It's important to put Mr. D'Souza's arguments in a more general political perspective.

Among a certain segment of America's right-wing, he is not alone.

About two years ago, a poll taken of the Republican Party's rank-and-file (which is dominated by social conservatives) produced some stunning results: More of them cared about stopping abortion and same-sex marriage than about stopping Islamic terrorism. Domestic social issues were a higher priority than the War on Terror.

Mr. D'Souza feels so strongly about the so-called "culture war" issues that he will actually claim that some of the Islamists' criticisms of American society as decadent and immoral are valid, while at the same time labeling the American Left "the enemy." This is a kind of political triangulation in which Mr. D'Souza actually feels more kinship with fundamentalist Muslims than he does with, say, the National Organization for Women.

As someone who's been a right-wing conservative all his life, I regard this as short-sighted and immoral--an illustration of that subset of conservatives who cannot get their priorities straight.

The hard fact of the matter is that pro-choice advocates, gay and lesbian advocates of same-sex marriage, and pornographers, are not advocating sedition, as domestic Islamists openly do. No matter how much you disagree with the Roe v. Wade decision, it came down from a legal court, the Supreme Court, by petitioners who went through the legal process as laid down in our Constitution and law. That's quite another thing from Islamists who speak of replacing the Constitution and all civil law with the Islamic law of sharia.

Posted by: Steven L. at January 22, 2007 9:50 AM

Sometimes knowledge of a particularly piquant private history can help, but often it means little. There are Christians who are apologists for Islam, and Christians who regard Islam with horror. And Jews, ditto. And Hindus, ditto. There are atheists who offer merely a plague on all their houses, equally, and those atheists who distinguish that belief-system that not only makes universalist claims, but also makes no distinction between religion and politics or any other area of life -- and does distinguish, however, quite clearly, between Believer and Infidel.

Besides, D'Souza has long embraced the Conservative movement here in the US, and his views on those can't be traced back to his origins in Goa. Having not read his books, I don't know whether his 'cheap reductiveness of thought was always there', but seeing such loud pro-Islamic voices on the Conservative side is depressing.

I suggest that D'Souza spend a year in Karachi, and contrast it to Goa (let alone the US), and then come back and tell us about his decadent ways while he was there.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 22, 2007 10:00 AM

Mr. D'Souza from Goa? Do I have that right?

Judging from his name and place of origin, there can be some intriguing speculation. Christian? Yes, but is that the whole story? As I seem to remember, Goa was a 'hot spot' of the Spanish Inquisition with a 'court' which judged many 'New Christians' and 'not quite Christians,' hailing from Portugal with names like Mendoza, Galante, Rodriguez and D'Souza. Not to hit below the belt of Mr. D'Souza(my own 'kin' were victims of the same Spanish court), but I'm sure we proud Sephardim 'brought' the inquisition on our own heads! pissing off the Spanish royalty and Church alike and lowering the 'morals' of 15'nth century Spain.

Did the Africans taken into Slavery 'bring it on their own heads?' I'm sure those proud Irishman brough famine on their scalps in 1840. What about Hitler? Wasn't Hitler's election slogan: "The Jews are our misfortune?"

Stating that abortion, or high skirt lines, or homosexuality brought on 911 is wrong, unfair, and, mostly, intelectually lazy to the extreme. Maybe the gays brought us Katrina as well. It is in this shabby mental construct of this way of life bringing on this evil outcome that unites Mr. D'Souza with the Islamists. One could make the point that the Islamists with their Milestones Along the Way share more in common with Mr. D'Souza that they would both care to admit.

Posted by: biorabbi at January 22, 2007 10:35 AM

"Goa was a 'hot spot' of the Spanish Inquisition with a 'court' which judged many 'New Christians' and 'not quite Christians'....
-- from a posting above

Under Afonso de Albuquerque, yes. He was a real enthusiast for ferreting out "New Christians."

But surely that has nothing to do with the particular mental deficiencies -- laziness, a tendency to weave a tale that is both comforting and yet at the same time allows him to remain nicely mounted on his own peculiar hobby-horse and to ride it around the public manege at least one mo' time, for fun and, of course, for profit. But this time that hobby-horse has reared up, and thrown him, and now he, Dinesh D'Souza, is lying on the ground, and the hooves of that rearing horse are just above him, and as he lies there, stunned by what has happened, he doesn't quite know what to do, which way to turn or try to crawl away.

He's had it. It's over for Dinesh D'Souza.

Posted by: Hugh at January 22, 2007 10:50 AM

Dinesh D'Souza's line of thought is intellectually and morally sloppy, and to make matters worse it is not even original. In the book Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism in the Culture War by Peter Kreeft, published in 1996 -- over a decade ago -- an almost identical thesis was propounded, and has since been thoroughly discredited by events on the ground (and in the air). These intellectual leftovers in the back of the refrigerator are getting pretty rancid, and no amount of dressing up can relieve the stench or cover up the mold!

Posted by: urbanIIredux at January 22, 2007 11:06 AM

I don't understand this: "Those who are ranting about D'Souza being an Indian Christian, and Indian Christians being pro-Indian Muslim, are missing the above point."

I believe someone can state that many Indian Christians tend to be apologists for Islam (that's not to say that all are apologists, but most are), while also believing that some Christians are opponents of radical Islam. I think it's similar to saying that most Anglicans here in Canada are apologists for Islam. I believe that's a true statement (which can be verified by simply reading what Anglicans write as Anglicans...again, this is not to say that ALL Anglicans are apologists).

Anyway, simply stating that group X supports group Y does not offer "an explanation." It explains nothing. So any number of explanations could be put forward. Self-loathing? Masochism? Persecution by Hindus? etc., etc. Who knows?

Posted by: J.S. at January 22, 2007 11:09 AM

"Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts.."

Islamophobic? Okay ... so, the origin of that term, "Islamophobic" .. quickly now .. does it generate from the Right or the Left? One answer could be 'both' .. but that's almost beside the point (unless, perhaps, one is conducting a self-serving political poll - and even there, the results would be of dubious benefit).

