. Go do it. C'mon. Why are you still reading this- shoooo.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 30, 2007 9:21 PM
Leave Iraq Now
been there, done that
Sometimes if you really hit him hard he will even e-mail you. The trouble is he always turns it into a pitch for his new book.
at May 30, 2007 9:30 PM
The D'Souza vs. Spencer debate can be defined by pure American capitalism. In other words who is more loved and which book makes more sense to the consumer.
The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 by Dinesh D'Souza
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #14,109 in Books
You can get a used copy for $6.75
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion by Robert Spencer
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #979 in Books
You can get a used copy for $17.11
Adam Smith has spoken!
at May 30, 2007 9:42 PM
No not at all, I consider the source and ignore it. PS. Im afraid to visit his blog, cooties is part of it but spyware or the thought of getting on his mailing list , is, well that’s just too much to bother with. So have your day in the sun dd and rub shoulders with the masters, maybe, just maybe some of it will rub off on you, but I don’t advise holding your breath.
Posted by: tgusa at May 30, 2007 9:45 PM
IE ignoramuses,
No not at all, I consider the source and ignore it. PS. Im afraid to visit his blog, cooties is part of it but spyware or the thought of getting on his mailing list , is, well that’s just too much to bother with. So have your day in the sun dd and rub shoulders with the masters, maybe, just maybe some of it will rub off on you, but I don’t advise holding your breath.
at May 30, 2007 9:47 PM
No one should call me a follower! Robert Spencer has NEVER changed my views on islam, muslims, what ever you call yourselfs and change at certain times and reasons and bla bla bla. Someone had to do it. You people evidently do not know. You have no one to present the true translation. Which you people will not except the several invitations to do so, why we all wonder?
Just because we all are interested in something unlike yourself we do not turn it into a godly thing such as followers. I would support him any day though! One for all! Who does that make you?
All the religions in the world I like. I see the beauty. Islam is the only one that hides everything EVERYTHING beautiful! Except that what is VULGAR LIES DECEPTION and WRONG! translation from their own making not the true understanding but their own as they go along!
They are trying to replace the 2nd HUMANITY with the 1st=DEATH. Then the holocast! Things just do not resignate unless you instill fear in people.
I searched for Robert. I am in quest of life! I am God's witness! The lies they -got- to make people to kill themselfs and others. worthless!
It will be as if they never existed! The innocent ones will be in Heaven! It is a mighty high risk to take with your life and sole-spirit to trust it to the fact you are going to be materialized in your "heaven of virgins"! how quaint what a god! damn!
at May 30, 2007 10:22 PM
Did you know that, "gullible," is not in the dictionary?
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at May 30, 2007 10:27 PM
Dar al-harb--
What about Dhimmi Watch? I ask because it doesn't look like you've posted a comment there in a while. That's where we generally cover religious persecution. And if you find something you think is newsworthy, please send it along. We can only post something if we know about it.
Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor
at May 30, 2007 10:32 PM
Does Dinesh ever say anything incisive about Islam and Jihad? All I see is stupidity and a dishonest way of debating Robert Spencer and others
Posted by: dennisw at May 30, 2007 10:33 PM
Now we are followers of Robert Spencer. A statement like that shows he is not paying attention to what is going on.
Robert puts up here what is happening with islam, and without this man's site, much of the news may never be found.
Islam acts, JihadWatch reports, and comments are simply allowed here. Everything can be checked from the sources, it follows the facts.
I come here for facts, the comments, the truth, not to be a member of a cult, thank you very much.
Jihad Watch, and thats the way it is.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at May 30, 2007 10:45 PM
To 'Dar Al Harb' are you Dyslexic or do you really not know how to spell 'their' just asking because if that is the height of your intellect it says a lot about the rest of the rubbish you spout too.
Posted by: Realist at May 30, 2007 10:45 PM
supercargo
D'Souza mentality: I'm a 3rd worlder, ergo I am an expert on the 3rd world.
That is part of the Dinesh dynamic. A riff off Eddie Said where only a Muslim is fit to comment on Islam. That Western academics are incapable of comprehending these mysterious people. That people like Said must do the scholarship. Actually Said was an IslamoChristian
Posted by: dennisw at May 30, 2007 10:48 PM
Nomenclature is important.
