Skip to comments.Daniel Pipes Knows How to Mix Just Enough Truth With Doctrine
Posted on 04/27/2005 7:50:42 AM PDT by Valin
There are dangerous men in the world and Daniel Pipes is one of them.
He first came to my attention several years ago during a visit to Washington. It appeared that a number of Arab-Americans were concerned about him and the growing influence he was exerting in the media and the political arenas.
Prior to the attacks of Sept. 11 Pipes was voicing his apprehension regarding the dangers of Muslim immigration into the United States as a potential fifth column for radical Islamists. After the attacks, Pipes media exposure grew. Called upon as a Middle Eastern expert, he staged his campaign instilling a combination of fear and prejudice into the American public, particularly concentrating on Saudi Arabia.
He zeroed in on the Wahhabi doctrine and skillfully crafted an entire theory on the cause for terrorism based on partial data but with just enough truth to make it appear reasonable.
In 2003 President Bush nominated Pipes to serve as a director on a government-funded think tank, United States Institute of Peace, that works closely with the administration to resolve international conflicts. Several senators including Edward Kennedy opposed this nomination so strongly that Bush made Pipes appointment a recess appointment so he would only serve in a temporary capacity until the end of 2004. He will not be reappointed due to his hostile behavior. During his brief tenure, he criticized USIP for hosting a conference with the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy because he claimed that organization had Muslim radicals on its staff.
Yet, Daniel Pipes is a long way from finished with his self-anointed work. He is now creating a new Anti-Islamist Institute designed to expose the legal political activities of Islamists. He is calling this program the new Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP). The funding for this organization will come from contributors in the American Shiite community and from Sunni mosques once they are liberated from the Wahhabi influence, according to Pipes.
CIP claims to have some very impressive supporters, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA Director James Woolsey, Senators Charles Schumer and Jon Kyl, terrorism experts Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project, Paul Marshall of Freedom House, Glen Howard of the Jamestown Foundation and journalists such as Fox News anchors David Asman, Brit Hume and Greta van Susteren. Even the editors at the New York Post, the Los Angles Times and the Globe are being mentioned.
The first goal of Pipes venture will be the removal of the Council on American Islamic Relations from their monopoly status in representing Muslims to the American public. He criticized President Bush for legitimizing both CAIR and the Arab-American Institute by allowing their representatives to participate in White House ceremonies and failing to identify radical Islam as the enemy in the war on terror. He will be working with another interesting character forming CIP, Stephen Schwartz. Schwartz is the author of a book about Islam and Saudi Arabia. He has created a new terminology to describe what he contends is the violent movement within Islam neo-Wahhabi.
Like Pipes, Schwartz is preaching a doctrine that is based on very limited fact. He proclaims that the Wahhabi movement has violently attacked Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, traditional Sunnis, Sufis and Shiites worldwide. Eighty percent of American mosques are Wahhabi-influenced, he states. As a recent convert to Sufism, Schwartz is a disciple of the 13th Century Spanish mystic Ibn Arabi. By his own admission Schwartz did not travel to Riyadh to learn about Wahhabism; he chose instead Sarajevo, where he could absorb the true message of Islam.
The goal of CIP according to Pipes is to enhance the influence of moderate Muslims. According to Pipes, CIPs president is Professor Kemal Silay, a teacher at Indiana University. But Silay says that although he has spoken with Pipes and Schwarz about the dangers of extreme Islamic groups, he was surprised to find out he was selected to be the president.
In addition to CAIR and AAI, Pipes has targeted the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, the Muslim Students Association of the US and Canada, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and The American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Extremists, he claims, influence all of these organizations, do not represent the average American Muslim and are dangerous to the United States. Daniel Pipes is a very cleaver man. He mixes just enough truth with doctrine to make some people believe that he has the best interest of Arab-Americans and the security of the US at the heart of his campaigning.
You have to read carefully to understand what he really means. Just four days before the Iraqi elections he endorsed the US governments goal of making Iraq a democracy but cautioned that the Iraqis had to learn the habits of civil society. It is only 22 months since Saddam Hussein has been deposed, he said, so elections for chief of a government there should take place more like 22 years.