Dinesh D'Souza, wherever he may be on the political ideological spectrum, does not seem interested in the truth for truth's sake. And he does appear, with his fearful reductionist approach, (which always manages to avoid truthfulness in favor of formulaic magical thinking) to be banking on a substantial audience of other stupefied folks who care more about aligning themselves to an ideologically familiar (and unexamined ) position than opening themselves to what's true.

BTW, phobic thinking is always reductionist in nature. So, it's kind of interesting that he chooses to launch an attack on "Islamaphobia". D'Souza's in the right neighborhood but knocking at the wrong door.

Posted by: Daisytoo at January 22, 2007 11:19 AM

Obviously D’Souza is aiming for Spencer who writes for Human Events and FrontPageMag.com. I hope Dinesh has the guts to debate Robert.

After 9/11 I thought that the left would seize this issue given their hostility towards religion. I was waiting for catchy one-liners like “if religion is the opium of the people, then Islam is crack cocaine.” I figured that conservatives, after fighting atheistic communism for decades, wouldn’t be able to shift gears.

I was wrong. I admit it! Who’d imagine the “Unholy Alliance?”

Sure there are some on the left, like Sam Harris and perhaps Paul Berman, who understand. And at first the right seemed to welcome Steven Schwartz’ line that Sufism is the real Islam. Fortunately, many on the right have come to their senses and many on the left will do so in the future.

It shouldn’t be a left-right issue. These old designations, going back to the French assembly, are both Western ways of thinking about the world. Islam is a threat to both.

Posted by: JasonP at January 22, 2007 11:35 AM

It shouldn't be a right-left issue except that the left is affirmatively wedded to politically correctness (domestic worldview) and "blame America" first (foreign policy world view) thinking, and the right is at least incrementally better on both fronts. In other words, Arabs and Islam are not white and Christian, so they must be victims of some sort. The irony of D'Souza's book is that it employs the leftist mindset against the left.

The folks at National Review seem increasingly uncomfortable with D'Souza's point of view.

See David Frum's blog. He quotes what was posted on an Islamist website, Koranic citations and all.

http://frum.nationalreview.com/
Was Islam Spread by the Sword?

Posted by: JSobieski at January 22, 2007 11:53 AM

I think, beyond a doubt, that the Left has been far more sympathetic to Islamism (and indirectly supportive of jihadists) than the right.

But D'Souza seems to be asking: "Who in the Islamic world should the West be-friend?" I think the answer has got to be those secularists within Islam -- NOT the jihadists. What we don't need are yet more wanna-be jihadis (or sympathetic treatments of their "ideals.") And to be-friend those in Islam who have fled from repressive regimes, who want change, etc., these are the people who need our support -- and this is NOT a "right" vs. "left" political move. It rises above the political and enters into a moral duty...We have to support the Ibn Warraq's and others like him.

Posted by: J.S. at January 22, 2007 12:05 PM

Bingo, JSobiesky.
It's blind left-wing multicultural idealism vs. reality.

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at January 22, 2007 12:08 PM

"What does this have to do with 'right' or 'left'?"
--posted above.

Plenty.

The jihad is actually pathetic. It is the vanguard, in its violent manifestation or otherwise, of a corrupt, failed civilization.

On the battlefield it stands no chance in the face of free infantry backed by mammoth technical prowess. Islam produces nothing--not ideas, not art, not music, not engineering, not harvests, not technology, not philosophy--that the West (or China or India or Japan) cannot outstrip without breaking a sweat.

The only time jihad can advance is when its foe is disoriented and unsure of itself. Any civilization with an ounce of natural moral muscle tone would stiff-arm the jihad and roll back the Umma: maybe Cyprus, Constantinople and Lebanon to start with; maybe Casablanca for sentimental reasons: I love a gin joint. The deportations would already be underway.

So here we have Western Civilization, flank wide open before the jihad as practiced through immigration, victim politics, litigation and bribery. We drift along, like a great drunken lion harried by hyenas and vultures.

And who has spent the better part of a century denigrating Western civilization? Who has foisted multiculturalism-cum-ethnic-particularism on the West? Who has employed universal human failings to damn the West specifically? Who has delighted in the humiliation of America, Britain and Israel, wherever it could be found, however it could be manufactured? Who sits in the ivory tower, suppressing inquiry into jihadism while nursing a newly fashionable anti-semitism to match its loathing of Christianity? Who borrowed the notion of political correctness from exotic Soviet fellow travelers for application to the Western discourse?

Conservatives have behaved stupidly. The examples abound. I offer one (and grant a hundred more): why do not Egypt's welfare billions now immediately shift to Ethiopia?

But stupidity is different from treachery.

The Left has been engaged in bringing the West to the point of moral stupidity for a long time. And now we can't tell which way is up. And so we're vulnerable to the jihad when otherwise we'd laugh and start taking back the Mediterranean.

Islam is the common cold. The Left is HIV.

This doesn't mean that tinkering with the tax code to produce this or that outcome isn't a lovely subject for debate, or that school vouchers are the way to go.

What it does mean is that the Left weakens us where it counts in the war against jihadism. The Left denies that we are fit to survive. And for that, the Left has to answer.

Posted by: counterjihadi at January 22, 2007 12:11 PM

J.S.

Someone else, in one of the first threads on D'Souza, ascribed it to the pro-Muslim tendencies of Indian Christians, and defined them carte blanch as anti-Hindu, pro-Muslim. I haven't followed Christian opinion in India, and don't know how accurate that is, but my point above was that even if true, the similarity between that and D'Souza's views are more co-incidental than not.