DD is not a dhimmi. He is a janissary. Bush is a janissary. The pope spoke the truth, and then became a janissary when he saw how the truth affected him.
Liberals and leftists are janissaries. Oh, how ironic, that folks whose pov is essentially solipsistic, their whole world view based upon the premise of their intellectual superiority, should be lap dogs of the barbaric whose whole world view is utter contempt for the intellectual, and for their intellectualism in particular.
The Victim, Therapeautic, self-hating, Colored-ribbon, Self Esteem, Credentialed, and Non-judgemental culture dominating American life, is janissary.
In no logical sense is the mental state of DD, Bush, the Pope, liberals, or leftists imposed upon them. They are positively enthusiastic in their pov.
The fact that they may be idiotic, does not turn them into dhimmis. Dhimmis KNOW they are dhimmis.
These folks are janissaries. They are the vanguard in the war going on.
This war is above all a war of ideas. Yes, a nuclear warhead, or a Beslan (probably a dozen, simultaneously, to please Allah big time), or contagious disease, will be thrown in to galvanize the audience.
But the winner will win by ideas.
The janissaries are the vanguard of the war. And all that proves, is that the criminal mind can have a certain genius, and smile, and smile.
Posted by: Moonzoo at May 30, 2007 10:49 PM
To 'Dar Al Harb' are you Dyslexic or do you really not know how to spell 'their' just asking because if that is the height of your intellect it says a lot about the rest of the rubbish you spout too.
Posted by: Realist
Most posters are not writing term papers for english teachers to correct. If you base a persons intelligence on how well they spell, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you cant get past spelling, and dont get the message, the fault is yours...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 30, 2007 11:03 PM
Doctor Bulldog,
You're right-- It's not in my dictionary, either. There is, however a secondary definition of "gull" (to trick or deceive), and a tertiary definition of "gull" as a noun (one who can be, or has been deceived, or gulled). I'm not surprised about my dictionary, a very old Random House. But it's really strange. Gullible is an everyday word.
(Cue mirthless laughter) My dictionary must be Newspeak. It was published in 1984.
Posted by: Abscedere at May 30, 2007 11:46 PM
Mert -- I have had exactly the same question for several years now. The history alone is bad enough, but he also has the gift in any area of dropping just a word or two about someone or something you have never heard of before, say a chappie named Lednicki and his Table-Talk, or whatever, little enough, but enough so that you know you have to track it down. To do justice to the reading lists he and Robert kick up is the work of a life time.
Posted by: Marc at May 30, 2007 11:52 PM
Plus I wanted to say why I'm here not as a follower but I want the truth! I've been asking that since 9-11. Now, even 9-9- Massoud killed by obl so 9-11 could happen.
I prayed for a computer so I can finish Rev.g-pa's book. I am figuring out the computer, some.
I began to research things in his book. Running smack into islam! No one else had the meaning or translation!? Except I spell it Jehweh they spell it Yehweh. How can this be I thought?!* well of coarse the translation. I pray to God to show me what is going on. It was the Palestinians. It was and I saw Jesus face! I would like to compare their name of God and translation. I could not do it I would need someone, like a scholar. Someone that understands islam -a defender. I thought how nice maybe this will help. Then I learnt it meant my death?!!?
I do not want to change it I want to help the people find the truth as I believe Robert does.
at May 31, 2007 12:36 AM
I don't want to start a fecal weather disturbance...but might I suggest that Islam is not a religion; It's a form of Government. Imams and such issue Fatwahs for someone’s death for "un-Islamic acts". This is a function usually reserved to the state. The religious police chase men into Mosque with a stick if they fail to heed the call to prayer. Only a government could do that. In Iran barbers are told what haircuts are allowed and are forbidden to trim beards. Musicians are allowed to play only that music deemed acceptable by the highest Clerics. Ones entire life is micro-managed by the state religion. Women are relegated to near invisibility and have no rights whatsoever. Only in Islamic countries does this kind of dictatorship occur. Islam...surrender/submit. It is the perfect vehicle for one to attain absolute power over ones fellow man. Argue with the "rulers" and you’re against Islam and the next thing y'know yer head's in yer lap, courtesy of a “very religious young man", who was directed by his spiritual leader to defend Islam.
