There are a number of weird qualities to Dinesh D'Souza's new book, The Enemy At Home. One of them is D'Souza's assumption of the role of lawgiver, issuing pronouncements to conservatives. At one point in the book, for example, D'Souza asserts that conservatives “have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of radical Muslims.” Instead, conservatives hewing to his thesis must learn to blame “the cultural left” for the behavior of radical Muslims.

D'Souza urges conservatives to win the friendship of "traditional" Muslims in the Islamic world by self-censorship and other means based on the Muslims' self-understanding. Nevertheless, D'Souza finds that there are no fundamental theological differences between "traditional Islam and radical Islam" and few political differences either. Traditional Islam and radical Islam "agree on the threats faced by Islam, on where those threats come from, and even on the general solution." The "main area of disagreement," according to D'Souza is that Islamic radicals are willing to pursue insurgency and terrorism to achieve their shared goals." D'Souza calls it "a new form of jihad against the infidels." I believe that may be the book's only reference to jihad. It lacks any serious discussion of the meaning of jihad in "traditional Islam."

Among the Islamic countries discussed in the book are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Jordan and Turkey. Of all these countries, D’Souza reserves his scorn for Turkey, with respect to which he issues the pronouncement that “it is time for conservatives to retire the tiresome invocation of Turkey as a model for Islamic society.” Why? “What Atatürk did for Turkey was anomalous and, in all candor, ridiculous.” D'Souza applauds the current reversal of Turkey's "militant secularization," asserting that "on balance, it is a good thing." It seems to me a judgment that D'Souza renders peculiarly from within the realm of Islam.

Saudi Arabia? One might find its tribal government, gender apartheid and Islamic severity "ridiculous," but D'Souza apparently does not. Indeed, he rises to the defense of "patriarchy." Syria? One might find its hand-me-down tyranny that treats the regime like the family business "ridiculous," but apart from a passing reference to its "customary brutality," D'Souza utters not a word about the Assad regime as such.

The flaws of D'Souza's deeply flawed book are not a joke; they make it a potentially destructive work. The book is a best-seller with the full force of a major American publisher behind it. I try to get at some of the book's flaws in "D'Souza goes native," in the forthcoming issue of The New Criterion.

To comment on this post, go here.

Posted by Scott at 08:18 AM  |    |