I agree with your last paragraph, and it pretty much spells out the chasm that's there within all religions between pro-X, vs. anti-X. Only qualifier that I'd add is that religions that do have figureheads, be it the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Dalai Lama, do risk being branded as pro-Islamic or anti-Islamic, as the case may be, depending on the stands of these figureheads. However, that aside, there are enough Catholics, Anglicans, Mahayana Buddhists who would take a dim view of Islam, just as there are Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etc who'd do the same.

Biorabbi & Hugh

Alfonso de Albuquerque did set up the first inquisition in Goa after he had captured it from the Sultan of Bijapur. After he captured Goa, he was felicitated by the Vijayanagar ruler Krishnadeva Raya, who happened to be the main enemy of Bijapur, and formed an alliance that proved useful in shrinking the power of the Bijapur sultantate.

So while I by no means condone the persecution of Hindus in Goa, Bassein, Salsette, Daman and Diu, the Portugese arrival in the 15th century was a welcome distraction since it diverted the attention of the Sultans of Ahmadabad and Bijapur from their Jihad campaigns against Hindus. My own favorite is the Portugese negotiators at Diu gunning down the sultan of Ahmadabad Baz Bahadur after negotiations broke down and he tried swimming away from their ship where it was taking place.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 22, 2007 12:19 PM

Counterjihadi

There is a cure for AIDS. There isn't one for the common cold.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 22, 2007 12:21 PM

J.Sobieski, I agree with your description about the dominant influences on the left. Besides the PC nonsense, don’t forget that BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) has consumed the left to the extent that any criticism of our enemy “plays into Bush’s hands” in their view. However, there are individuals on the left who aren’t shackled by PC nonsense. There are moderates on the left who can and do understand.

The reason why I don’t single out the left is because the rank-and-file conservative is also influenced by a relativism of the form: “don’t criticize a religion.” It’s a disposition derived from living in a pluralistic society where religion is a private matter having more to do with personal salvation then anything else. Having only recently shed itself of anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism, the right wasn’t prepared to face an enemy in religious guise.

In my opinion the right is still holding back. Read history to get an idea of the right's attack on communism to get a sense of what a vigorous intellectual fight looks like. Or read Hugh on this venue to get an idea of an intellectual warrior in this battle. Comparing the right with the absurdity of the left is holding the bar extremely low. I know you’re on board and I'm writing this mostly for the silent readers. But we’re still in the minority.

Posted by: JasonP at January 22, 2007 1:05 PM

The radical left IS openly and knowingly mollycoddling Islamic terrorists and it's both a depressing and sickening spectacle.

This bunch is totally DETERMINED TO LET JIHADISTS OFF THE HOOK AT ALL COSTS. Then it's always America's fault. America is hopelessly to the right and the right is hopelessly full of "hate" Christian and just plain evil (to listen to them nowadays).

But the kicker is that the left is firmly associated with COmmunism which made common cause with jihadists decades ago, lionized Arafat; the French Commiunists even adopted Ayatollah Khomeini). SO THERE is where Islam and the left in the United States and other western democracies are joined. The left takes intructions from the Communists which in turn answers to the mosque leaders.

The western world's leftists have just gone over the top in their bid to stage a power play in the United States.

The Muslims in essence are trying to do to the patriots in America what the islamic Hutus did to the non-Islamic Tutsis in Rwanda in the early 1990s. "The right" is always doing bad things to destroy everyone who is good and/or Islamic....blah, blah, blah.....

It's all part of their plan to divide and conquer. Currently, the plan is to use the leftists to detroy the right and undermine America in the process (the REAL goal).

And that is how we could get stuck with a terrorist for a president like Oh, bomb us.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 22, 2007 1:20 PM

But guys: he's studied Islam for four long years. How annoying. How telling. How brash.

I've watched movies for thirty years, but I'm not sure I'm up for a dissertation of 'Faith and Kieslowski,' or 'Rommance and Bergman.' Folks have studied a topic for years, but it doesn't mandate being right. I think his attitude speaks towards a closed, insular, rigid wayy of thinking . . . "sex and school and sodomy begat The Twin Towers."

Two things can be right but not connected. It was a picture clear blue sky on 911, but does that have a sniff to do with 911 and the looming towers? I doubt it. Mr. D'Souza is just a distraction, and a bit of a weird one at that. He's an example that there are a multitude of ways to 'get it wrong.'

Posted by: biorabbi at January 22, 2007 1:40 PM

Robert's writings, designed to reveal the genuine nature of Islam, are neither left nor right. They are merely getting basic Islamic doctrinal facts down on record, making some careful observations about those facts, and then explaining the practical consequences of Islamic ideology as illustrated by historical experience, mostly as documented by Muslims themselves.

The practice of masking the truth about Islam and its history, whether through stupidity or treachery (to use the alternatives outlined by counterjihadi above), whether by the left or the right, is a huge and fundamental disability we face in mounting an effective international response to the global jihad.

By falsely citing Robert's work as decidedly "rightist," D'Sousa has done a disservice to the defense of freedom.

Posted by: Stendec at January 22, 2007 2:24 PM

I agree that on many levels the terms Left and Right (and their many permutations and modifications) can be simplistic and obfuscating labels. However, I do not subscribe to the equally simplistic view that labelling is ipso facto unhelpful. Many people put themselves into categories by their expressions and behaviors -- or even sometimes proudly wear their labels. In the end, I prefer, for example, Alexandre Del Valle's acrobatically swashbuckling use of a myriad sociopolitical labels to Hugh Fitzgerald's fastidiously rarified epistaxis-staunching aloofness to the fray.

Some choice samplings of Del Valle's prose:

the Third Worldist and anti-imperialist ideologues of the extreme left, along with other “counter-globalists”...

The Trotskyite linguist Noam Chomsky...

Drawing at the same time from the vulgate of the extreme right and from an “Islamically correct” template that is pro-Arab and Third Worldist, this new revolutionary and planetary hatred henceforth seduces the latest anti-Jewish and anti-American militants of the extreme radical right.

the Groupe de Réflexion et d'Études sur la Civilisation Européenne... one of the more influential think-tanks of the pro-Islamist European extreme right...recalls strangely the rhetoric of the Italian Red Brigades...underscoring an obsessive anti-Americanism that would not surprise the extreme left.

the denunciation of “imperialist” American wars against Iraq has become, since 1990, one of the leitmotifs of the anti-Zionist extreme right, in this position becoming linked with organizations of the extreme left.

