Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

Sorry Dr. Pipes, I disagree.
Reader comment on item: Dinesh D'Souza Walks on the Dark Side

Submitted by Brooks Imperial (United States), Mar 12, 2007 at 16:42

Dear Dr. Pipes,

I haven't read D'Souza's recent book, but based on a read of his NRO column, the excerpt above is presented out of context. D'Souza characterizes Qutb in order to frame his (D'Souza's) solution - that the West is not adequately presenting the benefits and examples of our moral lives that are the products of freedom. D'Souza maintains that Islamists are focussed on the negative moral choices that some in the West make, and do not see or recognize the predominantly positive moral choices that most Americans live by, and the constructivef moral environment that most Americans use their freedom to choose.

D'Souza doesn't apologize for the islamist view, he merely states what it is. Recognition that the problem exists is not an affirmation of the legitimacy of the problem.

I thought his NRO article presented a reasonable solution - we in the West need to counter islamist propaganda with the benefits of western society. Perhaps we've grown so used to accepting politically correct denegration of the West that we forget to speak about all of the many reasons why we'd die before accepting the terms of life islamists have to offer.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (26) on this item

Title By Date
LOVE the gratuitous slam on "foreign service officers" (sic) [19 words]JeffMay 1, 2007 16:36
D'souza [131 words]joshuaApr 10, 2007 17:11
Ahh...D'Souza [157 words]Pro-Israeli DemocratMar 25, 2007 19:22
Response to D'Souza [105 words]DAVID R. GROESBECKMar 19, 2007 04:17
Overfocus on israel results in blinkered vision [82 words]RaviMar 18, 2007 14:18
Where did D'Souza go wrong? [317 words]Dr. M. D'SouzaMar 17, 2007 12:24
On the Dark Side of D'Souza [105 words]dsRonMar 16, 2007 23:19
discovery of zero [100 words]john h. rubelMar 16, 2007 19:02
Zero was an Import from India [27 words]SinghaMar 17, 2007 22:22
To Singhel, Rubel and Zero [150 words]LeeMar 27, 2007 06:51
TOTALLY WRONG [10 words]roopam royJan 2, 2008 02:59
Discovery of Zero [7 words]Dr. Indra MukhopadhyayOct 1, 2008 02:02
who discovered the zero? [19 words]aviral kumar mishra.Feb 13, 2009 22:52
Discovery of Zero... [258 words]MitraSep 10, 2009 07:25
Zero [71 words]MaramSep 23, 2009 19:58
D'Souza in context [43 words]Gideon KannerMar 16, 2007 12:03
D'Souza book [54 words]Dennis GravesMar 16, 2007 11:22
I've read his book... [121 words]JoshuaMar 12, 2007 21:53
⇒ Sorry Dr. Pipes, I disagree. [194 words]Brooks ImperialMar 12, 2007 16:42
D'Souza [23 words]JamaMar 19, 2007 14:58
D'Souza plays perverted game of 'good cop' 'bad cop' presents Al Qaeda as having socially redeeming value [319 words]Ben van de PolderMar 8, 2007 09:04
Dinesh D'Souza Blames the West and secularists for Muslim rage [204 words]Ben van de PolderMar 7, 2007 20:17
Revert? [25 words]DaisyMar 7, 2007 13:49
His dark side? [31 words]surjitMar 17, 2007 18:31
Surjit [65 words]DaisyMar 17, 2007 22:44
D'Souza [79 words]Drs Sears AppalsamyMar 18, 2007 09:15

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page