| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Dinesh D'Souza spoke at UNLV and stirred everyone up. From the Las Vegas Review Journal, with thanks to Twostellas:
True to form, D'Souza's lecture on Saturday, "Islam and the West: A Clash of Civilizations," generated some conflict, dividing the approximate 250 audience members between those who spoke out against D'Souza's view of Islam and his admirers who heckled them.But in an interview Friday, D'Souza noted, "True conflict resolution ... is not based on a denial of difference. Sometimes conflict resolution requires conflict."
During the lecture, D'Souza, a Christian native of India, outlined Islamic criticisms of the United States and rebutted them, drawing on arguments from his recent book, "What's So Great About America?"
D'Souza also gave his definition of America's war against terrorism, calling it a battle against Islamic fundamentalism, not acts of terrorism.
While the religion is more than 1,400 years old, the concept of Islamic terrorism is less than 25 years old, he noted. D'Souza attributed that to a growing "species" of Muslims who are attempting to explain the decline of their civilization through theology.
Their objective, he said, is to turn the people back to Allah and away from separation of church and state.
This subset of Islam, which is pitted against moderate Muslims, is fighting an intellectual war against America's foreign policy, he said. Their argument is that the United States is interested only in serving its own interests and not the world's....
D'Souza also defended America's culture and morality. He said he did not consider veiled Muslim women virtuous because their society has forced them to cover themselves.
"By allowing the citizens ... to choose the right path, our actions take on a deeply moral luster," he said. "Compelled virtue is no virtue at all."
The center provided other panelists to counter D'Souza's views.
Mujahid Ramadan, founder and president of Ramadan Ballard & Associates, a diversity consulting firm, noted the great Islamic contributions to modern society and emphasized that suicide bombers and terrorists are not Muslims.
"To say they are Muslim terrorists, I say, would be erroneous," he said.
He likened such a label to describing members of the Irish Republican Army as Christian terrorists. "We would not label Christianity that way," he said.
This is, as any regular reader of Jihad Watch will know, a commonly used page from the playbook. It sounds convincing, but dissolves at a moment's thought: the IRA was made up of Christians, but they weren't fighting because of Christian principles, or justifying their actions with quotes from the Bible and other Christian texts. The contrast is sharp with Muslim terrorists who have avowed again and again that they are fighting jihads, and fill their communiques with quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith.
He and another panelist, Jean Sternlight, director of the conflict resolution center, advocated humanizing Muslims as a way to create peace."We have so much more in common than you would believe if you were dictated by this paradigm of clash of civilizations," Sternlight said, referring to the title of D'Souza's lecture.
Muslims don't need to be humanized: they are already human. The problem with stressing all that we have in common is that our opponents will not do so. It is a posture of surrender, not of dialogue, for the jihadists will brook no dialogue.
UPDATE: In my haste when I originally put this up, I didn't notice this statement: "While the religion is more than 1,400 years old, the concept of Islamic terrorism is less than 25 years old, he noted." This is, of course, sheer fantasy, and I am surprised if D'Souza really said that. It would show he is utterly ignorant of the derivation of modern Islamic terrorist groups (beginning with the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 -- hardly 25 years ago), as well as of the larger history of Islamic jihad.
Posted by Robert at October 25, 2004 6:36 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
While the religion is more than 1,400 years old, the concept of Islamic terrorism is less than 25 years old, he noted. D'Souza attributed that to a growing "species" of Muslims who are attempting to explain the decline of their civilization through theology.
Dinesh is YET ANOTHER right-wing professional complainer who morphed a penchant for whining about lib'ruls in the '90s into a full-time apology for Islam. A perfect dhimmi; he knows where the money is.
(By the way, in case some of you may be wondering how an Indian got the surname similar to the great American, John Philip Sousa. D'Souza is from the west coast of India, probably near the once-Portugese state of Goa, or the heavily-Christian state of Kerala. He's a Christian, not a Hindu. Like left-wing darling Arundhati Roy, most Indians you hear whoring for Mohamed aren't Hindus, who know a thing or two about Jihad; rather they are self-loathing Christians.
(Another sidebar-in-a-sidebar: If you love John Philip Sousa as much as a good American SHOULD, you should find yourself a recoring of Vladimir Horowitz' rendition of "Stars And Stripes Forever"... it's easy to find a snippet online. The first time I heard it, it thought it was a duet! When the announcer came on and said it was Vlad Horowitz, LIVE, I almost fainted! ONE pianist can do this?))