Posted by: remote_control at January 22, 2007 4:02 PM

What I've noticed over and over again (from journalists, politicians, apologists for Islam, etc) is a misunderstanding of the nature of causation. Many times false causes are enumerated: such as the repeated claim that "poverty" is the "root cause for 9/11", or it's all about M.E. "politics" (Israel/Palestinian), or it's because Islam is an "honor" culture based on shame, not guilt, and so on. Some in the media world simply claim (as I've heard on the CBC) that they are entirely uninterested in discovering causes. Others put forward nebulous, spurious causes. But nearly all fail to identify as a causation for all the problems the West currently has with Islam (from jihadist terrorist activities to instituting Sharia law) the religion of Islam itself.

I came across the following in the text: "Informal logic: possible worlds and imagination" by John Nolt (he discusses general causes): "If x and y are general types of events, we'll say that x causes y if an occurrence of x always produces, is needed to produce, or tends to produce an occurrence of y. If x always produces y, then x is a causally sufficient condition for y. Complete incineration, for example, is causally sufficient for death. If x is needed to produce y, then x is a causally necessary condition for y. Fuel is causally necessary for fire. If x tends to produce y (i.e., produces y under certain conditions), then x is a partial cause, or contributory cause, of y."

Nolt goes on to note that by controlling causally necessary conditions, "we can forestall the phenomenon for which they are necessary. They are the keys to prevention." On the other hand, the control of partial causes, "assures us of neither prevention nor [the control of] production."

Thus, so long as much of the world fails to acknowledge the true causes of terrorism, or continues to delude itself with false causes, we will continue to experience it.

Posted by: J.S. at January 22, 2007 4:05 PM

'Pythagoras' wrote:

"But the kicker is that the left is firmly associated with COmmunism which made common cause with jihadists decades ago, lionized Arafat; the French Commiunists even adopted Ayatollah Khomeini). SO THERE is where Islam and the left in the United States and other western democracies are joined. The left takes intructions from the Communists which in turn answers to the mosque leaders."

I think it's worth pointing out here that the Soviet Union backed the secular government in Afghanistan, while the right-wing conservative cold warriors in America gave financial and military help to the Islamist Mujahadeen rebels, who included Osama Bin Laden himself.

Posted by: schmegel at January 22, 2007 4:47 PM

Good piece here, it really shows well an example of 'conservative dhimmiitis'...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
HAPPY NEW YEAR Infidels

ignore the threat of Jihad
just keep sleeping like sheep
.

Posted by: USpace at January 22, 2007 5:47 PM

It's not a right-wing or left-wing issue. Period. I'm a life-long libertarian-conservative, but I wish that even 10% of my fellow conservatives could think and write as clearly as this European left-wing socialist:

http://www.sappho.dk/Den%20loebende/freespeech.html

Posted by: Infidel33 at January 22, 2007 6:25 PM

I think we all agree that anti-Jihad is not a left or right issue, but political correctness does impact the ability of a person to acknowledge and then confront jihad. Conservatives do have a particularlized PC sense with respect to religion---I freely admit that I never questioned the "religion of peace" crap until about 7 months ago.

Posted by: JSobieski at January 22, 2007 7:40 PM

About two years ago, a poll taken of the Republican Party's rank-and-file (which is dominated by social conservatives) produced some stunning results: More of them cared about stopping abortion . . . than
about stopping Islamic terrorism.

Posted by: Steven

Why should these results be so stunning? The number of Americans killed by islamic terrorists is pretty puny compared to the numbers of those aborted -- averaging over 1 million/year for the last 30-odd years. Even compared to old-fashuoned, garden-variety homicide -- ca. 18 thousand/year -- the terrorists' efforts don't amount to much. At current rates, an American conceived today has: less than 2 chances in a million of having his (her) life ended by an islamic terrorist, about 60 chances in a million of being killed in a regular criminal homicide, and 200,000 chances in a million of being aborted.
Also note that if those aborted had been allowed to live, there would have been much less need for immigration, and so the number of moslem immigrants would have been far less, and present far less of a problem.
Another point. The war on terrorism is not the same as the war with islamic aggression. Terrorism is only one tool of the islamicists, and not the most important one. Another is financial, using our oil dependency to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars per year to the islamic world. which then uses some of this wealth to fund a massive propaganda effort against us. But the big gun is demographics. Here the U.S. is not (yet) as badly off as many European countries, where the indigenous birth-rate is already below repacement levels; at least our growth-rate is still positive, tho only barely. If we keep aborting at the rate of 1 million/yr, and keep allowing immigration
(much of it from islamic countries) at about the same rate, then we don't have long to last. Islam wins, without the terrorists needing to fire one shot.

Posted by: ebonystone at January 22, 2007 7:40 PM

I read the "European left-wing socialist" and I recalled having read once that it's SCIENCE that will spell the end of the Islamists...(ie, not all knowledge is "cultural" -- not everything is a "cultural artifact" -- thus, there are certain "truths" which cannot be refuted...including mathematical ones...2 + 2 = 4)

I also came across an article (titled: "Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic vs Analytic Cognition.") The authors compared Greeks vs Chinese cognitive patterns. The Greeks constructed causal models (logical systems, etc.), whereas the Chinese placed far less value on individual autonomy, instead valuing "in-group harmony." I also recall that the Chinese (pre-modern) were very much opposed to creating actual models of the universe (like blasphemy -- a scaled-down model or replica of the "real world", would disrupt the holistic universe, dividing it up, disrupting harmonious energy flows). Some have alleged that this abhorrence to model creation is what stymied Chinese scientific development. I've often thought that perhaps something similar (that these cultural artifacts/values, modes of thinking -- a holistic, non-analytic way of thinking -- plus valuing authority, emphasis on deference and "unity") is what stultifies the Islamic world.

