| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In a piece entitled "Who's Afraid of Benazir Bhutto?" (thanks to James), which seems to be about whether the jihadists or Musharraf killed Bhutto, my old debating partner Dinesh D'Souza revisits the disastrous thesis of his last book: that America's immoral society has created the global jihad, as a reaction by beleaguered proponents of traditional morality against the depravity and debauchery swamping the earth courtesy American pop culture.
What does this have to do with who killed Benazir Bhutto? Absolutely nothing, but it enables D'Souza to give the impression that Bhutto and Bernard Lewis would line up in agreement with the idea that everything would be just fine between the West and the Islamic world if we just went back to the days of Ozzie and Harriett and Doris Day.
Meanwhile, although it has been many months since he released his book, D'Souza has still not managed to come up with a second name of a "traditional Muslim" with whom he thinks American conservatives should ally. The first he mentioned was Egyptian Mufti Ali Gomaa, whom the New York Times identified as a supporter of the jihad terror group Hizballah. Whoops. Maybe the second attempt will be more successful, but I know he has another book out since then, and maybe he just hasn't had time to get to it. Since he has revisited his older book today, however, maybe he will take a moment to answer a few of the questions I asked in my review of his book here -- notably, if the jihad is a reaction to American pop culture, are Buddhist schoolteachers who are being murdered in Thailand exponents of American pop culture? Are Christian schoolgirls beheaded in Indonesia on their way to school the vanguard of an invasion by Eve Ensler? Are churches torched in Nigeria because they are showing blue movies during off hours?
But I don't expect any answer, of course. D'Souza, after all, has never bothered to retract or correct his ridiculous claim that I want Muslim countries to replace the Qur'an with the Torah. Some people will say anything, I guess. And others, more fool they, will believe them.
Posted by Robert at December 28, 2007 12:38 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Doesn't it get old being right all the time?
Posted by: An_Arbreshe![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 28, 2007 1:16 PM
I can only assume that sales of his latest peddle are way down.
Posted by: awake at December 28, 2007 1:17 PM
By your comment, I assume that some people have a problem with wanting muslim countries to replace the koran with the torah. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.
Not that it would ever happen, but a nice addition to my wish list.
Posted by: walterc at December 28, 2007 1:25 PM
D'Souza's “ridiculous claim that I want Muslim countries to replace the Qur'an with the Torah”
Not a bad idea afterall, Robert, because it just might allow a few of us other earth inhabitants a bit of peace for a change.
at December 28, 2007 1:28 PM
"What does this have to do with who killed Benazir Bhutto? Absolutely nothing, but it enables D'Souza to give the impression that Bhutto and Bernard Lewis would line up in agreement with the idea that everything would be just fine between the West and the Islamic world if we just went back to the days of Ozzie and Harriett and Doris Day."
Actually not! If you read Qutb and his visit from Eqypt in 1948 he is scandalized that the infidels dance together on the same dance floor. He believes all American infidel women are whores. He is disguisted that they drink. He dislikes the fact that Americans seek green lawns.
"Qutb found himself more and more outraged by what he saw as American greed — one example being the lush lawns of Greeley, Colo., where he studied. He also found moral dissipation, including in such seemingly innocent events as dances held in small-town churches."
A description of Qutb's trip in 1948 can be found at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9323776/
Posted by: David England at December 28, 2007 1:32 PM
The view from an ivory tower is considerably different than the view from the trenches. Robert is in the trenches, at the front, while Soapdish ponders pipedreams.
Posted by: QuickHenryTheFlit at December 28, 2007 1:37 PM
Obviously Qutb can only think of women as domestic laborers, but I never heard of him siring children to swell the ranks of the Umma, so I suppose he didn't know how to follow up when it counted.
Yes, D'Sousa is right--if we all became good dhimmis, just like those generations of servile Yemeni Jews, and also adopted the values and folkways of Seventh Centu--I mean, First Century A. H. Arabia, we just wouldn't witness any all-out jihad until Isa(pbuh) returns.
Posted by: John C at December 28, 2007 1:43 PM
This is why I (and others I hope) have a real hard time with religious, evangelical Christian conservatives in the vein of George W. Bush and Huckabee. Religion is not the problem, per se, unless of course you're an atheist, but rather, how conservative are you in its practice. Why a Christian conservative would want to align himself with Muslim conservatives, aka extremists, is beyond me.
