Robert Spencer was nice enough to invite me to write for Jihad Watch, as he recently acknowledged. As he puts it:

Anyway, a good many good writers jumped out of Esmay’s ideological gulag at that point, including Ron Coleman of LikelihoodofConfusion.com (who tells me that he is looking for a “home” for general-interest blogging; I invited him to write here but he politely declined my invitation because he is not primarily focused on the jihad …)

I’m not just unfocused on it. I’m downright befuddled by it.

Believe me, I’m (intellectually, not emotionally) scared of “the Jihad,” or whatever you may want to call the Suicide Belt Boys. I’d be stupid not to be. Dean Esmay does not argue “we have nothing to be afraid of” — far from it. Dean does, however, have his own preferences in terms of nomenclature, which is evidently quite a big deal. Fine. On the other hand, before 9/11 I remember having a perfectly civil, and quite interesting, discussion about GOP outreach to conservative Muslims with Grover Norquist, who by all indications is now pretty much “discredited.” It seemed like a good idea at the time.

On the other hand I don’t know what to make of this article in Jihad Watch on an exchange with Dinesh D’Souza which I thought would clarify everything, but most assuredly does not:

D’SOUZA: One of the problems here is a little bit of paranoia. These guys, Spencer, Serge, have been running around basically saying I am trying to silence them, whereas all I am doing is disagreeing with them.

Caught making an indefensible point, D’Souza lies about it. In his book, this is exactly what he says: “In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled [by Spencer], Sword of the Prophet [by Trifkovic], and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance [by Spencer]. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet.”

Okay, so I don’t understand how this is “trying to silence” anyone. Saying “shut up, you’re doing something stupid” is not “trying to silence” someone. (This is trying to silence someone.) It’s telling them — this is rhetoric — “you should not say what you’re saying if you want to come to an accomodation.”

I don’t agree with D’Souza. But I don’t think what he’s saying is what Robert says he is. Now, that also doesn’t mean Robert’s wrong about D’Souza. This — from that same posting — is truly damning:

HENNEN: OK, one at a time here; your question for Dinesh, Serge, is?

TRIFKOVIC: In what order are the Suras arranged in the Kuran?

D’SOUZA: [long silence] I really don’t know what you mean by that. When you say “in what order” then… err… [pause] there…

TRIFKOVIC: … an interlocutor who tries to pass authoritative judgments on the subject is refusing to tell me how are the Suras and the verses of the Kuran arranged. They happen to be arranged by SIZE, from short to long!

Well, that sure seems like something you better know before you write a book about Islam, isn’t it? I think Robert’s got plenty to work with here without stretching about being “silenced” by D’Souza.

But at the end of the day, you can see why I don’t want to make this “my topic.” I’ve gone through about half a dozen tractates of the Talmud from beginning to end and I don’t even really know what’s in them. Forget it. My main reaction to radical Islam is to stay out of its way.