Posted by: J.S. at January 22, 2007 8:57 PM

Another oddity (btw), I'll be brief...I've wondered why so many of the jihadist terrorists were educated in the faculties of science...Isn't that odd? A radical religious belief mixed with science (engineering, computer science, physicians, etc.)...Are they subliminally aware of something which enrages them? Do you subconsciously recognize that the religion they adhere to (and cannot leave) is a bunch of bunk -- but they can't acknowledge that (even to themselves), thus they become inwardly enraged (and all the more fanatical...) While a westerner would drop the religion, the Islamist grasps it all the more tightly.

Posted by: J.S. at January 22, 2007 9:09 PM

The success or failure in the struggle against Islamo-fascism may be inexorably linked to the Left-Right schism in the West, but in a manner completely unrelated to D'Souza's theory. The hatred (or lack-of) of Muslims towards Christians/Jews is hardly based on the degree of fidelity we display towards our own traditions; it is based solely upon our willingness to acquiesce to their hegemonic aspirations.

The proof of the pudding is the willingness of European Muslims to embrace the European Left...going so far as electoral alliances (e.g., 'Respect' in Britain).

The responsibility of the Left in furthering the cause of Jihad is not in their liscentious agenda, but in their passivity in facing the Islamic challenge.

---------------------------------------------------

JS - All the professional guildes in Egypt - Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers - are controlled by elected Islamist leaderships. The notion that a lack of education is a leading cause of Muslim extremism is as vaccuous as the poverty canard.

Posted by: Cornelius at January 22, 2007 10:13 PM

Hugh, I do not disagree with what you’ve written, although you’ve written nothing that has not been said on JW on many occasions. Nonetheless, it is worth repeating.
Notwithstanding my concurrence with much of your sentiments, I would like to point out that you have omitted a great deal. Lets start with discussing those who are nearly the only voices criticizing Islam today: The messianic forces inside of the right wing of the US. Unfortunately, they tend to be the ones most concerned with issues involving Islam. You know the ones. The same ones that hate me for being gay and spew their garbage about abortion and stem cells all over our society. For example, notice Ted Haggard, the former (and grotesquely hypocritical) leader of the mega-church in Colorado who told Professor Dawkins that the biggest threat to Europe today is Islamisation. Islamisation of Europe? Moslems are growing due to immigration and because of high child rates, not because they are Islamising the society. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but it is a distinction.

I contend that religion in general is dangerous. After all, if one believes in a man god (or has other such outlandish beliefs) what is to stop someone from believing that the man-god in question was merely the “second” prophet, and that, one must believe in a third? An atheist is not a good potential recruit for a Moslem, but a Xian is.

We have been down this road before I have conceded that Islam is arguably far more dangerous than Christianity to a society (and to humanity), but I go further by mentioning what Dawkins is saying: that both are forces of darkness with respect to knowledge. Both oppose science, albeit to varying degrees.

Oh and by the way, since we are talking about “right” and “left” issues, I would like to mention that I recently attended a lecture by a notable Jewish Frenchman at a local university discussing frightening levels of anti-Semitism (by the “left” as well) in Europe. His contention was that American Jews had created any unholy alliance by allying themselves with the Messianic fools (those who await with anticipation the coming of the “lord” followed by the mass conversion of the wrong minded Jews) . What Jews have done by this alliance with radical Christians is allow the far left and Islamists to de-legitimize the creation of Isreal by pointing out that Jews are ne0-cons. Moreover, the state of Israel is increasingly being seen by the far left in Europe (and by leftists in the US) as being the aggressor. The fact that Bush has so vehemently attacked all of the same things that D’Souza criticizes (like the Islamists) makes the left even less comfortable of criticizing Moslems. Instead, they see allies of convenience to destroy the dreaded neo-cons. Its all a big shame that Bush chose to push his radical agenda instead of focusing on the war and the economy. Now the leftists conflate criticism of Islam with Bush. Great job. Those of us who think objectively dislike the entire situation.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 22, 2007 10:19 PM

Remember the old classic Twilight Zone episode "The Martians Are Due on Maple Street". Strange and terrifying things happened to a peaceful neighborhood and everyone suspected each other of having something to do with it. In the end, everybody's house got destroyed, and the martians looked on, marvelling at how the puny humans did the job for them. Osama bin Landen (if he's alive), Zawahiri and the rest of al-Qaeda is paying attention to the sharp divisions that have come about after 9/11, and became worse after the 2004 election.

Some people consider me to be Radical Left.
Some people consider me to be Radical Right

posted by Mother Ecclesiastica

Some people call me Maurice

Posted by: wrathofasma at January 22, 2007 10:31 PM

"The Muslims in essence are trying to do to the patriots in America what the islamic Hutus did to the non-Islamic Tutsis in Rwanda in the early 1990s." (Quote)

Were/are the Rwanda Hutus Muslim? I thought both Tutsuis and Hutus were mostly Catholic, due to the French colonization. (I remember reading about how many of them hid in churches during the massacres, thinking that they would be safe as no-one would profane a church by committing murder in it - tragically wrong, as it turned out.)

Can someone enlighten me on this?

Posted by: angloirishslav at January 22, 2007 11:19 PM

"Hugh, I do not disagree with what you’ve written, although you’ve written nothing that has not been said on JW on many occasions."
-- from a posting above

?

Posted by: Hugh at January 22, 2007 11:22 PM

A couple of responses to Kafir the Unbeliever's comments:

It's not true that the only criticism of Islam is coming from right-wing Christians, but they have certainly been the most vocal.

"notice Ted Haggard, the former (and grotesquely hypocritical) leader of the mega-church in Colorado who told Professor Dawkins that the biggest threat to Europe today is Islamisation. Islamisation of Europe? Moslems are growing due to immigration and because of high child rates, not because they are Islamising the society. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but it is a distinction."