The ones at the heart of this problem are the Ayatollahs who take the trust and idealism of young men and women, who like all young people, want to do good in the world, and twist it to their own political ends.
Fear Islam? I'm beginning to. I can't deny the evidence of my eyes.
Please forgive me if I am ignorant of some fundamental piece of information that might/would change my view, as I am a relative newcomer to the intricacies of this and most other religions. I mean no-one any disrespect and would like to make it clear that I feel that we would all be much better off without organized religion of any kind.
Wanna worship Shiva, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bob Dobbs or Allah, I really don't care...just keep it to yourself. Yes, I realize that organized religions have done great good in the world,(In general I would have to say they have done more harm than good.) but those same people can find other ways to contribute to the community or world good.
I keep my relationship with the supreme being between myself and it. I find things of value in all religions and find it amongst the most obscene things on this planet that ones love for God can be so easily turned to torure and murder in the name of that God.
Again let me say that this ignorant one seeks only knowledge and discourse...not confrontation.
at May 31, 2007 4:12 AM
Hi "Abscedere" and thanks again for your compliment concerning my "Hamlet of Newspeak." I really appreciated it! Your "Candide of Islamic Analysis" was good, too - could you by any chance have been referring to the naivete of D'Souza concerning Islam, LOL!
Well, I had to look in my dictionary and "gullible" is in it. The adj. form of "to gull" - to make a dupe of; deceive. Hey, that's just what Muhammed did to the pagan Arabians when he elevated "allah" to "Allah" and got rid of the other 259 pagan deities! He "gulled" 'em!
I have no idea what that "dar al-harb" person was trying to say. He sounds hysterical. With a name like dar-al-harb which everyone knows means house of war meaning us in the U.S., it can't be good.
P.S. My dictionary is Merriam-Webster.
Posted by: darcy at May 31, 2007 8:13 AM
gul·li·ble /ˈgʌləbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[guhl-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
easily deceived or cheated.
Also, gul·la·ble.
[Origin: 1815–25; gull2 + -ible]
—Related forms
gul·li·bil·i·ty, noun
gul·li·bly, adverb
—Synonyms credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
gul·li·ble (gŭl'ə-bəl) Pronunciation Key
adj. Easily deceived or duped.
[From gull2.]
gul'li·bil'i·ty n., gul'li·bly adv.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
gullible
1793 (implied in gullibility), earlier cullibility (1728), probably connected to gull, a cant term for "dupe, sucker" (1594), which is of uncertain origin. It is perhaps from the bird (see gull (n.)), or from verb gull "to swallow" (1530, from O.Fr. goule, from L. gula "throat," see gullet); in either case with a sense of "someone who will swallow anything thrown at him." Another possibility is M.E. dial. gull "newly hatched bird" (1382), which is perhaps from O.N. golr "yellow," from the hue of its down.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source
gullible
adjective
1. naive and easily deceived or tricked; "at that early age she had been gullible and in love" [syn: fleeceable]
2. easily tricked because of being too trusting; "gullible tourists taken in by the shell game"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
gullible [ˈgaləbl] adjective
easily tricked or fooled
Example: He is so gullible that he believes everything you tell him.
Arabic: سَهْل الإنْخِداع، ساذِج
Chinese (Simplified): 轻信的，易受骗的
Chinese (Traditional): 輕信的，易受騙的
Czech: důvěřivý, naivní
Danish: godtroende
Estonian: kergeusklik
Finnish: herkkäuskoinen
French: crédule
German: leichtgläubig
Greek: εύπιστος
Hungarian: hiszékeny
Icelandic: trúgjarn
Indonesian: mudah ditipu
Italian: credulo, credulone
Japanese: だまされやすい
Korean: 속기 쉬운
Latvian: lētticīgs
Lithuanian: patiklus
Norwegian: godtroende, lett å narre
Polish: łatwowierny
Portuguese (Brazil): crédulo
Portuguese (Portugal): crédulo
Romanian: credul
Russian: легковерный
Slovak: ľahkoverný, naivný
Slovenian: lahkoveren
Spanish: crédulo, simplón
Swedish: lättlurad, lättrogen
Turkish: kolay aldanır, aptal
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
at May 31, 2007 8:17 AM
Hi Alaskan - I definitely fear Islam. That's why I'm trying to fight it, and posting on JW is one way to do it. Wearing my "Remember 9/11" button out in public is another, despite uncomfortable stares from people. Writing to my hometown newspaper about Islam and asking that they stop printing "taqiyya" articles about Islam in the "Faith" section. I told the Editor of that section to go out and get a Koran and read it before printing anything else about Islam. Commenting on the Emory Wheel and other PC Dhimmi college newspapers. Continual reading about Islam/Muhammed in books (such as Mr. Spencer's and others) and on the 'net.