Posted by: kj![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 25, 2004 7:55 AM
D'Souza also defended America's culture and morality. He said he did not consider veiled Muslim women virtuous because their society has forced them to cover themselves. "By allowing the citizens ... to choose the right path, our actions take on a deeply moral luster," he said. "Compelled virtue is no virtue at all."
Yes, Dina. Say it along with me now: "That's the beauty of LIBERAL, SECULAR DEMOCRACY."
Posted by: kj at October 25, 2004 7:57 AM
...the IRA was made up of Christians, but they weren't fighting because of Christian principles, or justifying their actions with quotes from the Bible and other Christian texts.
Say it again, Spencer! You're right about their playbook... and least once every four or five months, a muslim apologist has a spread in the central Florida freeby, "The Weekly Planet" wherein their chief dhimmi, John Sugg, tries to equivocate the IRA with jihadis. Pure bullshit. For one thing alone, Irishmen and the children of Ireland all over the world condemned the murder of innocent people every time the IRA struck. I think that's enough for me to rest my case, but another consideration is the fact that Ireland was INVADED by England. Furthermore, who is the IRA killing now?
Posted by: kj at October 25, 2004 8:07 AM
Compelled virtue is no virtue at all- good quote.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 25, 2004 8:57 AM
Better is Milton's original in Areopagitica: "I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue."
Posted by: Hugh at October 25, 2004 10:52 AM
KeithJoy ignores the original meaning of the term liberal, in favor of the wannabe communist version that goes around nowadays. Thank God that version shall soon be set back by another 4 years, and hopefully will wither on the vine, along with the Jihadist thinking it helps support.
Posted by: Gary at October 25, 2004 11:11 AM
Is he implying that if virtue was not compelled in Muslim societies, we would find out that all Muslim women are really tarts?
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at October 25, 2004 11:34 AM
The concept of Muslim terrorism is less than 25 years old? Is he kidding? Muslims have used terror tactics from day one! Just read history and the Qu'ran to know that this true.
Posted by: epg at October 25, 2004 12:01 PM
To all, we have problems, right here at home. This bastard is based in Boca Raton, Florida. My nephew has already sent the following link to the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, please follow up with e-mails to the same. This link is also being sent to Senator Mike DeWine (R)Ohio, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee....Thanks to all, please forward this link:
http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=4380619&Mytoken=20041025073529
Posted by: DCWatson at October 25, 2004 1:12 PM
Mujahid Ramadan of "Ramadan Ballard Associates," a "diversity consulting" firm -- ah, let's stop right there, and think about that for a minute. A "diversity consulting" firm -- meaning, one presumes, interested in promoting something called "diversity." Well, no Muslim can conceivably in good faith be hired to "promote divesity" because all Believers must work so that the entire world subscribes to the same belief-system, or at least is subjugated to it. No Muslim believes in "diversity" except insofar as this a useful instrument, at the moment, to promote the Jihad and the burrowing from within trusting non-Muslim societies by Muslims who will fend off any attempts by the wary to protect themselves from attempts at conversion (Da'wa) and subversion from within.
And what about the whole Sternlight racket -- "conflict resolution." Sounds okay, does it? It got its first boost some twenty years ago, when that Ichabod-Crane-like figure, Roger Fisher, started churning out the kind of books they carry in the kind of bookstores you find at business schools: Getting to Yes was one of them. And what is all this "conflict resolution" based on? It is based on the idea that if only you each see what the other wants, and exercise a bit of imaginative sympathy, you can all get to YES. But that assumes that the other fellow wants to compromise, and does not want to permanently subjugate, humiliate, and degrade you, as the Qur'an and the hadith instructs Muslims is the correct fate for all non-Muslims.
"Conflict resolution," such as it is, never works for the real problems - Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden and his tens or hundreds of millions of active supporters or passive admirers. No, what they understand is something that the Roger Fishers of this world, those who have a racket going from their "Negotiation Projects" at law schools everywhere, or even at a nice office in a nice old house on Waterhouse Street overlooking the Cambridge Common (where, by the way, Washington took command of the Continental Army, apparently not deeming the British much interested in "getting to Yes" in any other way).
One more racket for the education industry, and the grants-getting industry, and the think-tanks, and.... well, you know. Barriers to Entry, Total Quality Control, Deliverables, Thinking Outside the Box, Negotiaton Projects galore, a heady mix of Roger Fisher and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Who can stand all the stupidities we allow to be taken seriously.
And then there is that damned variant on "conflict resolution," so-called Peace Studies. Oh, there's a lot of money in that all right. Don't go west, young man. Skip plastics and Mrs. Robinson. Head straight for Peace Studies. You can make a killing.