In fact, many middle-of-the road and left-of-centre writers, or atheists, or gays, you name it, in other words people who are no friends of the Christian Right have been saying the same thing about Europe for years. Read Oriana Fallaci, Bruce Bawer, Pierre-Andre Taguieff. Europe IS being "Islamized" not just through immigration and higher birthrates, but also through the refusal and/or failure of large Muslim populations to integrate and adapt to European ways and the failure of Europeans to make them do so. One of the results is a shocking rise in open anti-Semitism throughout Europe, most of which now wears a distinctly Islamic face. Muslims throughout Europe are demanding, and usually getting, all kinds of preferential treatment, such as government grants to build huge mosques, state-run all-Muslim schools with only Muslim teachers, special work or school exemptions because of Muslim holidays, the list goes on... girls are being sent back to their homelands to be forced to marry complete strangers, children are shipped back to the homeland to attend Muslim schools while their parents continue to collect state child benefits in Europe. Anyone who denies what's happening must have one's head buried completely in the sand. And yet, I cringe when I hear the likes of Ted Haggard complaining about the Islamication of Europe, even though I know it's true. Why is that? Because his reasons for disliking it are radically different from mine. Right-wing Christians like him would not give a damn if a radical, intolerant brand of Christianity was taking over Europe. They see what's happening in Europe as an attack on Christianity; I see it as an attack on secularism, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, education, women's rights, everything I personally value about European culture (and by extension, American and Canadian culture too.) In the same way, people like him support Israel only because they need it to fulfill some lunatic apocalyptic vision of the future (in which all the Jews are wiped out anyway), whereas I support it because for all its faults it is a functioning Western-style democracy that respects the rights of women and minorities. So we cannot let people like him speak for us. The only solutiion is to scream even louder, but too many of us are still too afraid to do so.

Posted by: angloirishslav at January 22, 2007 11:39 PM

I agree with the statement: "The notion that a lack of education is a leading cause of Muslim extremism is as vaccuous as the poverty canard." Might also add that this is where Dawkins fails. What has been true in Europe (that is, that the scientific revolution brought about an enlightenment and an overthrow of religious authority -- this doesn't seem to be occurring with islam -- at least, not yet...I think this issue requires further exploration...)

to the person who asked: "were the Rwanda Hutus Muslim?" The answer is "no, they were Christian." Both tribes were of the same religion...but their differences were exacerbated by the missionaries (the missionaries demonized one group and claimed the other to be "angelic").

Posted by: J.S. at January 23, 2007 12:40 AM

Hugh has recommended that we take advantage of the Sunni-Shi'ite schism, and allow those divisions to weaken the jihad. Instead, we use our own Left-Right schism to weaken ourselves. To the majority (?) of citizens who are not yet conscious of the jihad, maybe the Left-Right distinction seems paramount. But what excuse can there be for those faithful readers of JW/DW who continue to divide and separate and blame?

Hugh said

Recently some convert to Islam [...] described me to Robert as a "Christian fascist." When Robert corrected at least the epithet, and explained that I was an atheist, the revert-ranter seemed genuinely confused

Just as the political beliefs of the anti-jihadist are irrelevant, so is their religious affiliation, if any. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, we're all just kaffirs to any observant Muslim, according to their own core religious documents. Whatever internal bickering takes place amongst all the non-Muslims is just wasted energy. Whatever historic divisions can be exploited by the jihadists and their apologists, will be.

Posted by: special_guest at January 23, 2007 1:05 AM

special_guest

Fully agree, which is why I think that the exercise above by Kafir Nonbeliever and angloirishslav is really hair-splitting. For instance, there are

1. Christian clergy who want to open up to all - Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Confucians, but also to Muslims;
   
2. Christian fundamentalist clergy who are anti-Islamic, but also anti-every-other-faith-except-Judaism.
   

I pick (2) - I want my enemies opposed, not invited to the same party as me. At this juncture, I put on the backburner whether or not people like me, loathe me, want to convert me... All I care is that they confront my enemy. Once a day comes when the enemy is defeated, we can get back to hating each other, if that's the case.

It is instructive to see how the divide plays out in the ummah. There, they too have the Jihad Express fanatics, like the Wahabis in KSA, the Ikhwan in Egypt, Jordan and Syria, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Hamas in PA, Mahdi (al Sadr) in Iraq, MMA in Pakistan, Taliban in Afghanistan, et al, while they also have slow Jihadis in all of the above countries, including Left wing parties which, like the Baathists, like to harvest non-Muslim support... Regardless, one thing that unites them is their hatred not just for the US and the West, but also for other Infidel countries (e.g. India in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Australia in Indonesia, Armenia in Turkey) And while they may be diverse in their views on other things, such as how Islamic they need to be, or whether they should be Sunni, Wahabi, Shia, Alawite,... they are definitely united in how they view all Infidel countries.

The one thing that we in bilad ul Kafir could learn from them.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 23, 2007 1:53 AM

Infidel Pride, I agree with you. But there has to be a #3. There just has to be. We cannot be forced to choose between Noam Chomsky and David Duke; neither is acceptable.

Posted by: special_guest at January 23, 2007 2:22 AM

Pythagoras' wrote:

"But the kicker is that the left is firmly associated with COmmunism which made common cause with jihadists decades ago, lionized Arafat; the French Commiunists even adopted Ayatollah Khomeini). SO THERE is where Islam and the left in the United States and other western democracies are joined. The left takes intructions from the Communists which in turn answers to the mosque leaders."

I think it's worth pointing out here that the Soviet Union backed the secular government in Afghanistan, while the right-wing conservative cold warriors in America gave financial and military help to the Islamist Mujahadeen rebels, who included Osama Bin Laden himself.

