Anyone who frequents anti-jihad sites has become familiar with the kerfuffle about a new book and its author, Dinesh D'Souza and The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. Thusfar, the flap comes from those on the generally "conservative" axis, instead of the book's targeted "liberal" axis.
Despite the many writers exposing this book as a travesty, none deal with something more fundamental than the book's factual errors and absurd assertions. We have not read the book, nor will we. The author has appeared multiple times on television and in print interviews, it is from these that we draw principally, and occasionally from rebuttal pieces.
D'Souza has made himself abundantly clear that he is taking the "Ralph Peters approach" to Islam, its manifestations, and its followers. Thus, D'Souza is "going Peters," by charging off the cliffs of reality and reason, onto the rocks of ignorance, evasion, and agenda-following.
Over the past 6 months, columnist Ralph Peters has distinguished himself by attacking publications like Jihad Watch for their approach to Islam and American Muslims in particular, considering these approaches to be bigoted, inflammatory, and alienating. Peters has made preposterous statements, including attacking scholars of "Eurabia," the assimilation of Europe into Islam. Peter asserts that they are writing about something which does not exist.
Prior to such columns, an increasing number of people were paying attention to Ralph Peters, who seemed to a realistic grasp about military matters, such as what to do in Iraq and how the Israelis blew their opportunity to rid Lebanon and the world of Hezbollah. A number of us no longer take anything Peters writes at face value because of his errors regarding Islam: If he can be so wrong about something so easy to learn about, then we have every reason to raise doubts about his military "expertise" as well.
Dinesh D'Souza must have learned about Islam at the same academy as Peters. His facts, assertions, and conclusions about Islam and America reflect uncannily similar thinking, and he seems undeterred by ignorance about his subject matter. Astonishingly, he blames the events of 11 September 2001 directly on left-wing American intellectuals, while exonerating Islam, Muslims, and their bloody 1400 year history. At the same time, he launches an attack on his fellow right-wing conservatives for their being so critical of Islam and Muslims.
"Conservatives" hard on Islam? Who? Where? When? How? These are the "Islam is a religion of peace" crowd who avoid criticizing Islam because it is a religion. They are the crowd who creates the straw man of a "tiny minority of Muslim extremists who have perverted, distorted, and hijacked the great religion of Islam." Has D'Souza not heard of the King of Dhimmi Conservatives, George W. Bush?
However, Peters and D'Souza are merely the vanguard ffor what will be coming from religious zealots from the Right, however. Their behavior tells a story not being told by those dwelling solely on the factual misstatements made by each. Peters and D'Souza are the outer edge of a non-islamic, religious zealot tsunami forming to silence those who will be getting close to the truth about Islam.
Trouble from those on the Right will emerge stronger and stronger the closer Americans come to correctly identifying and speaking openly about the real meaning and manifestations of Islam and Muslims. Why is because those beginning to grasp the truth about Islam will be threatening the entire intellectual and moral foundation of these religious zealots on the American Right. They already sense and fear that questions people ask about Islam will sooner or later be asked of other religions. This segment of the Right has a strong, vested interest in trying to get people to believe that their religions are superior to Islam.
However, no religion of any kind is an antidote to Islam.
This large faction insists that America is a "Judeo-Christian nation," that the Constitution derives from the Ten Commandments, and that separation of church and state is immoral--religion is everything. They want to outlaw anything that challenges and otherwise gets in the way of their fusing church and state, and they will want to do much worse. Their mindset follows that bumper-sticker saying: "God said it. I believe it. And, that's that!" (Note their similarity to Islamists in this regard). They want people to believe that they subordinate their religion to the Constitution, but everything that they say and do says otherwise.
To defeat Islam definitively, the death blow must go to the very heart of Islam, where very few seem to want to go right now.
Right now, almost all of the warriors against jihad fight on the factual rebuttal front and no other. They attack the assertions and errors offered by Islamists and those who think and act like D'Souza and Peters. Facts, absolutely important, are not the vital center of Islam. No amount of arguing about the facts (however scholarly and authentically important) about Islam will ever finish off Islam because facts per se are not philosophical fundamentals. The only kind of effective invalidation that will have real staying power and effectiveness must confront Islam at the level of its postulated "great truths." For example, if only one of these fundamental pillars on which Islam stands can be invalidated, then all of Islam will begin to crumble. Then, all the koranic quotes and citations from the Sunna, the Ahadith, and mighty schools of Islamic "jurisprudence" will finish the job.
Here is an illustration (and there are many more where this comes from):
Islam insists that it exists by way of revelation from an omnipotent, omniscient, infallible superpower deity of the universe which they call "Allah." It also states that Allah causes all entities and events in the universe, which he does by sheer act of (conscious) will. However, Allah is unknowable to humans by any means whatsoever. To establish the world of humans he wanted, he "revealed" his words (thought, wishes) to a mortal named Muhammad via visitations by a supernatural entity known as the angel Gabriel. The words revealed became known as the koran, Muhammad as the final prophet, and these rules known as Islam.
That summary captures THE fundamentals of Islam. The base on which all of Islam stands is the concept of "Allah." If Allah is real, then Islam is real; if not, then Islam is bogus. Islamists threaten death to any Muslims who ask any questions about the foregoing, so none get asked. Let us, however, ask just one fundamental question: What is the evidence--any evidence--for the existence of Allah?
Islamists will cite the unknowability of Allah in order to avoid answering the call for evidence, but they cannot answer how they know about Allah who is "unknowable." Some try to close off discussion by saying that if Allah had wanted people to have evidence, then Allah would have provided it. In fact, not one person--past, present, or future--can offer so much as one tiny piece of fact supporting the existence of Allah.