Hopefully, no one is listening to him.
Go Daniel. But watch your back.
If Pipes' warning had been taken seriously, close to 3000 more Americans would be alive today.
Often, a reasonable person would conclude, "just enough truth" ought to be sufficient to prevent mass murder.
And, incidentally, it can also save a lot of time in wading through totally useless propaganda.
Why do people give exposure to pro-mass-murder crap like this?
There is no terrorist threat. Radical Islam is an illusion people. Just keep moving, nothing to see here...
* SM© = Sweet Muslim
Thanks for posting this....Daniel Pipes has been proved accurate on all counts....
Non-Muslims in Makkah and Madinah
Adil Salahi, Arab News
Q. Some people argue that preventing non-Muslims from visiting Makkah and Madinah deprives them of a chance to be impressed with Islam. Some say that they could be informed of the protocols they have to observe and allowed to visit the two mosques. After all, Islam is very tolerant in its attitude to other faiths. Please comment.
A. That Islam is tolerant is beyond doubt. But tolerance and kind treatment of the followers of other faiths does not mean contravening the rules of our religion. The question of prohibiting entry of non-Muslims into Makkah and Madinah is not one on which personal points of view can be voiced. It is a religious matter legislated by God. It is He who says: Believers, know that the idolaters are certainly impure. So, let them not come near to the Sacred Mosque after this year is ended. (9: 28) The Prophet explained that this prohibition applies to all non-Muslims. We cannot change a clear divine ruling. Besides, there is no question of trying to impress non-Muslims by allowing them to visit the place. If they want to learn about Islam, they can certainly do so without having to visit a place, because Islam is not about places; it is about ones relations with God. As for Madinah, the Prophet extended to it the same treatment as Makkah.
And let us not forget another Arab News insight...
A Question That Needs No Answer
Commentary by Sayyid Qutb
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Beneficent
Paradise will be brought within sight of the God-fearing; whereas the blazing fire will be placed in full view of the ones lost in error.
It shall be said to them: Where is now all that you used to worship instead of God? Can they help you or even help themselves?
They will be hurled into hell, as also those who are lost in error, and Iblis hosts, all together.
And there, quarrelling with one another, they will say: By God, we were obviously in error, when we deemed you equal to the Lord of all the worlds. It was only the truly guilty ones who led us astray. And now we have none to intercede for us nor any loving friend. Would that we had a second chance (in life), so that we could be believers.
Indeed, there is in this a sure sign; yet most of them will not believe. And indeed it is your Lord who is the Mighty One, the Merciful. (The Poets: Al-Shuara: 26: 90-104)
This passage portrays a scene of the Day of Judgment, which was feared by Abraham. It is so vivid that he almost sees it with his own eyes as he addresses his humble prayer to God.
The scene starts with the image of heaven being brought near, so as to be within sight of the God-fearing, who actually remained apprehensive lest they might be made to suffer Gods punishment. The fire of hell is also brought in full view of the erring ones who strayed away from the right path and denied the Day of Judgment. As they stand within sight of hell, listening to stern rebuke for their bad deeds before they are thrown in hell, they will be first asked about the deities they used to worship. The question that will be put to them is: Where is now all that you used to worship instead of God? Where are they? Can they help you or even help themselves? No answer is heard from them. Indeed none is expected. It is only a question given by way of rebuke. Hence, They will be hurled into hell, as also those who are lost in error. The very word used here suggests that they fall into it on top of one another, with much noise from the repeated falls. It is the same situation that happens when a landslide takes place followed by further landslides. These people who were lost in error are accompanied in hell with Iblis hosts, all together. Indeed they are all part of Iblis hosts.
We are then made to listen to them as they speak in hell, saying to their false deities and the idols they worshipped: By God, we were obviously in error, when we deemed you equal to the Lord of all the worlds, worshipping you, alongside or instead of God, as if you were equal to Him. They say it now when it is too late. They put the blame on the guilty ones who led them into errors and prevented them from listening to divine guidance. They now wake up and realize that it is too late and that apportioning blame will benefit them nothing. And now we have none to intercede for us nor any loving friend. Neither deity nor friend will be of any avail to us now. But then they think that if there was a possibility of a return to life, they could still mend their erring ways: Would that we had a second chance (in life), so that we could be believers. But this is mere wishful thinking. There can be no return. They are already on Judgment Day.