Posted by: HOV Dummy at December 28, 2007 1:46 PM
"... everything would be just fine between the West and the Islamic world if we just went back to the days of Ozzie and Harriett and Doris Day ..."
so,
what is D'Souza's explanation of why Muslims are murdering Buddhists in areas with minimal western influences?
at December 28, 2007 1:49 PM
I found Ozzie & Harriet and Doris Day entertaining; can't say the same about D'Souza and his inane writings.
Posted by: LoneRanger at December 28, 2007 1:55 PM
A poster above suggests that Robert "is in the trenches" while D'Souza takes "the view from an ivory tower." But D'Souza is no intellectual, disinterestedly working away in the archives at the Hoover Institution -- from which institution one hopes he will soon be removed, so as not to sully its reputation further. He is not even an intellect. He is a writer of books for so-called "
"Conservatives," a thrusting self-promoting fellow with his eye always on the main chance, flogging his wares. He's like the Tammany chief --he "seen his opportunities, and he took 'em." Not to be taken seriously.
at December 28, 2007 2:01 PM
HOV Dummy,
I can go with what you're saying. There are things I don't particularly like about Pres. Bush (out-of-control domestic spending; lack of domestic energy policy; lack of border control, for examples) but the thing that mystifies the heck out of me is his continuing stance on insisting islam is a peaceful religion and the problems are caused by a tiny minority of extremists who have hijacked the religion of peace. I don't understand how he(and Condi Rice) can continue to think that way. I don't understand he can seriously look at his own beliefs, and say things like that time after time. I can't fathom why or how he can expect Israel to cave in time and time again to the same mentality that destroyed the workd trade center and bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
Like a friend of mine says, "If you stop and really think about how illogical all of this is, the gears in your mind would sieze up."
History has shown the difference of how conflicts end when the enemy is clearly and honestly identified and when they aren't. If Lincoln had acted this way during the War Between the States, the U.S. would be about half the size it is. If FDR had acted this way towards the Nazis and Imperial Japanese there would be no United States at all.
You're right, why a Christian conservative would want to align himself (or herself) with a muslim extremists is beyond me, too. Seeing all this really makes me wonder what they really believe...if anything at all.
Guess we're getting off topic. Sorry for that folks!
Posted by: livefreeordie! at December 28, 2007 2:35 PM
Hugh:
D'Souza's thoughts on Islam are worthless, but his other writings on other topics are not without merit.
As with so many "professional thinkers"--taking on the topic of Islam proves to be "A Bridge Too Far." Like many human beings, he is unable to confront and own up to his mistakes. The ones who do are entitled to a certain amount of respect and even admiration. The ones who cannot, especially on important matters, should be ridiculed and mocked.
Of course, in some ways his failure on Islam is helpful. He is so wrong that other mistaken people do take notice. For example, NRO has been critical of D'Souza. His book probably moved them in a direction opposite to his thinking.
Posted by: JSobieski at December 28, 2007 2:35 PM
Mr. D'Souza,
A Traditional American Woman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Miss-Annie-Oakley-peerless-wing-shot.jpg
at December 28, 2007 2:41 PM
D'Souza has still not managed to come up with a second name of a "traditional Muslim" with whom he thinks American conservatives should ally.
I'm a conservative American and I'll be damned if I ally with any muslim...of any stripe !
Posted by: solomonpal at December 28, 2007 3:03 PM
Thanks Robert
Never Give Up
at December 28, 2007 3:07 PM
Robert said
it enables D'Souza to give the impression that [...] everything would be just fine between the West and the Islamic world if we just went back to the days of Ozzie and Harriett and Doris Day.
But of course, in the days of Ozzie and Harriett and Doris Day, Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian Muslim cleric and founder of Egyptian Brotherhood, was already writing of the corruption he found while visiting the United States. The uncovered women, flouting their sexuality, dancing to demonic music (remember, Sayyid Qutb this was 1948). We don't need to go back to the time of Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best to please the Islamic world. We need to go back a little farther, to the 7th Century A.D.
at December 28, 2007 3:33 PM
Whoops, editorial mistake. "remember, Sayyid Qutb this was 1948" should be "remember, this was 1948". I wasn't trying to remind Sayyid Qutb, since he is already dead and burning in h*ll.
Posted by: special_guest at December 28, 2007 3:46 PM
It's hardly the concern of any other country adopting the Torah in place of the Koran, or a spinning wheel for that matter. It's the concern of nations that not only can, but are willing to, abide by an ethic that will regard the lives and beliefs of others with the respect on has for his or her own.
