D'Souza versus D'Souza

CLOCK CLEANED

Holy moly! That sounds exactly like what you've been saying all along--Where is the Christian Al Qaeda, the buddhist suicide bombers, etc, etc.

Does this mean he's changed his tune, or is only willing to defend other religions against atheism?

Lol That D'Souza guy does seem to contradict himself when comparing the two video's.
In the first he is defending islam trying to equate it with other religions like christianity (even though he has a point when he points out to Old Testament verses) and in the other he is admitting that islam has a violent tendency other religions don't have. Geez, what's it going to be D'Souza???
It seems he is more concerned with protecting religion against the attacks of those big bad atheists.
Personally i prefer an easy going atheist over a pushy religious type of person trying to shove his religion thingy in my face any time of the day (although i must add that i also don't like those militant 'my way of thinking is the only true one because it's a fact' type atheists)

"9-11 was a faith based initiative" lol that was a good one, and the best part is that it's so TRUE.

Btw who is that guy who stood next to D'Souza??
Somebody needs to tell him to get some of his facts straight. LTTE wasn't the first to introduce suicide bombings and they certainly can't be called Hindu terrorists because their ideology was all about Tamil Nationalism, Secularism and Socialism, infact even Tamil Christians joined the LTTE in the fight against the Sri Lankan government so the LTTE wasn't a club exclusively for Hindus.

Speaking of Islam's apologists...

Good Old Abdullah Mikhail put forth a dooooozy on the thread "NY Women complain of Abuse"

He said that "daraba" which is a simple triliteral Arabic verb meaning "to beat" can also denote having sexual intercourse, and in the context of Sura 4:34 means "to have sexual intercouse." His exact words: "Daraba (to have intercourse, not to beat)"

Need I point out that "daraba" - to knock or strike, contextualized into meaning sexual intercourse would correspond to our using the English word "knock" or "bang" to denote sexual intercourse. But such a idiomatic stretching of the meaning would of course be very slangish and derogatory. As in "he 'knocked' her up" or "he 'banged' her." Not nice.

Anyway, if "daraba" can also mean to have sexual intercouse, then thinketh abdullah, Sura 4:34 can have a gentler, a better, a more infidel-friendly meaning.

Y'all following me here? Please don't spit your coffee or chablis all over your keyboard.

Abdullah has bowdlerized the Koran and given a kinder, gentler Sura 4:34.

Without further ado, here it is

Sura 4:34
...As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) rape them (lightly, if it is useful)...

You see, Abdullah is saying is that "rape" (Daraba: to have intercourse, not to beat) is the proper punishment for severely disobedient wives.

And CAIR pays him for this?

Peace Out
Yankel

Well Yankel, you don't have to actually put the word "rape" in the translation, even though from our Western ethics and logic what Abdullah Mikail (AM) is implying is, in fact, rape. Muslims, however, don't acknowledge that spousal rape exists at all. I think therefore, it would be more effective to translate it more literally as AM is arguing -- because we will know what it really means anyway, and if you put in the word "rape" it will only generate another thousand hours of tap-dancing from AM:

...As to those women on whose part you fear ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) have sex with them (lightly, if it is useful)...

I think this amply conveys both the preposterousness of AM's argument, and its underlying ethical pathology.
(Btw, the Arabic doesn't have "see", it has "fear" or "suspect", and I modified the translation accordingly: this is crucial, because the man is given license to beat his women merely on the fear or suspicion that she has rebelled -- he doesn't even have to see its evidence.)

You know, I really like what Robert writes. But I think he missed the boat this time.

In this video clip, D'Sousa does exactly what Robert has been calling for: he admits that radical Islam is violent, and says that other religions have been unfairly lumped together with radical Islam.

Robert should be more gracious. Instead of snarky comments about "which D'Sousa will show up", he should say that he agrees with him in this case, and applaud the candor that D'Sousa used in his comments.

Be more gracious in victory, Robert. It suits you better.

LOL! He sounds like a convert to Spencerism. Think he learned something?

Could it be... Is this the death of the "moral equivalence" argument?

Is it too much to ask?

"For every 'Kill the infidels' passage in the Koran you can find a matching 'Slay the infidels' passage in the Old Testament."

