| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
You may recall that before the illustrious Dinesh D'Souza was a would-be C.S. Lewis, he was a would-be Bernard Lewis -- and in his disastrous book The Enemy At Home, surely a candidate to be named The Most Wrongheaded Book of the Twenty-First Century, he declared: "If they want Sharia, let them have it."
And he repeated this grand Let-The-People-Rule sentiment just weeks ago, at which time I first noted the analogy between D'Souza and Stephen A. Douglas, who didn't care whether slavery were voted up or down as long as it was voted on -- and I expressed a preference not for a new Stephen A. Douglas, but a new Lincoln.
But now D'Souza is singing a decidedly different tune, excoriating the Archdhimmi of Canterbury for saying that accommodation of Sharia law was "inevitable" in Britain, saying that the Archdhimmi's modest proposal was "absurd," and "a little dangerous to boot."
Now, Dinesh D'Souza knows absurd -- he is, after all, the man who claimed that I want to see Islamic societies replace the Qur'an with the Torah. But this volte-face of his is peculiar. I mean, what if a majority of Britons voted for Sharia? Would he still think it "absurd" and "a little dangerous" to give it to them? What about the almighty popular will?
Or could Dinesh D'Souza actually be waking up to the fact that the things he objects to in his latest post, "chopping off limbs and...honor killings" and all that, might not be so easy to separate from the rest of Sharia? Perhaps this is an encouraging sign: you can't ignore or deny the truth forever. Reality is breaking out all over!
Posted by Robert at February 15, 2008 5:16 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
With such a careerist, the attribution of any deeply-held convictions is always dangerous. I don't think he's learned about Islam. I don't think he's learned that there are scholars other than Bernard Lewis who might have something telling to tell him about Islam. I think he's wet his finger, and held it up to the wind.
But what do I know? I live in the back.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 15, 2008 5:34 PM
"Perhaps this is an encouraging sign: you can't ignore or deny the truth forever. Reality is breaking out all over!"
Indeed, it is a good sign.
Like Hugh, I have strong reservations on Dinesh D'Souza.
Dinesh grew up in India, a nation Islamists have successfully targeted for conquest. He must have been among the first to identify Islam for what it is -- a predatory ideology of conquest. Instead, in his book, he foolishly tried to bring credibility to Sharia.
Posted by: MoorthyM at February 15, 2008 6:36 PM
"But now D'Souza is singing a decidedly different tune, excoriating the Archdhimmi of Canterbury for saying that accommodation of Sharia law was "inevitable" in Britain, saying that the Archdhimmi's modest proposal was "absurd," and "a little dangerous to boot."
I wonder if the Archdhimmi of Canterbury isn't a bit clever in proposing Sharia law. If so, he's certainly very clever.
Sharia is a disaster to minority opinion-ideas. It is contrary to the whole concept of British (and American) law re speech, the commitment of majority opinion to militantly protect minority opinions-ideas via law. (That doesn't mean the minority must be given power. It means that unpopular, even "offensive" ideas be heard and protected by the majority.)
Minority opinion is protected in Britain, US, etc. because it is recognized that eventually (William Lloyd Garrison, e.g.) the minority opinion-idea may persuade the majority that the minority opinion-idea is true. Sharia makes sure that won't happen. Muslim countries (Saudi-A-Gas-Station, e.g.) do not tolerate open criticism of Islam under Sharia law. That's reality. They are really feudal societies.
Posted by: Frank at February 15, 2008 7:31 PM
"Democracy"-without the militant protection of minority opinion-ideas by the majority-must be a farce. There is no democracy where minority opinions-ideas are not protected by the majority.
Posted by: Frank at February 15, 2008 7:34 PM
"Reality is breaking out all over!" --posted by RS
Isn't that great!
at February 15, 2008 8:11 PM
There is no way Sharia could be considered on par with a modern constitution.
Sharia’s basis is found in the Koran, Hadith, Sira, consensus, analogy and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent (from Wikipedia). However, it’s Koranic contributions that have given Sharia the commanding influence, as the Koran is said to consist of “revelations” from God.
From a scientific view, the claim that Koran consists of “revelations” from God is just not credible.
This point makes, Sharia, basically a “constitution” for certain medieval Arab tribe – and nothing more.
The western legislatures and the courts have a civic responsibility. To give Sharia credibility and to consider it on par with their constitution is to disown (even if it is for a selective population) the very constitution they have sworn to uphold.