As a Christian, I embrace the genesis of my belief and ethics as grounded in Judaism and I frequently use the term Judeo-Greco-Christian as a longer version of Western Culture. It's a linear viewpoint; man proceeds even stumbling over cycles that can be and have been corrected.
Differences, there may be, but it works for me.
at December 28, 2007 4:04 PM
"but it enables D'Souza to give the impression that Bhutto and Bernard Lewis would line up in agreement with the idea that everything would be just fine between the West and the Islamic world if we just went back to the days of Ozzie and Harriett and Doris Day."
I third the motion that D'Souza needs to read Qutb in order to comprehend how utterly implacable these exponents of *pure* Islam really are.
There is NO acceptable Non-islamic life or lifestyle which would be ok, including the filthy, decadent Amish. Everything Non-islamic is filthy & decadent, worthy of only the greatest torments the moon god and his slaves on earth can dish out.
It's All(ah) or Nothing (Death to All Infidels!) until Islam Lords Alone over All Creation.
The sooner wise up to this murderous movement the better.
Posted by: alexon at December 28, 2007 4:18 PM
Good Point JSobieski. I hadn't thought of it in that way but I think you're right. At least I *hope* you're right.
Posted by: alexon at December 28, 2007 4:20 PM
There is obviously more than one thing missing from a leftarded brain.
Leftarded gutmenschen are taking us to the abyss: check this out!
Flanders Finances Mosques & Clerics
and this:
Gitmo: Prisoners Have Headaches, Aren’t Sleeping Well….
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/12/28/flanders-finances-mosques-clerics/
at December 28, 2007 7:50 PM
I think that both Dinesh and Robert are good and very smart men. Robert is right on this issue and Dinesh is wrong. But of course our secular hedonism is an inciting factor in the Jihadi response to the west but Islam has been an episodic invasive force in the middle east and west for 1400 years- agression is part of their formative inspiration, creed, and actions.
The developed nations of the west have greatly encouraged their inchoate hatred of and fear of all things non-Muslim by our crass hedonism which has been ballyhooed by Madison avenue, the media, and Hollywood for decades now, but as Robert points out by his questions, Islamic radicals need no secular hedonism to spur them on especially once their blood lust is stimulated.
Jayker
Posted by: jayker at December 28, 2007 9:55 PM
Jayker sez:
'But of course our secular hedonism is an inciting factor in the Jihadi response to the west '...
Really?
Then explain why the Muhammedans in the south of Thailand are murdering Thai-Buddhists!
And why are the Muhammedans of Sulawesi and Ambon murdering the Christian minorities? Explain why the Muhammedans are blowing up the poor Hindu's of India?
Why are the 'Arab' Darfurians killing the black Darfurians? And why are the Somali Muslims attacking the Christian Ethiopians and why are the Nigerian Muslims continously burning the churches of the poor Christians?
Please!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 28, 2007 10:17 PM
Don't be so hard on D"souza.
He has a lot of worthy comments on education and our society.
I do feel at war with our "culture" (Hollywood, the Left, etc.) as well as with Islamizt radicals.
He's not exactly right, but be more open minded to what he is tyring to say.
at December 29, 2007 8:21 AM
The lingual imperative calls for divide-by-two. In other words, it's half-and-half. Half me; half you. Everybody's wrong, everybody's right, sort of. As the intelectually bankrupt President of Normandale College said, for example, "there's plenty of blame on both sides."
Equivalancy. Always 50%. This is the overriding operational assumption.
Ergo, in Spencer v D'Souza, Spencer is automatically half-wrong, even though he's totally right in reality, as if that matters any more.
Such are the travails of Fictive Reality. It's a tough row to hoe. The only solution is to look at who sets up these halvings. Facts don't matter a rat's ass. Set up the halving and a guy like Spencer is living the Sysyphusian Experience. Who sets up these halvings? That's the question.
Ever met an editor? I used to live in NYC, and I have. It is they. Ivy Leaguers all; morons to a man, if you can call them men.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 29, 2007 10:17 AM
Alarmed pig farmer,
Your comment about splitting the difference in argument and calling that wisdom is true enough. The middle way simply ain't so more often than not. See Triangulation as referenced under the topic Clintonism.