Yeah? So what??

D'Souza is stumbling into the truth. Finally. 'Bout time.

Fitzgerald: What Do They Know, Compared To Dinesh D'Souza?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/fitzgerald-what-do-they-know-compared-to-dinesh-dsouza.html#more

thanks. not very often I can have a good laugh while reading this site.

But Ernie, I'm not sure D'Souza was attributing that violence only to "radical" Islam. Islam itself may have been meant. Because when D'Souza said there is not an equivalent degree of violence in any of the other religions, he gave as examples Hinduism, Christianity, and Buddhism, but he did not include any "moderate" Islam on that list of religions less violent than radical Islam.

I disagree Ernie Banks. If D'Souza had been, or is now, willing to debate Spencer, that's another story. But his unwillingness to do so leaves him open to Spencer's mild sarcasm, at best (if not worse). D'Souza has to explain himself. He can't just do an about-face on such an important matter without explanation, and expect us to swallow it gracefully.

I visited my local Half-Price Book Store and glanced at the CIA/Terrorism section. Both Robert's "Onward Muslim Soldiers" and Dinesh's "The Enemy at Home" were for sale. I bought neither because I already own a copy of "Onward Muslim Soldiers" and I simply do not have the time or money to waste "The Enemy at Home." Dinesh's book is simply an embarrassment. The fact that it exists makes me reluctant to call myself a conservative. Ironically enough, Robert actually cited Dinesh's book "What's so Great about America" three times in "Islam Unveiled." It is a shame that Dinesh went off the deep on a subject he knew next to nothing about, just to tackle the Islamic Problem (not identified as such by him) from a different angle. In many ways, the Left is indirectly responsible for 9/11, but not because of they instigated the now-burning 19 with decadent America pop culture. They are responsible for deliberately weakening US resolve from within with their self-loathing doctrine of multi-culturalism. Ever opportunistic Islam took advantage of this chink in our armour, and still are. David Horowitz and Jamie Glazov have both written excellent books on the matter. Read theirs; ignore Dinesh's.

Dinesh is a good guy, he was just a bit off with his previous 2007 opinion. I'm surprised he tried to drag out the "the Old Testament is violent too" canard, an apologist of his caliber should know better.

Great to see that he's come around.

Be friendly Robert! He won't turn into another CJ.

It is a shame that Dinesh went off the deep on a subject he knew next to nothing about, just to tackle the Islamic Problem (not identified as such by him) from a different angle. In many ways, the Left is indirectly responsible for 9/11, but not because of they instigated the now-burning 19 with decadent America pop culture. - Posted by Senatortombstone.

Yep. If 9/11 is Kid Rock and Howard Stern's fault in Dhimminesh's uinverse, he must have blamed these recent failed terror plots on Lady Gaga, Will Ferrell, Lindsay Lohan and Jack Black.

D'Souza seems stuck in the paradigm that many conservatives are comfortable with: Muslims explode because of something we have done. It's essentially the same paradigm as the Left employs -- the only difference is their respective definitions of that "something": the former blames our liberal nihilism eroding our Christian values; the latter blames our crypto-imperialism. Neither seems to have taken the trouble to examine if the problem's source is in Islam itself. If D'Souza seems to be "getting it" now, all he's "getting" is that the Muslim wasps are riled and angry: i.e., he like most every other analyst, treats Muslims as though they were insects or some natural force that, when we disturb its ecosphere, it gets angry. That may be superficially accurate, but hardly is sufficient for the kind of intel we need in our strategy against this deadly threat.

I am not convinced that we should become soft on D'Souza.
He has a certain amount of authority and respect in some circles and many people listen to what he has to say.
This means that his apologies for islam are ultimately dangerous.
The difference between the two videos is not because he is a changed man. It is because it is a changed audience. In the second, he is altering his stance because he is addressing a predominantly humanist audience.
He is as twisting and manipulating as ever.
This has to be exposed as widespread as possible so that his pro islam arguments carry less and less weight.

Ernie & everyone else who is going on about 'graciousness' - that might be applicable if Dinesh had honestly changed his mind. However - and I believe Hugh - will back me up on this one, there is no evidence of anything of the sort. Dinesh is the sort of guy who'll try anything once, to see if it sticks. Who cares if it contradicts him two days ago?