The term "Islamophobe" is a misnomer because a phobia is an irrational fear. Yet, it's 100% in the realm of the rational to fear Islam. 100%
Posted by: darcy at May 31, 2007 8:22 AM
Mr. D'Szoua,
Re: "argumentum ad ignorantium: the argument that relies on the ignorance of the reader."
What a patronizing and condescending statement. Just because one does not agree with you, does not make one ignorant?
Although, I am sure out pure sanctimonious arrogance, that you actually believe that statement.
What an arse.
Posted by: Annie
at May 31, 2007 8:31 AM
Mr. D'Souza think we are ignorant about Islam and Muhammed? Oh, that is funny.
He reminds me of the Muslims telling us that our small Western minds can't possibly comprehend the Koran, LOL! You know, how we are always "misinterpreting" the command to "Slay the Infidel wherever you find him," and all of the other similar "Kill anyone not Muslim" verses.
The complexity astounds!
Posted by: darcy at May 31, 2007 8:41 AM
Mr. D'Souza, here's the deal. It's very simple. Muhammed plagiarized from both Judaism and Christianity, but primarily Judaism. He copied the Jews in their monotheism and also rejected Jesus and the Holy Spirit i.e. no Holy Trinity. But, he also did that because allah had no son, just the 3 daughters. So, he repudiated Jesus and even made him a "slave" to the now-elevated "Allah" with a capital A, which, to me as a Christian is the most despicable thing about Islam. Jesus a "slave" to a pagan Moon god! Yeah, right! Jesus a "slave" to anyone or anything, yeah, right! When I first learned about that "slave" deal for Jesus, that's when I knew without any doubt that Islam is a hoax - a Hoax with a capital H.
And then to sweeten the Jesus as slave deal, Muhammed has Him "returning" to assist Allah in destroying both Christianity and "the swine," i.e. Jews. Ha-ha! Can I laugh, or what? If I were you, Mr. D'Souza, I wouldn't wait for that to happen! So LOL it's not funny.
Oh, and here's another thing. Muhammed said that Abraham was neither Christian nor Jewish, but Muslim! HA HA!!! Oh, PLEASE! Gullible mindless sheep followers of Islam, a Hoax Religion.
Posted by: darcy at May 31, 2007 9:02 AM
Darcy...If you take the A from the front of Abraham, and put it on the end, you get Brahama. When Abraham was Abram, put the A on the end you get Brama...sounds Hindu does it not? The word Abra has magical connotations, such as Abracadabra, or the magician Abramelin the Magi. Abraham was born in
Ur of the Chaldees. According to some Chaldee means demon. Ur means light. So according to that, Ur of the Chaldee means light of the demons. Chaldeans were then demons. Abraham was a Chaldean. Maybe he was not a demon and thats why he left. Apparently he had a different calling, and it was not to establish Islam. The Islamic version has him staying a demon, thus a muslim. Islam hijacked Abraham like they hijack most everything. Mohammad stole more than just money and slavegirls...
at May 31, 2007 9:34 AM
Hi, swami, there wouldn't be Islam without Judaism and Christianity. Yet, Judaism and Christianity do just fine without Islam! It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that w/out Judaism and Christianity, Islam is Nothing.
Posted by: darcy at May 31, 2007 10:50 AM
I am glad Robert continues to debate D'Souza's positions. It may seem "pathetic" to some, but he must must must do this because D'Souza is a MSM self-promoter. It costs nothing other than time to proffer corrected positions, and a poseur with such a public face needs to be continually challenged, even if it seems a pointless exercise not worthy of someone who is so familiar with facts.
Just ask Oprah whether she is now glad someone outed James Frey.
The truth matters.