This is followed by the standard comment in this surah: Indeed, there is in this a sure sign; yet most of them will not believe. And indeed it is your Lord who is the Mighty One, the Merciful. This comment is repeated in the surah every time the fate of any community that opposed Gods messengers is shown, such as Aad, Thamud and Lots people, and it follows also every sign given to any group who denied God and His messengers. The scene from the Day of Judgment that we have been discussing is shown here in place of a scene of punishment in this world. It shows the end faced by Abrahams people, and indeed the ultimate end of all idolatry. Hence, it gives the same lesson in every historical account. We should remember that scenes of the Day of Judgment are shown in the Quran as if they are taking place in front of our eyes so as to touch our hearts and souls in the same way as they are touched when reflecting on the fate of past communities.
The surah gave its account of Abrahams story after it had given a more detailed one of Moses, thus going back in history. Now it goes further back to tell us about Noah and his people. The chronological order is not important here because the focus is the ultimate end of idolatry and denying the divine message.
Like the accounts of Moses and Abraham, Noahs story is referred to in several surahs. It was given in brief in Surah 7, The Heights, within the context of a historical account of Gods messengers and their messages, which means that there it followed Adams fall from heaven, concentrating on Noahs advocacy of Gods oneness and his warning to his people that they would be risking grievous suffering. They accused him of being deep in error, expressing their amazement that God should send them a man messenger. Their punishment by drowning is mentioned without giving details.
In Surah 10, Jonah, the story is given in brief, concentrating on the end of his mission when he challenged his people but they still denied him. He was saved with those who followed him, while the others were drowned.
Surah 11, Houd, gives much more details about the floods, the ark and what happened after the floods. It mentions his prayer concerning his son who was drowned with the rest of the unbelievers. In this surah we are also given an account of the sort of debate on Gods oneness his people had with him.
In Surah 23, The Believers, Noahs account concentrates on his call on his people to worship God alone, and their objection to the fact that he is a mere mortal like them. They accuse him of wanting to press his favored position. They claim that God could have sent angels if He wished, and they accused Noah of madness. He turns to God, appealing for support. Then follows a very brief reference to the ark and the floods.
In many instances, like the present surah, the story is given together with stories of Aad, Thamud, Lots people and Madyan. The prominent features of the account given here are Noahs call on his people to fear God and his declaration that he expects nothing by way of reward, as well as his refusal to expel the poor who believe in God at the request of the noble ones. This was also demanded of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by the elders of the Quraysh in Makkah.
Thank you so much for your imput. Rest assured it will be given all the consideration it deserves.
Actually, I am disappointed in Daniel Pipes. He only takes warnings that suit his purpose while ignoring those that don't.
LOL!!! this guy puts quotes around "radical islam" ... as if there is no such thing? LOL!!!
LOL!!! this guy puts quotes around "radical islam" ... as if there is no such thing? LOL!!!
And, OK, he may have been right here but that's besides the point < /sarcasm>
He only takes warnings that suit his purpose while ignoring those that don't.
Examples? Thank you.
Well, my "imput" was intended to be in support of Pipes.
"Like Pipes, Schwartz is preaching a doctrine that is based on very limited fact. He proclaims that the Wahhabi movement has violently attacked Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, traditional Sunnis, Sufis and Shiites worldwide.""
The author appears to indicated that Schwartz' statement is not true. However, the "true fact" is not discussed within the article. So, what is the true fact?
In an earlier article today on FR this author, Adrienne McPhail, is listed as a radical Whabbist living in Japan.
I contacted him in 1999 (I think) and raised several issues. These included pointing out that Islam is fundamentally different from JC cultures and that I was not sure Islam and US constitution were compatible (though I would be willing to listen to contrary viewpoints on it). His response was to highlight Wahabism but ignore the broader issue.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.