Which, btw, is why he gets cleaned out and filleted by Hitchens whenever the two clash. I really, really wish he hadn't chosen to ask "Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?" Has the man never heard of the kamikaze?

Too bad Robert didn't get the last word in on part 2.
That was a terrible place to hold a debate.

rammer, to be sure, and the distinctions you draw are worthwhile, but you need to be quick on your feet and intelligent to be able to make that argument in a debate. D'Souza is neither, and he was promptly grilled by Hitchens (it's their most recent clash).

In the debate on the year 2007, around the 4 minute mark, Dinesh D'Souza says:
"Muslims ruled Northern India for about 200 years.
They ruled about 40 million Hindus.
They could have slayed them, they could have killed them.
They could have forced them to convert.
They did nothing of the sort. ..."

Excuse me! How distorted can you get? They did EXACTLY this. As recently as 10 years ago, Kashimir was ethnically cleansed of Hindus by muslims with direct encouragement from the imams of the local mosques which were also used to hide pakistani muslim terrorists and spies. India was partitioned and while there a two hundred muslims in India, the Hindus there were froced to leave, with about a million killed on their way out. 2/3 of my own family was wiped out on the way to India.
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism by Linda Johnsen estimates the total number of Hindus murdered by muslims as 200 to 300 Million during their reign. In fact the population of India fell dramatically. They slowed down because their tax revenues fell, there were not wnough people left to produce adequate tax revenues. 95% of all conversion to islam happened by force - jazia, forced slavery, kidnapping of women, bribery, killing off of parents and adopting the children into muslim families. Dinesh D'Souza seems to invent his facts as he needs them. This is a convenient way to write history. Or a desperate attempt to win an argument.

I see once again that Mr. D'Stort Da News" has outdone himself. "For every 'Kill the infidels' passage in the Koran you can find a matching 'Slay the infidels' passage in the Old Testament." LOL.

Indeed, the Old Testament is just another book that D'Sousa has never bothered to read.

Love the dissembling of Dhimis like D'Sousa. Spencer rules.

Mulakush is right on the dot about the violent history of Islam in India. It is distorters like D'Souza who perpetrate lies that keep his myths alive. Every time a bomb goes off, terrorists send emails abusing Hindus, along with quotes from the quran. For a typical 2008 e-mail, see http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=7111&SKIN=B. Which only proves what Spencer has been saying all along, that the better we understand their motivations for murder and mayhem, the better we can deal with them. Good man Rob, keep going and God bless you.

Dinesh D'Souuza strikes out as an apologist for Christianity. He clearly has not caught the upshot of the "show them no mercy" texts concerning the conquest of Canaan.

The Torah teaches that if Israel herself fell into the sins of the Canaanites, a similar fate would befall Israel. Hence the Babylonian conquest and exile.

The practical teaching Christians derive from the "Scary" parts of the Old Testament are as follows:

(1) Pray for your own country that its sins never reach the point where God decides it can only be wiped off the map.

(2) "Be not highminded, but fear [God]" Romans 11:20.

(3) Be zealous for righteousness. Canaanite love of sin led to the destruction of their nation, and that of the Israelites who imitated them.

(4) The first Joshua was commanded to show Canaan no mercy; the last one (Jesus is the Greek form of the name) commands us to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28). This gives us reason to hope that there is no modern nation which God sees as incorrigible (not even the Falastin Arabs, SA, and Iran!).

(5) The church may fail, but God cannot.

(6) Just as there was a type of final judgment in the ban on the Canaanites, so will there be a final judgment on the whole earth. Repent, for that day draws nearer.

(7) Be covered by the blood of Christ, which alone suffices to atone for sin (dying in a Crusade cannot); lest the chastisement which God put on the shoulders of the Messiah (Isaiah 53) come on you in the last judgment.

Now, how does the Islamic doctrine of jihad compare with this?

Anyone - can this be the same guy who wrote "Illiberal Education?" I was blown away by that book, rejoicing in the fact that someone had finally had the guts to tell it like it is.
For family reasons, I've had to live in Latin America for most of the last nine years, and have obviously missed a great deal.
Has he suffered a blow to the head or something?