Ignore him at your peril; it is the certain path to institutional dhimmitude.
Posted by: winoceros at May 31, 2007 11:19 AM
D'Souza, the Mr. Bean of Intelligentsia...LOL, Tziona!!!
Now, if only DD would take on the primary characteristic of Mr. Bean and SHUT UP....
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 31, 2007 12:06 PM
What a word gullible and gull! I thought gullible was, like easy persaded-taken in, they will believe anything!' Then 'gull' was having the gull the (guts) to do something,; to deceive someone. So I looked up atrocity. Someone has the atrocity-, the boldness? nooo- it too means Shockingly cruel, a shockingly cruel act, especially an act of wanton violence against an enemy in wartime,.
Posted by: MZ at May 31, 2007 12:51 PM
Yeah Marc it’s as though he has Babel Fish V 2.0, which not only allows Sir Hugh to read ancient texts, but also stores them word for word for future reference.
When I first came across the knighted Sir Hugh I pulled him up for using history to point out the ignorance and stupidity of the enemy. My argument went along the lines of, if you use history to justify being horrible, then why can’t they?
Years later I have realised that A: I won’t be getting a Christmas card from Hugh Towers, and B: I still think it’s wrong to base your argument for hating someone on the long distant past, which is what THEY do. But it’s really useful to know the past anyway.
Therefore I asked honestly when he ever had a day off out of respect for his dedication as a follower of Grand High Master of the Misguided Ignoramouses Poobar Spencer.
It’s obvious my reply has gone the same way as the Christmas cards.
at May 31, 2007 1:01 PM
much like any word, actually...
pathetic used to mean one who elicited sympathy from others, now it means something derogatory.
the evolution of language is quicker than the evolution of islam.
pathetic. the NEW term.
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 31, 2007 1:04 PM
It is gullible of people to tell me to respect islam! I know what I believe and I do not mix with cults! . Seems we all have been gullible and they expect us to remain that way. With the illegal situation. Then we are gullible not knowing they have let tons of muslims into the country after 9-11, didn't they learn from Pearl Harbor? We are gullible now. Our qullibility!
That makes it hard? This is what is setting people apart? This is a catch 22! How are we to trust our government if it makes us gullible? Why are we to trust islam-jihadist in our country who have made war with us? All the other gullible people like Rosie Odonnel? Why are these people given money to talk their gullible message? The gull of THEM! The gull! I can hear it now, a crowd of people chanting 'gull, gull, gull,' ok, I get it like Churchill is a dang gull liar!
I don't trust people, it has always been a problem! There are few people you can trust! My dad would say you are lucky if you can count them on one hand! People's deception and lack of faith work towards the gullibility of man.
Maybe I speak this way or am conceived this way!
I see more people should not be afraid of what they believe. Everything is so soft....do not offend the muslims walk around them!
at May 31, 2007 1:32 PM
Now I know why I get mad when I say Merry Christmas to the sales lady and she says happy hoidays! I said, "did someone tell you to say that!" I get 'disturbed' for I am not gullible!
Posted by: MZ at May 31, 2007 1:52 PM
I don't want atrocity! It is ordasidy? Someone know how to spell it. I'm barred! Adosidy? help?
Posted by: MZ at May 31, 2007 2:27 PM
And why I got mad at The New York Times comment about Robert's gullible followers! I was upset about followers! Now I see why-I was NOT gullible to accept the NEW YORK TIMES accusation.
I am free to bleieve what I want and read what I want and draw to My own conclusion not NY Times!
at May 31, 2007 2:48 PM
The PC Dhimmi "NYT" has Islamic writers such as Hassan M. Fattah. Protest against this. I have.
Posted by: darcy at May 31, 2007 4:52 PM
Oh. My. Heavens.
Posted by: winoceros at May 31, 2007 5:37 PM
I think this is interesting and would like to share my email correspondence with DD about this topic. But I would also like to thank Robert and Hugh (who I actually quoted directly) for making it easy to appear knowledgeable.
