Review of Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home

I recently finished listening to the audiobook of Dinesh D’Souza’s recent work “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.”
Because I don’t have much time to read but do make time to work out, I thought I’d get through it faster if I listened to it for half hour each day (which is more than I usually get for reading). The problem I noticed, though, and a caveat to those reading this review, is that it’s hard to back up one’s iPod and verify things. In the end, however, this isn’t a formal or complete review, but rather a handful of things I found interesting, and a couple things I took issue with, or at least with what wasn’t included. I recommend much of this book, having learned a good deal. Taking notes and writing this review has also helped me better consider American-Islamic relations.

Summary
D'Souza begins by explaining that he is not accusing the cultural left of intentionally co-organizing the actual attack on the Twin Towers. His premise is that, to the Muslim, the most appalling thing about the United States is not our foreign policy, as many on the left would have it, but rather our defense and propagation of immorality. The reason the U.S. is called “The Great Satan” is because it is the ultimate global tempter, exporting cultural depravity to Islamic countries.
Muslims recognize both the depravity and the allure of the U.S.’s immoral entertainment, and they hold us accountable, aware of the shameless American promotion of immorality that takes hold in Muslim countries despite the depth and influence of Arab traditional morality.
Incidentally, D’Souza remarks, Muslims acknowledge that they, like us, are not immune to western vices, but nonetheless hold to an enforced moral law, even if it’s one the Islamic populace and its leaders fall short of.

Notes
20 years before 9/11, the goal of radical Muslims in the middle east (a term against which D’Souza mildly cautions, as it betrays our geographic ethnocentrism) was to overthrow the “near” enemy, Islamic governments too nominal for radical Islam, and to replace them, as in the successful installment of the Khomeini regime. The death toll during this period, therefore, was primarily Muslim. Because this strategy wasn’t working, and because Arab civilian deaths incited protests in the Muslim community, a then-unknown Ayman al Zawahiri changed tactics to fight the “far” enemy, Israel and America, and soon met Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, who had also changed focus to the far, U.S. enemy. Together, they formed Al Qaeda.

D’Souza cites moderate Islamic scholars to posit that there is less antipathy for the Christian or Jew than for the effectively atheistic cultural left. I found this point in need of more convincing, as I wonder how the Christian crux of Christ’s sonship and deity – blasphemy to Muhammad – is reconcilable with an alliance on traditional morality. How much weight should we attribute to a shared outworking of our religions when ultimately the Muslim is called to fight until the religion is Allah’s (and not of the God of the bible)?

The same point is absent in D’Souza’s closing call to action, as he criticizes the castigation of Islam itself as if it were not culpable in its doctrine.
I believe much of the Qur’an sorely needs to be defused before we skip on ahead with D’Souza’s recommendations. The following is from Surah al-Taubah (9:29ff) of the Qur'an:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah (poll tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.
The Jews call Uzayr (Ezra) a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

I originally read this in Emir and Ergun Caner’s book More Than A Prophet. These Christian ex-Muslim authors have likely had the most formative influence on my own understanding of Islam, and their book is a wonderfully written and valuable resource.

Christians and conservatives do need help in combating immorality and I’m grateful that D’Souza has brought to light this blight on America’s culture, but D’Souza doesn’t address even the perception of the Qur’an’s volatility. Regardless of how many Muslims don’t follow every letter of their scriptures, there’s nothing preventing an orthodox believer of Islam from choosing subjugation of non-Muslims through dhimmitude and jihad over any collaboration against profanity and immodesty.

Although he is reasoned in his worthy objective of cleansing the culture, D’Souza would’ve built a stronger case if he had made even brief reference to interfaith inhibitors like the Qur’an’s commendation of Christians to the fifth level of hell, especially since his book will be most welcomed by conservatives. While the Christian gospel states that all sinners are deserving of hell, the same gospel of Christ has made provision for all sinners (regardless of particulars) to receive equal access to salvation through the one sacrifice made for all people, Jesus Christ. This is a crucial point for secular audiences who don’t differentiate between evangelical Christianity and Islamicism, and it should be as well for D’Souza.
D’Souza recognizes how inextricably linked Islam is to all aspects of the Muslim’s life. He also recognizes Christianity’s (if not Christ’s) domination of the obedient Christian’s life. To ally for cultural morality gains means aligning irreconcilable beliefs in the very source of our morality, and this, for many a Muslim, is something they will not abide.
It is up to proponents of Islam to open up the Qur’an to free, thorough, and linguistically unhindered dialogue on their scriptures, or neither the Muslim’s interfaith or intrafaith unity will go very deep.