This is dereliction of duty!
at February 15, 2008 8:42 PM
The "dilettante of Dhimmitude" (attributable to JW reader, Brett McS, is alwys on the move. He scrambles, changes his position, writes and re-writes books to clarify his position in an attempt to get on the right team.
Dinesh's pay-per-hour schedule has obviously taken a hit as of late, one well earned by himself.
He got a sniff from conservative media about his latest book about Christianity, in which he defends the faith, but he is always one step forward, two steps behind these days.
Although it hasn't been linked yet by Hugh (suprisingly), it is definately one of my favorites by Mr. Fitzgerald, regarding the final evaluation of Dinesh D'Souza.
"D'Souza has been weighed, and found wanting".
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015544.php
Posted by: awake at February 15, 2008 11:16 PM
Reality is, indeed,breaking out! However, the only reality that Mr. D'Souza is concerned about is the $ sign. The reality that Mr. D'Souza has final come to terms is that no one is buying his ridiculous claim that 'immoral' and 'unreligious' Americans are to be blamed for the rise of Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: Razdan at February 16, 2008 2:22 AM
Robert said
Reality is breaking out all over!
But that passive form hides the reality. "Reality" is not breaking out of anything on its own. "Reality" is being pulled, kicking and screaming, out of the shadows, by someone. Someone is forcing "reality" into the spotlight, for all to behold for the first time.
That someone is Robert Spencer, Hugh, Marisol, and others such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Diana West, Gregory Davis, Nonie Darwish, Raymond Ibrahim, Andrew Bostom, and other brave souls.
Posted by: special_guest at February 16, 2008 2:32 AM
in his book, he foolishly tried to bring credibility to Sharia.
Posted by: MoorthyM at February 15, 2008 6:36 PM
Dinesh is Karen Armstrong, in a suit.
Posted by: Alert at February 16, 2008 6:48 AM
The reality that Mr. D'Souza has final come to terms is that no one is buying his ridiculous claim that 'immoral' and 'unreligious' Americans are to be blamed for the rise of Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: Razdan [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 16, 2008 2:22 AM
Yesterday I read a lot of blogs about the shooter at NIU.
One poster said something that left me sad and hopeful at the same time.
He said what is going on with our generation,are we the "futile generation"
(this of course is paraphrased.)
But it got me thinking that maybe some of the younger people are starting to realize that they are being handed a load of crap?
at February 16, 2008 8:31 AM
I hate to say it, but I'm with Dinesh on this one. If they want Sharia, let them have it. In hell of course, not on Earth. Don't be silly.
Posted by: Goob at February 16, 2008 9:48 AM
This guy is such a joke. Even Christians in the Indian community don't consider him one of their own - this is the same guy who says that he's proud his people (Indians) were forcefully converted to Christianity by the British. Oh, its rich.
He's a stain on Indian blood and not someone who stands to be representative of the Indian community in any way (unless they are other wacked out Christians like him).
Mind you, there are Hindu dhimmis, but this guy takes the take.
Where is the venerable V.S. Naipul when you need him? I wouldn't mind him representing me.
Posted by: Blue at February 16, 2008 1:06 PM
D'Sousa is a cheap con, out for attention and a buck, without any believes, principles or dignity. I wouldn't be able to think of a lowlier individual than he if there were not the revolting Church of England of Williams and Tutu infamy, and its repugnant American twin, the Episcopalian Church, and the even worse Presbyterian Church USA. The Christian churches are failing us in these dangerous times even worse than the US and EUrabian governments are.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at February 16, 2008 5:07 PM
Hopeful sign?
Maybe.
I'm doubtful.
He'd have to eat a little crow to get right.
And he doesn't seem like the type, to me.
Posted by: joeblough at February 16, 2008 5:13 PM
D'Souza is D'idiot who now tries to D'sengage from his own D'umbass remarks.
Britney Spears made them do it Dinesh?
World-historical Schmuck.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 16, 2008 11:58 PM
Blue -
just to remind all of us of the estimable Sir V S Naipaul, here's a link to an interview he gave on Australia's Radio National. Subject: India; and the negative impact of Islam. It includes a clear warning about a certain kind of 'multiculturalism' as a trojan horse for Islam.
I believe I came across it when reading through the archives on this very site. It is an excellent way to get rid of the nasty taste in the mind that is left by d'souza.
Read carefully: you will find that Sir V S minces no words about what Islam is, and does.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2001/361036.htm
Oh, and the date the interview went to air? 9th September 2001.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 17, 2008 12:59 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)