First of all, I commented on his blog entry, and was proud to be the first to do so:
--------------------
1. The fact is that you asked if anyone could name 2 wars that the Sunni & Shia have fought, and Spencer answered. You didn't think there were any, and he produced a lengthy list. Spencer: 1 - D'Souza: 0. ??So, rather than apologizing for your complete ignorance, now you shift the focus away from your humilitating defeat, and attribute to Spencer something he never said, and then ridicule him for saying it! Nice try, but it is your argument that relies on the ignorance of the reader. ??You must think that everyone is so dumb that we won't figure out the sleight of hand you just tried to pull. Sorry, but I saw it, and others will too.
-----------------------
Then he wrote me this note:
------------------------
Wrong. Those weren't religious wars. D'Souza 1, Spencer 0. Unless you count Hitler's invasion of Poland as a Protestant-Catholic war. You sure are gullible about Islam, my friend.
DD
--------------------------
I responded:
--------------------------
Dinesh,
First of all, you have made an incorrect assumption
about Islam, my friend. The political is religious
and the religious is political. Islam doesn't make
the distinction we do in Western society.
Plus, you asked for ANY, and win no points whatsoever
because the ones he mentioned are old.
Secondly, even if you were right, this doesn't change
the fact that, with your latest post, you've put words
in Spencer's mouth, so you could put him down for
saying them, which is an unfair, and very
desperate-seeming tactic.
So, I still think you lost. And I'm not alone.
And, finally, since the jihadists are against
basically everybody, regardless of morality, as you
yourself pointed out, your new book and it's thesis
are completely irrelevant and pointless. Thanks for
pointing out your own uselessness. Somebody had to do
it.
------------------------
He answered:
-------------------------
David: Since in Islam the religious and political aren't distinguished, does it follow that every war, no matter what the cause, becomes a religious war?
So Saddam's invasion of Kuwait--one Sunni group invading another Sunni country--is a religious war?
What kind of logic did you learn in school, my friend?
Second, my point about Sunni-Shia wars was to find wars about religion. Not just wars where one group happens to be Shia and the other Sunni.
DD
-------------------------
My response:
-----------------------
Dinesh,
To answer your question, pretty much yes. I mean, why
are there 2 "gangs" in this gang fight in the first
place? Religion. The Sunni and Shia are not at all
like the Crips and the Bloods. Their schism is
fundamentally about religion. And Spencer is right
about the Iran-Iraq war being a religious war. You
might want to read about it in the Encyclopedia
Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-232293/Iraq
Also, I have to wonder why it's so important to you to
maintain that there is not a religious conflict going
on in Iraq. Why does it have to be "sectarian"
conflict only? Will this ruin the fantasy that they
love freedom and democracy as much as we do? Why can
you not accept that these hostilities go 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?
Why do you care so very much that you end up using
obviously transparent and desperate tactics like
making things up that Spencer never said? I mean,
don't you realize how ignorant and arrogant that makes
you look? Seriously, the irony of you accusing
Spencer of arguing via ignorance is palpable, and
would be funny if it weren't so very, very tragic.
----------------------------
He didn't answer any of my questions and instead said this:
------------------------------
And what about your motives? Why do you hate Muslims so much? Why are you so eager to believe that they are all crazy religious fanatics? Is this why you find Spencer so appealing--he massages your prejudices?
I'm not Muslim, so I'm just calling it like I see it. You may, however, want to look into your own hidden motives here.
DD
-----------------------------
My response:
----------------------------
Dinesh,
Nice way to avoid answering uncomfortable questions,
by shifting the focus to me. I say you should answer
my question first, and then I'd be happy to answer
yours. What do you say? Fill me in on your motives
and I'll fill you in on mine.
I would like to think that my motives are the search
for truth. One truth I know is that in your last post
about Spencer you were disingenuous by creating a
straw man. You attributed something to Spencer that
he never said, and found that attribution to be
nonsense.
This is dishonest and you owe him an apology.
As far as the Sunni-Shia split, it wasn't my motives
that caused Time magazine to put "Why They Hate Each
Other" on the cover. It wasn't my motives that
created the Encyclopedia entry on the Iran-Iraq war.
It wasn't my motives that blew the gold-tumanned roof
off of venerable Shi'a mosques.
Believe it or not, I don't think Muslims are all
"crazy religious fanatics," but a lot of them are, and
Muslims are behind the vast majority of terrorism
around the world. Spencer's website merely lists and
highlights the activity of jihadists throughout the
world.