Posted by: schmegel at January 22, 2007 04:47 PM

Yes, schmegel, you're right. The US, in its desire to rid Afghanistan of a very totalitarian Communist regime that held on to power with a lot of military support from the USSR that included raining down exploding plastic butterflies on the civilian population, lent support to the Islamists whose ranks included OBL. But their purpose in so doing was not to promote Islamic fundamentalism, the fascistic nature of which was not well appreciated back then. It was just to rid the country of Communist domination. So, shut up about that.

What is upsetting is the continued failure to call a spade a spade and stop paying the jizya to Pakistan and Egypt, and the insanity of the ISG's recommendation that we engage Iran and Syria in the cause of ending sectarian violence in Iraq, as those very states are responsible for providing the fuel for the sectarian violence.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at January 23, 2007 8:00 AM

I agree with point 2 of InfidelPride's remarks -- we have to stop the D'Souza's of the world from molly-coddling Islamists and wanna-be jihadists.

In the West a heavy dose of Dawkins could be therapeutic -- not for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus etc -- but for Muslim immigrants...they should be required to swear an oath of atheism (or spit on the koran, etc.) prior to allowing them to live here. That's what's needed -- but will never be openly said. (What annoys me about Dawkins is that his prescription is applied to the wrong people -- like a medicinal -- a healthy dose of atheism should be applied with discretion, and only to those most adversely affected by the delusional, demonic, death-deity veneration cult AKA Islam.

Posted by: J.S. at January 23, 2007 11:15 AM

It's important to put Mr. D'Souza's arguments in a more general perspective.
Whilst talking of right and left, he is in effect being intolerent of the views of others. however the people who are warning us of what is going on in the world are being called Islamophobic for exposing what is coming upon us...it is not intolerant to warn of what the Quran says about what is intended for the infidel...

Good on the right,, thank goodness there are still some people who have the brains to warn the world of the fact that there is non-stop world wide muslim violence going on under our noses and the media wont print 80% of it... World wide there are tens of thousands of people being slaughtered every year by Muslims,...so,,, come on the people who keep things quite should executed for treason... we are heading for the slaughter house and people like D'Souza play sweet music so as we cannot hear the screaming...
Centuries ago a person would run or ride many miles to warn of the coming dangers, and he would be rewarded, but now days we shoot the messenger.

Posted by: Gaye at January 23, 2007 11:31 AM

"Hugh Fitzgerald, a Christian fascist? No! He's not a Christian he's an atheist."

LOL

Hey atheistic fascists could be good guys. How much trouble could someone like that cause? Couldn't be as bad as Bush.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at January 23, 2007 3:21 PM

"atheistic fascists"?? tch, tch, tch. Actually our national newspaper here in Canada refers to Dawkins as one of several "atheistic jihadis." yeah, now that makes so much sense -- just lump in the atheists alongside the Muslim fanatics.

When was the last time anyone heard Dawkins screaming for the murder (and/or the assault) upon the *real* jihadists? But I guess according to our local paper, everyone is entitled to the use of extremist rhetoric, except, of course, when non-Muslims (especially atheists, homosexuals, women, etc) attempt to defend themselves.

Posted by: J.S. at January 23, 2007 7:25 PM

Maybe the atheists could post snuff clips (like the jihadists do) to celebrate the non-existence of a demonic deity. They could tear to shreds (with their teeth) stuffed teddy bears or something...while hollering, Anti-Allahu Anti-akbar!

Posted by: J.S. at January 23, 2007 8:02 PM

"to the person who asked: "were the Rwanda Hutus Muslim?" The answer is "no, they were Christian." Both tribes were of the same religion...but their differences were exacerbated by the missionaries (the missionaries demonized one group and claimed the other to be "angelic"). Posted by: J.S.

Thanks, J.S. - I thought I smelled something fishy there. The original comment is as follows:

"The Muslims in essence are trying to do to the patriots in America what the islamic Hutus did to the non-Islamic Tutsis in Rwanda in the early 1990s." Posted by: pythagoras

This is precisely the kind of misinformed bigotry we DON'T need.

Posted by: angloirishslav at January 23, 2007 10:13 PM

The Rwandan massacres, while not directly relevant to Islam, nevertheless point to a peripherally related dynamic that is quite relevant to the Problem of Islam and the bigger Problem of PC that gets in the way of any rational analysis and action with respect to the Problem of Islam:

The way most people in the West react to the Rwandan massacres is not the way they would react if those massacres occurred among white Westerners in a white Western land, where the ethical indignation, shock and condemnation of the perpetrators would be lucid and electric, and action taken against them would be unremarkably swift. No, because those massacres were one black African people against another black African people, most Westerners, deformed by PC Multuculturalism, look on the horrible event as though they were looking at a terrible natural tragedy of two species of sadly beautiful animals on the savannah, driven to turn against each other by various external causes: perhaps natural climactic changes, or perhaps things that white colonialists and traders had done to upset the delicate ecological balance. The actual perpetrators are not regarded as actual human ethical actors, morally responsible for their actions which, when gruesome and evil, would logically and immediately arouse our utter condemnation and disgust not only at the actors, but at their societies and cultures.

No, such condemnation and disgust would be, in the PC Multiculturalist way of looking at things, strange: were we to see lions go on an unusual rampage and kill a herd of gazelle, we wouldn't "condemn" the lions, much less would we be "disgusted" with them and their ways. It's just part of Nature, even if the balance of Nature was temporarily out of kilter for reasons probably due to human "interference". Thus, in PC Multiculturalism, there is a crypto-racism lurking that does not raise up Third World peoples to the level of white Western man and call them to account when they do evil, nor call their culture to account when systemic evils become manifest (for, it is only white Western man who is to be condemned for his evils, and his societies and culture condemned when those evils seem to become systemic). And, as Muslims are the poster children for Third World peoples, this crypto-racism -- incoherently connected to an anti-Western anti-racism -- becomes very relevant.

