TERROR'S NEMESIS (Daniel Pipes)

New York Post ^ | 4/06/03

[kattracks]

April 6, 2003 -- President Bush proved yet again last week that he is serious about fighting terror - and fostering a more peaceful world - when he nominated Middle East expert Daniel Pipes to the board of directors at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

[WaterDragon]

Pipes has been on top of the Muslim terrorist threat in this country, and vocal about it, from the very beginning. At first, I disagreed with him and thought he was too hard on the Muslims here, but as I watched C.A.I.R.'s reactions, I knew Pipes was right. He doesn't go off half-cocked. He knows what he's talking about.

David Pryce-Jones is another who an is extremely knowledgeable and un-PC writer about Arabs and Islam.

[patriciaruth]

Something we may want to watch unfold.

[joesnuffy]

CAIR aka The Wahhabi Lobby does not want the truth of who they are and who they really represent..
The fifth column of Arab Islam ...building their Mosques and Islamic center base camps and firebases in our midsts..
Of course our filthy politicans take their money..for each dollar the puppets add another string to their puppeteers control levers
Yet if Evangelical Christians tried to build one church or send one missionary to any Muslim country...oh how they scream

[Az Joe]

I studied writings by Pipes when I was in college in '89 for my Political Science degree. Good man.

[samtheman]

I disagree with Pipes on one point:

He claims that Islamic militants have hijacked Islam from the moderates.

I think that's wrong.

Islam is a militant religion, a religion of hate and war. The Koran teaches lethal evangelism (convert'em or kill'em). Preaches it. Demands it of its followers.

To the extent that there are "moderate" Moslems, they aren't true Moslems at all and can be seen, in fact, to be the hijackers of the religion.

Unfortunately, the Islamofacists are right about their religion. It is a religion of hate, violence, suppression of women, suppression of free thought, suppression of freedom, anti-American and anti-human.

It might make us more "tolerant" to ignore this fact.

It doesn't make us more safe.

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping

bump to read later....

[wardaddy]

I didn't know this....nice job W.

[ppaul]

[samtheman]

Thanks. I'm going to read this book.

[bucephalus]

Stephen Schwartz who has a column in this month's Atlantic Monthly is pretty good too.

[DoctorMichael]

Pipes Bump.

[jaime1959]

I read his book "Militant Islam Reaches America". I'm glad he was nominated.

[Vigilanteman]

If Pipes is wrong about anything, it is that he is underestimating the number of Muslims who support extermination of all Infidels. 15% may be too low.

The encouraging part is that there are now more than a few now emboldened to expose the 15%, 20% or whatever it is. But it took an Infidel nation with determination to do what is right to get us to that point.

[Gritty]

The Senate should confirm him quickly.

Do I see a problem here?

The Liberals are going to scream about this one. Look for a full-scale Borking, coming to a Senate near you!

[skinkinthegrass]

He is a good writer, too...his book on the USSR was great.

[Valin]

Islam is a militant religion, a religion of hate and war. The Koran teaches lethal evangelism (convert'em or kill'em). Preaches it. Demands it of its followers.

To the extent that there are "moderate" Moslems, they aren't true Moslems at all and can be seen, in fact, to be the hijackers of the religion.

The Evil Isn't Islam
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
July 30, 2002

(snip)
"Here is the rub: It is a mistake to blame Islam (a religion 14 centuries old) for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam (a totalitarian ideology less than a century old). The terrorism of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran.

To which you might respond: But bin Laden and Khomeini get their ideas from the Koran. And they are only continuing a pattern of Muslim aggression that is centuries old.

Not exactly. Let's look closer at both points:

* Aggressive Islam: The Koran and other authoritative Islamic scriptures do contain incitements against non-Muslims. The eminent historian Paul Johnson, for example, cites two Koranic verses: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers will you find the Jews and Pagans" (Sura 5, verse 85) and "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them." (9:5).

* Aggressive Muslims: Fourteen centuries of Islam have witnessed a long history of Muslims engaged in jihad (holy war) to expand the area under Islamic rule, from the early conquests of the caliphs to what Samuel Huntington terms Islam's "bloody borders" today.

Yes, these points are accurate. But they are one side of the story.

* Mild Islam: Like other sacred writings, the Koran can be mined for quotes to support opposing arguments. In this case, Karen Armstrong, a bestselling apologist for Islam, quotes two gentler passages from the Koran: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2:256) and "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another." (49:13).

* Mild Muslims: There have been occasions of Muslim moderation and tolerance, such as those in long-ago Sicily and Spain. And in one telling example, Mark R. Cohen notes that "The Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries (up to the 13th century), experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom."

In other words, Islam's scriptures and history show variation.

At present, admittedly, it is hard to recall the positive side, at a moment when backwardness, resentment, extremism and violence prevail in so much of the Muslim world. But the present is not typical of Islam's long history; indeed, it may be the worst era in that entire history.

Things can get better. But it will not be easy. That requires that Muslims tackle the huge challenge of adapting their faith to the realities of modern life.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/437

[samtheman]

Excellent presentation. And the reality is, one billion people are not going to give up their religion so the best we can hope for is a triumph of moderates in the Islamic world.

[expatguy]

Im not exactly sure how I feel about this myself.

I feel that Daniel Pipes misleads people into thinking there is a "good islam" and a "bad islam". This is simply not the case.

I was concerned about this a while back an emailed him, he simply replied saying that he did not agree with my conclusions and he gave no reasons. I tried in vain to explain to him that his conclusions could mislead people.

If you want to stump him you can ask him the reason why that what he calls "moderate Islam" sympathizes with "militant islam" and he wont be able to give a clear answer.

What I feel he fails to understand is that every muslim aspires to be a good muslim, a "pure muslim". Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban followed this path. They did not follow Islam to the extreme as westerners like to think or allege but they did follow Islam "by the book" and as such they will be viewed within the muslim society not as extremists but as purists.

You see the Taliban follows not the rule of man, but rather the rule of Allah. Ask any muslim on the planet which law should supersede the other and they will ALWAYS say the rule of Allah.

Being a "moderate" would be interpreted by the majority of muslims as being not pure or not a complete muslim and as such, no muslim aspires to be a moderate.

There is not a "good islam" and "bad islam" but there are good muslims and bad muslims and this is where Daniel Pipes makes his mistake.

[Valin]

so the best we can hope for is a triumph of moderates in the Islamic world.

Works for me.
Of course there are those here how say there is no such thing. You just have to look they are there.