Now, please answer my question about your motives,
which seem to be denying evidence of religious
conflict in Iraq, despite it seeming overwhelming.
Again, I'm just calling it as I see it. So many
people can clearly see there is a serious religious
aspect to the conflict and yet you have gone to
ridiculous lengths to spin it as not religious.
Why?
-------------------------------
And this is his latest response, the ignorance of which is simply breathtaking:
------------------------------
What's your question that I'm not answering?
And what did I misattribute to Spencer?
DD
-------------------------------
I can't believe this guy! Does he even read what he writes?
at May 31, 2007 7:31 PM
Mo Foe -
It's Staggering.
I long admired his early work ("Illiberal Education").
I feel DD is really collapsing.
He who seemed to cherish intellectual integrity so instructively 20+ years ago, has discarded it completely. It's shocking.
What has happened to him?
That last response sounds like he's now trying to discourage you from continuing through sheer impenetrable dodging, basically through studied asininity. Because if communication is that hopeless, you'll quit. And I thought his "straw man" was a desperate strategem!
Well done. Please continue to update here if you press further.
Posted by: WestwardHo at June 1, 2007 12:20 AM
WestwardHo, you asked for it; I have had a couple of more exchanges with him; the first one is my response to his "studied asinity"
---------------------------------
Dinesh,
Once again you are wrong! I had but one question; why is it so important for you to maintain that there is no religious conflict going on in Iraq? Maybe because I mentioned the Time magazine thing, and other evidence to the contrary and that confused you, but I have only one question here. Why is it so important for you to maintain there is not a religious conflict?
Why is it so important that you ignore the preponderance of evidence against your pet thesis? Why is it so important to you?
(Ok, technically that was more than one, but seeing as you are supposed to be smart, I hope you can figure out that there's only really one there.)
I read what you wrote and it is misrepresenting Spencer. You say "Robert Spencer would be on the case, spouting his nonsense about religious wars" when he has said nothing about the Kurd-Sunni hostilities. You say "I'm sure Spencer can find some ancient conflict over territory to convince his gullible
followers that the Sunni-Kurd clash has been going on for centuries. Actually this is nonsense." Again, Spencer never said anything about the Sunni-Kurd conflict. Do you get that? He didn't say anything about it! I feel like I have to shout because even though you wrote it, you refuse to see what it says, and implies.
And as for Spencer being a testy and defensive guy, I have seen many exchanges Spencer has had with many critics, and he has always maintained his cool, far beyond where I would have. And that is even in the face of critics who have no proof whatsoever, like you! If his scholarship is so "shaky" you should be able to demonstrate that with something resembling evidence. But I have seen nothing out of you but bold-faced assertions and distortions.
Until you are ready to try something different, like the truth, or realizing the dirty tricks you've tried to pull and apologizing, then I say good day to you sir!
--------------------
He responded:
--------------------
It's not "important" for me to maintain this, it happens to be the truth. Doesn't sound analysis of the internecine conflict in Iraq, and sound policy, depend on a correct interpretation of the facts?
Spencer and (it seems) you want to fight 1 billion Muslims by blaming Islam. Spencer slants his work to make Islam look bad in any way that he can. That's why it's "important" for him to portray manifestly non-religious conflicts as religious. (By his standard Saddam's invasion of Kuwait counts as a religious war since there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular in Islam. So every conflict involving Muslims automatically becomes "religious." Does anyone except Spencer, and maybe you, believe such nonsense?)
I think there's a better understanding to be had, and a better way to win this war. This is the real disagreement between us.
DD
---------------------------
I pressed further:
----------------------------
Dinesh,
Ignoring aspects of the conflict doesn't make for sound analysis. And I think you are operating under a false dichotomy. You seem to think either a war is a religious war or it isn't. But, if the secular and spiritual aren't separate in Islam, then we shouldn't
make such a sharp distinction ourselves. So, to quote Spencer himself, "It's a 'religious war' AND a 'gang fight.'"
Yes, there are religious aspects to the conflict and we ignore them or actively deny them at our peril. Like I said before, why is there even a Sunni-Shia split, to begin with? It's religious based, and I haven't even mentioned the persecution of Christians in Iraq. Would you deny that's a "religious war"?