On this issue Dinesh is correct in calling the hedonism in the West an inciting factor of the Islamic Radicals aggression its just not THE inciting factor as Robert and many of you clearly point out. However, I am sympathetic with DD's notion of hedonism corrupting our Western heritage. When I think about how God has been removed root and branch from our public educational system or about how the Cultural elites trash just about everything I cherish- I'M furious at them and the 'secular Western Culture' too.
Jayker
at December 29, 2007 11:11 AM
Okay, this I where is come clean. I fess up. I spill the beans. The
above article is the first thing I've read of the renouned Dinesh.
All my previous comments about the guy were based on Mr Spencer's comments.
I'd previously told huge whoppers when I'd claimed I'd read his tomes.
Yes, it's true.
I'd seen everyone gang up on him, and sensing that it was all a bit of a lark, merrily joined in with the clubing. Hey, I'm as susceptible to the mob instinct as anyone.
However, my guilt, or whatever's left of it, finally got in the way, and shamefaced, I decided that I had to experience the "Dinesh" moment in person.
I wanted to be able to look people in the eye and be able to claim "Dinesh? You bet, I've read the guy."
So I finally bit the bullet and read the linked article.
Oh dear. Words could be said.
"Yes, the radical Muslims are upset about Iraq, but that's because Iraq is a pro-American Muslim democracy. Such a thing has not previously existed in the Middle East."
Read that bit again. Then again. And then once more, just for a laugh.
Helllllooooooooo
I feel like that bully in "Back To The Future". Forever tapping numbskull Dinesh on the head with whatever comes to hand. A cane. A fist. A tactical nuclear weapon.
Hellllllooooooooo.
He's not finished, bless his wee soul.
"Iraq is a pro-American Muslim democracy"
To quote the redoubtable Mr JP McEnroe, you cannot be serious. There's more.
"It provides a startling alternative to the two kinds of tyranny that are widespread in the region: Islamic tyranny of the Iran variety, and
secular tyranny such as we find with Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt, Abdullah in Jordan, Assad in Syria, and in the Gulf Kingdoms."
Now then. As he seems to think that Musharraf is a Secular leader he know doubt thinks that Pakistan is some kind of Secular state. That's not even borderline crappy.
It was the first Islamist state. It was Izetbegovich's role model for Bosnia specifically because it followed the teachings of the Koran to the letter. When dealing with crazed Islamists it does become quite funny. In fact, it becomes - to quote internet jargon- LOL funny. You see, in the mid 70's when Izetbegovich wrote his "Islamist Declaration" - or whatever it was called- he chose PAKISTAN as his role model.
Yes.
PAKISTAN. Not the US with it's dynamic economy and civil rights. Not Italy with it's quality of life. Nor Germany with it's engineering prowess or Japan with it's R and D supremacy. Of course not, that's just silly. The loon chose PAKISTAN. Yes, that Pakistan, because it was the first Islamist state.
Anyway, back at the Dinesh ranch.
Dinesh is basically a 6th form student. The give ways being the bombast: the cringemaking overly simplistic statements. The "I'd like to teach the World To Sing" Utopian message that underpins it all. The endless errors add that certain something. I bet he's got acne too.
Anyway, the angst ridden adolescent artist, formally known as the Dinesh, ponders
"Who doesn't want democracy to succeed in the Muslim world?"
Erm. Well, me for starters. Anyone except Bin Laden in fact.
A democratic Muslim world would see a Muslim Brotherhood Syria, an MB Egypt, MB Algeria, MB Tunisia, Al Qaeda Saudi Arabia.....blah blah blah
I suspect Dinesh is of Indian origin. If so, it reminds me of the line in "Nobody's Fool" where the Paul Newman character, upon finding out that his slow witted lawyer is Jewish, remarks "Jewish? Why aren't you clever?"
Well, Dinesh. "Indian? Why aren't you clever?"
Schmuck.
at December 29, 2007 12:00 PM
More muddled sounds from that dour pipe knowm as the D'Souzaphone.
Posted by: jsla at December 29, 2007 12:16 PM
"...He dislikes the fact that Americans seek green lawns....."
....Must be a Muslim phobia....not too many green lawns in Muslim held countries......
at December 29, 2007 1:51 PM
Read D'Souza's What's So Great About America.
Read D'Souza's Illiberal Education
Read his book about race and then tell me, people, if you still think he's a dumb schmuck!
at December 30, 2007 3:03 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.)