Posted by: Hugh at October 25, 2004 5:34 PM
In the Koran, as well as in the materials and commentary of the 'Da'wa Industry', there is built in a prevailing sense of paranoia and anticipation of conflict. Da'wa belongs to a process that is based on conflict and aggression and the anticipation of Jihad with those who will reject or oppose Muslims: the very process of informing and inviting others to Islam involves conflict and preparation for open religious warfare (Jihad) and natural suspicion of what 'enemies' will do to oppose you. Hence the aggression, hence the intransigence, hence the paranoia of so many Muslims.
Americans might curiously ask a stranger, 'Hi, how ya doing?' and mean nothing by it. I wonder if anyone who truly believes in the Koran can ever ask an innocent question. Every interaction must involve the question, 'are you Muslim or are you prepared to accept Islam?'. If one is to follow the Koran and the teachings of the Mohammed, one does not know how to move forward in interaction with another until one knows something about the answer to that question. Think about what one's experience would be dealing with 'strangers', 'nonMuslims' if one accepted the Koran: no wonder paranoia dominates the Muslim mind. 'The Jews are out to get us. America is at war with Islam.' And as soon as it becomes clear that any country, organization, people are ready to systematically oppose and shut down the opportunity for Da'wa, the paranoia will run rampant and Jihad (however one wants to prosecute it) is just around the corner.
Anyone who believes that Da'wa is an obligation, anyone who believes that Infidels who reject and oppose Muslims must be attacked and silenced, anyone who believes that 'Islam' must grow and expand to cover the whole world, which rightfully belongs to Allah and Islam, must accept these attitudes. What a way to live: a life of never ending struggle, fighting, conflict, with those who must either accept Islam, be subjugated, or 'done away with'.
The logic of Da'wa demands this way of life in some form or other.
'Oh, but its our fault Muslims are so aggressive and violent, you know, globalization, colonialism, capitalism, Zionism, Americanism...'
Wake up and smell the Da'wa dhimmis.
Posted by: JTF at October 25, 2004 7:42 PM
JTF's observation above is cute, and important, especially the second paragraph. What, he is imagining, must it be like to be a Believer, someone who must alwyas be wary, always prompted inwardly to conduct, in however desultory a fashion, Da'wa, who may live with Unbelievers but who is constantly aware of the manichean split between them, and Us, the Muslims. And what must it be like when, in front of other Muslims, one must lie about Islam to any Infidels that are present? Perhaps this helps explain the strange facial grimaces, the smiles that are fixed and unnatural or, in another direction, the dead eyes of Mohammad Atta and Al-Zarqawi, that make them seem like zombies, for whom we Infidels are not even objects of Hate -- we hardly exist as humans at all.
Posted by: Hugh at October 25, 2004 11:34 PM
Good God -- I meant, of course, "acute" rather than "cute." It's late in the day.
Posted by: Hugh at October 25, 2004 11:34 PM
So the "concept of Islamic terrorism is less than 25 years old"? Well the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was established in 1967, which makes Islamic terrorism at least 37 years in existence.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html
at October 25, 2004 11:49 PM
Even late in the day Hugh's writing is a lot cuter than mine.
Posted by: JTF at October 26, 2004 1:06 AM
Sorry, KJ. Much as you throw our favorite epithets for lefties back at us, I thought Dinesh D'Souz'a _After Racism_ a great book. I'm frankly sick of being called "racist" by people who, when pressed as to why the scientific socialism system they so admire failed to unleash the great productive forces it promised, blame everything on the poor Slavic uentermensch and primitive Asiatic. Hence, I found D'Souza insightful.
Also, when D'Souza speaks of "conflict resolution", and disparagement of the denial of differences that too often passes for "conflict resolution", I'd like to hear a little more.
As for the IRA, their ideology is very much a species of Marxist nationalism; not Tridentine Catholicism--even thought the do recruit from an historically Roman Catholic population. In contrast, the Islamofascists see themselves as defenders and extenders of Islam.
But I would not say that the IRA necessarily has the opprobrium of all Irish descended people (although it is certainly true that many of the IRA's strongest critics are Irish or Irish-American). For a long time, they did an awful lot of fund-raising in the USA, especially in cities like New York and Boston. Part of Clinton's political calculus in inviting Gerry Bogrtrotter Adams to the White House was to energize traditional Democratic bases of support in the NE, and keep them from defecting to the Republicans.
Posted by: Kepha1 at October 26, 2004 3:29 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi 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.)