And I don't understand why claiming there's a religious aspect to the conflict is to say we need to be at war with Islam. And I think you should read Spencer before claiming to know what he says. You obviously haven't, because Spencer just points out the
elements of the Koran the jihadists themselves use to justify their terror. He has said there's no central authority that "is" Islam. You would know that if you read what he's written.
-----------------------
His latest response, with the subject heading "Yes, but":
-----------------------
Never once have either you or Spencer (or anyone else) specified what exactly are the religious elements to this conflict.
Please clarify.
DD
-------------------------------------------
So, I looked up a few articles by Googling "sunni v shia iraq" and felt like I was suddenly much more of an expert than the learned D'Souza, and shared with him the knowledge I had gained by doing just a modicum of research. We'll see if he responds...:
-----------------------------------------
Dinesh,
Having taken about 20 minutes of time to do some research, I will attempt to clarify what religious issues are involved. I hope to make this simple enough that you can follow it.
First of all, as I said before, the basic split between Sunni and Shia is a religious one, so any conflict between them will have a religious element. It seems absurd to deny a religious element when you are talking about a conflict between religious groups!
So, to begin with, at a fundamental level, religion is irrevocably part of this equation, regardless of what else may be involved.
In an article by Vali Nasr in THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY
SUMMER 2004 (
http://www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_nasr.pdf )"
[BEGIN QUOTE]
Anti-Shi‘a violence is not just a strategic ploy used by Al Qaeda operatives, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to create instability in Iraq and undermine Washington’s plans for that country’s
future; it is a constituent part of the ideology of Sunni militancy.
On the day of the early March Ashura bombings, a Kuwaiti Wahhabi cleric condemned the Shi‘a rite on his web site as “the biggest display of idolatry” and accused the Shi‘a of forming an “evil axis linking Washington, Tel Aviv, and the Shi‘a holy city of
Najaf” to grab Persian Gulf oil and disenfranchise Sunnis.
The Sunni assault on Shi‘ism is directly supported by Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, and the network of terror that Wahhabism has spawned, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Wahhabism is a puritanical school of Sunnism that upholds a strident and narrow interpretation of Islam, viewing all those who do not subscribe to its views, and especially the Shi‘a, as
infidels.
The domination of Shi‘a politics in Iraq today by the ulama means that Shi‘a revival in the country will inevitably change the country’s culture and the place of religion in it, which will then profoundly impact relations between the Shi‘a and Sunnis within Iraq as well as in the region as a whole. For instance, Shi‘a law and theology are likely to define the extent to which Islam will play a role in Iraq’s politics, potentially compelling Sunnis to live by Shi‘a law. The implementation of Shi‘a Islamic laws regarding family, taxes, inheritance, or commerce will be welcomed by the Shi‘a and not by Sunnis, underscoring rather than erasing
sectarian identities.
[END QUOTE]
In another quote I found in my 20 minutes of research:
"Last year, the leader of the insurgency, al-Qaida's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi openly called for a jihad on Shias, in effect denying that they were Muslims at all. There was virtually no condemnation of this shocking statement by Sunni Muslim clerics or political leaders in other Arab countries. Jordan's King Abdallah, far more politely, warned of a Shia alliance of Iran, Iraq, and others that would threaten the Arab world."
And just from the AP today (
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
):
"A growing number of Sunni tribes have reportedly been turning against al-Qaida elsewhere as well, repelled by the terror network's sheer brutality and austere religious extremism."
See the religious aspect? They even used the word "religious"! Violence between and among religious groups will always have a religious aspect. Do you get that? It's just sheer logic.
So, Dinesh, hopefully you can see that the religious differences between the groups are exploited to create and exacerbate the hostilities and, therefore, the violence between them. Also, Shi'a's version of Islamic laws being put into place is unacceptable to Sunnis. Regardless of the political power struggles that are also a part of the violence in Iraq, religious differences are the reasons they hate each other, and are the reason for discrimination and the desire for revenge against that discrimination.
Does this help you at all?
-----------------------------
Seriously, my first argument; that it's absurd to deny a religious element to a conflict between religious sects, should've been all I needed, but I found more, and it wasn't very hard. Does D'Souza have access to research tools beyond Bernard Lewis books?
Posted by: Mo Foe at June 2, 2007 2:50 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.)