Posted by: remote_control at January 24, 2007 12:55 PM

Remote

Good observations. Note also, that the PC Multicultural crowds, which generally are opposed tooth and nail to the US being the world's cops when it comes to Iraq, want the US to be in Darfur, Rwanda, Burundi... the world's cops.

Also, you could contrast the Western reactions to the Rwanda massacres in the 90's with Western reaction to the Bosnian war in the same period. There was one set of standards for the Serbs, while since the Bosnian Muslims were the same race as the Serbs and race couldn't possibly be a determinant in picking sides, they went for the next best criteria and picked Muslims over the Christians.

Also note that the EU - that glowing model for the US Left - which never ceases to lecture the US about how we should intervene in Darfur - just let this Bosnian war go on. It wasn't until BJ needed a diversion from the impeachment trial that the EU (under the NATO umbrella) took up the attacks on Serbia - and that too a violation of the NATO charter, which was purely a defensive alliance to which Bosnia didn't belong.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 24, 2007 4:25 PM

remote control:

The 1994 Rwandan massacres DID involve Islam and al-Qaeda.

The first red flag: the Hutus have been converting to Islam over the past few decades and are about 40% Islamic presently. (Anywhere there are mosques there is danger of genociude against the unbelievers, I am sure you will agree with me).

Second red flag: The Rwanda military was headed by Muslims, some of whom according to US intelleigence reports were al-Qaeda jihad operatives from Pakistan and Somalia (both hotbeds of global jihad). It was the rwandan military that performed most of the killing.

The third red flag:the Rwandan president was killed when his plane was shot down by a stinger missile that had been fired upon by an Algerian al-Qaeda operative. The killings in Rwanda only began AFTER the execution of this official.

The fourth red flag: Tutsi tribespeople were slaughtered inside churches; more of these people may have been murdered in churches than ouside of them. Such lack of respect could possibly belie the hand of Islam in these mass murders.

the fifth red flag: Christians generally do not beleive in killing in self-defense. Very rarely if ever do we see Christianized people employing such ruthless violence. This whole episode feels Islamic in character; and a smentioned many Tutsis HAD converted to Islam by 1994.

There are three other points to consider.

At the time of the Rwandan genocide (1994), Ousamah bin Laden and the worldwide al-Qaeda headquarters were located in Sudan, which is only one country removed from Rwanda.

The techniques of brainwashing the Hutus used to destroy the Tutsis were extremely sophisticated. Almost certainly the techniques of brainwashing used were sophisticated beyond the scope of a tribal society where the majority of citizens coulds barely read and write. There had to have been an outside influence.

The same would apply to the Hutus' capacity to kill nearly 2 million people in the space of a few monthts. Killing two million people is not an easy thing to acomplish; especially among tribespeople.

I doubt the US military killed more than 2 million in the first ten years of the Vietnam War. There was probably sophisticated military and intelligence tactics employed against the Tutsi people.

Killing two million people (in about 2 to 3 monthh)without massive military technology requires sophistication that is probably beyond the scope of these people.

The Middle east and al-qaeda could easily provided it covertly through Sudan's al-Qaeda base.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 25, 2007 10:29 PM

pythagoras, I'd like to see any links about this; I could not find much about anything Islamic in the Rwandan episode.

As for your red flag #5: "the fifth red flag: Christians generally do not beleive in killing in self-defense. Very rarely if ever do we see Christianized people employing such ruthless violence. This whole episode feels Islamic in character; and a smentioned many Tutsis HAD converted to Islam by 1994."

I believe you are being PC here, and ignoring the fact that for the most part, black Africans whether Muslim or non-Muslim tend to be extremely regressive and have horribly dysfunctional societies with lots of violence. Non-Muslim black Africans may be better than Muslims, but they are still much, much worse than Western Europeans and North Americans.

Posted by: remote_control at January 25, 2007 10:58 PM

remote control:

There's no way I am being "PC"! (Not that it could happen in a million years with me anyway--I have a VERY strong allergy to 'PC'!!!).

The last time I checked, Christianity OUTLAWS killing for any reason other than self-defense per the Ten Commandments of the Old testament. (Even the notorious section "eye for an eye" verse in the Old testament is essentially a self-defense mechanism--functioning as a warning to other tribes of the time that they will suffer the same losses they incur on other tribes, which in effect is the principle that the 'Mutually Assured Detruction' concept we know of today is based on).

Violent as African tribes may very clearly be, for MILLIONS of tribespeople to be slaughtered in a matter of weeks is likely to be an aberration. Africans still appear to be traumatized by Rwanda's horror all these years later. The magnitude of this episode appears to be aberrant even by African tribal standards (it would not have left the psycho-social scars it did if it had been business).

I might remind you that many African dictators HAVE been Muslim--Idi Amin Dada was a Muslim for example. Altnough Charles Taylor was not, he made Common Cause with Islam and conspired with al-qaeda in his corner of west Africa.

There is no question of outside involvement in Rwanda's nightmare, with the current President of Rwanda now threatening to take the government of France to the international Criminal Court for its alleged part in the genocide.

I doubt the US military would even have been able to kill 2 million people in twelve weeks armed mainly with machetes. If the US military couldn't do it I doubt Tutsis tribespeople by themselves could have either.

Christians believing what they have been taught in the Bible abide by the ten Commandments. This is not optional. And that means Christians may NOT do what the Tutsis did in Rwanda to the Hutus. And that is why REAL Christians do not engage in genocidal conduct--it is inherently anti-Christian. Perhaps sub-saharan Africans will in time generally come to practice Christianity as it is intended, instead of merely adopting it and using it as tribal ornamentation in a similar vein to that of wearing a shrunken head.

As far as websites concerning the Islamic link to the Rwanda genocide of 1994 go, it has been about three years since the last time I accessed any relevant websites so they may not all be left on the internet (websites of course get removed periodically from the internet for various reasons).

But keep looking if you are interested. And rest assured, Islam has been alive and well in Rwanda and the CIA has had it eye on it there as well.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 26, 2007 1:30 PM