(And this is just one of many other invalidations of Allah).
It is no great leap of intellect to know that anything whatsoever that does exist can be documented by evidence. No evidence = no existence.
That should end the argument, but it never does, because Islamists retreat into "faith," i.e., that which allegedly exists despite no evidence for its existence. Faither asserts that Allah exists because one can "feel' it to be so. Faith is solely "feeling," completely divorced from reality and facts--it is the retreat into mysticism.
In summary, there is nothing to support the claim of Allah because there is no Allah, never has been, and never will be. No Allah means no Islam. Muslims who adhere to Islam are merely living a lie, living a strictly human creation, and are calling it "Islam."
{For more information, see our numerous foundation articles about the bases of Islam on our website, 6th Column Against Jihad [especially Basics of Islam (I, II, and III; Lies of Islam: Islamic Deception Practices) ; Why Islam Is Untrue. The Real Reasons and; the series Fundamental Ideas Needed to Create Muslims].}
That brings us back to D'Souza and Peters.
Both men are religionists of the conservative type. Both men are intelligent. Both can sense that an attack on fundamentals of Islam will lead some people at least to examine other religions using the same questions. Both sense that no religion can stand such scrutiny and still exist, which is why faith or some similar mysticism is pushed in all religions. Islam is more direct by beheading questioners, but other religions resort to faith to shut off all inquiry before it can begin.
Thus, both men attack those hot to expose Islam. This is why the American Right, to the extent that it holds religion as raison d'etre for life, is as deadly dangerous as any of the so-called "secular Left." This is why the fight from the Right will be bloodier and bitterer than any posed from the Left. This is why two obviously intelligent men will make utterly absurd statements about Islam and against those who want to expose the truth about Islam.
Beware of American conservatives. Those of the "compassionate conservatism" and "neoconservative" ilk are not the supporters of rights and freedoms any more than are the anti-American Left. They want to fuse religion and state in the same way as Islam does. They just don't want you to know it, yet.
George,
Must be quite a kerfluffle. Today's WaPo contained an essay by D'Souza. You can read it here.
Posted by: Always On Watch | Sunday, 28 January 2007 at 17:16
AOW,
The man is spinning now a la WaPo. What I find so interesting is his growing list of fellow travelers, including Peters: Fukiyama; Lowry and the NRO. Watch for more.
What D'Souza might have done that really is of value is to precipitate clarity out of the right wing goo. The mish-mashy moderates might be standing out now from those who understand and fearless declare the truth concerning Islam. D'Souza sounds like that awful Libertarian Party that also blamed 9/11 on our foreign policy rather than the actual perpetrators. [For the record, our foreign policy stinks, and I am not exonerating it. However, if someone in my neighborhood attacks my property, I do not blame it on my county government.]
Watch for who takes which sides now.
Posted by: GM | Monday, 29 January 2007 at 08:56
George, there are those in almost every camp that pins the blame for Islamic attacks on their favor complaint. I have a running list.
1. Libertarians say our interventionist foreign policy is at fault.
2. Socialists say globalization and free trade are the cause.
3. Anti-Semites … I mean anti-Zionists … tell me it is Israel.
4. Others say it is our support for dictators in the region.
5. Or our support for democracy by those evil neocons.
6. Free traders say it is the welfare state (attacks in France)
7. Social conservatives (D’Souza) say it’s our lewd behavior.
8. Anti-religious say it is Christian proselytizing or its legacy.
9. Some blame the legacy of European totalitarianism.
10. Don't forget poverty presumably because we don't share!
But God forbid we say they are to blame.
Posted by: JasonP | Monday, 29 January 2007 at 11:36
I emailed Newt Gingrich recently because I just could not stand his persistence in calling it 'radical islam.' If you can't say Islam, say jihadists. Romney does, sounds better.
The left is completely suicidal, and most of the right are offtrack. Bush is a terrible president because it will take years to get this fight for our lives back on track.
Posted by: John Sobieski | Tuesday, 30 January 2007 at 16:12
Jason,
Your running list is "spot on." May I use it (with credit to you, of course)?
Posted by: GM | Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 08:39
John,
Except for the apologizing apologists, all the Islamists call it simply "Islam." They ought to know, and they do. Newt has not caught the train yet, so to speak.
As for the "suicidal," that word brings chills to me because I think about it so often when I see the news. The most glaring recent example concerns those two Border Patrol agents now in prison. Congressman Rohrabacher spelled it all out on Fox News this morning about how OUR government persecuted these men while rewarding and exonerating a chronic criminal. That criminal is now suing the USA for $5 million. Can we last through this "suicide-ism"? It is everywhere.
Bush has damaged this country more than Carter and Clinton, two for whom I have nothing good to say. Maybe our great-grandchildren will be able to get things straightenout, or least by their lifetimes.
Posted by: GM | Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 08:46
Please do! I posted them in a few comments section but haven't used them in a post.
One of the aspects of Islam that people miss is the need to blame the victim as part of the humiliation process. This is to re-affirm Islamic supremacy and inculcate a dhimmi mentality. It doesn’t matter if there are items on the list might be policies that one would want to change in any case. That’s totally irrelevant. The enemy looks for vulnerability and they study our culture or by trial and error see where we have self-doubt.
Posted by: JasonP | Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 17:39
Jason,
Many thanks for ok'ing your list use.
Yes, yes, yes, re: humiliation. Since the days of John Dewey and Teddy Roosevelt, intellectuals have worked on America to have self-doubt and feel chronic guilt. Well, they succeeded, in spades. Now Islamists can see the obvious and play us like a Wurlitzer.
Terrific comment.
Posted by: GM | Thursday, 01 February 2007 at 08:14