Skip to comments.Daniel in the Lions’ Den
Posted on 07/28/2003 10:57:31 AM PDT by yonif
Once upon a beautiful balmy autumn day, expansionist Islam, ever spreading by pointing its sword at suitably weakened sections within countries, staged a dramatic debut across virgin North America, forcing us to watch as nineteen of its fanatics murdered thousands of our Mr. Rogers neighbors in fiery, crashing, hellish infernos; a black, smolderingly sadistic Machiavellian example of performance art.
Why are you calling me now about your appointment? The world is coming to an end! The World Trade Centre has been bombed and the Pentagon is in flames, said the person at the other end of my telephone line.
Excuse me but what on earth are you talking about?!
They I mean ohhhh just turn on your television turn it on bye
Thats where we all ended up that day. Glued to the television.
North America watched Muslims springing to their feet in a feverish standing ovation, spilling into streets, cheering, exulting, dancing, back slapping, passing sweets, trilling for joy, shooting off rifles, rocking cars, wearing bin Laden t-shirts, parading, marching, waving flags Bin Laden! Bin Laden! They were a most appreciative audience. True, other countries had been challenged, roughed up and overtaken, but never had such a powerful opponent as America been engaged. Many Muslims found the sight of Americas smashed and bleeding political, economic and military power bases absolutely thrilling, intoxicating. It was a Victory Celebration!
We were meant to become the shell-shocked victims, hands cupped over mouths in horror, and we played our parts well, transfixedly watching the bombings over and over again, trying to register that it was real, that thousands of everyday people just like us had been going about their day one minute, only to be blasted by exploding flames, choked by smoke, and crushed in a mass steel grave for eternity the next. On purpose. Barely able to fathom that such a shocking thing had happened, we were too numb to even formulate the question why, never mind address it.
Like good brainwashers, it was into this paralyzed vacuum that hovering expansionist Muslims began to pour their reasons why, essentially telling us that it was our own fault if only we had been better, it would not have happened. We are the root cause. We tried to understand. Change our foreign policy. Indeed, in the coming days, weeks, months, like all good terror victims, we could think of little else. Lucky its a peaceful religion. We were as captives held in the vice grip. Our misery, trepidation and confusion were all part of the plan.
What was obviously not part of the plan was that just as suddenly, like a minimally exposed glacier whose depth had been miscalculated, there arose a formidable Harvard-educated historian named Daniel Pipes (son of noted Russian historian Dr. Richard Pipes), whose 30-year study of Islam, 11 books, and numerable essays on the subject had, until September 11, 2001, garnered little mainstream interest. Suddenly, he had our rapt attention. His talking head and byline were sought after by all the major media. His website DanielPipes.org became one of the most highly ranked on the internet. Almost overnight, he became a household name to those of us trying to understand, the primary credible source, the primary authority guiding the nations leading analysts, policy makers and opinion makers.
But Pipes was not advocating that we listen to radical Islam mindlessly to find out what they wanted. He was like the supremely knowledgeable ex-insider turned counter-kidnapper trying to wrest the besieged, brainwashed, sleep- and food-deprived, terrorized Moonie away from the cult. Daniel Pipes was trying to wrest our culture out of its hypnotized, terrorized state, to help us name our enemies, understand our enemies and defeat our enemies. And he still is.
Naturally, those enemies are not pleased.
The American Muslim Council (AMC), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), among others, have for years been trying to discredit Pipes, silence him, only to see him relentlessly gain in stature and import. Faiz Rehman, communications director of the AMC lamented He had been totally discredited, and then September 11th happened! Proving Pipes right.
So it was that when Pipes was nominated by President Bush to a seat on the Board of Directors of the US Institute for Peace, a frenzy of protest petitions and letters were unleashed. USIP is not a powerful body, but rather an educational one, created by Congress in 1984, as an independent, non-partisan institution dedicated to research, education, professional training and policy development on matters of international conflict prevention, management, and resolution. On Wednesday, the US Senate´s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee indefinitely postponed its vote on Pipes nomination.
Predictably, Pipes nomination has been decried as insensitive by the same Muslim groups incapable of invoking his name without accompanying epithets Muslim-basher, racist, bigot, Americas leading Islamophobe, or Mephistopheles. Its nothing unusual. In fact, Pipes enemies routinely descend into frothing hysterics. Habib Siddiqui, in an editorial opposing Pipes USIP nomination, drenched his case in manic adjectives such as criminally insane, Goerring, Goebbels, schizophrenic, xenophobic, Gestapo-styled, Stalin, deranged, depraved all in one essay mind you - and finished off by likening Pipes to Dracula at a blood bank. Purportedly, Daniel Pipes is the very embodiment of every evil that ever lived, and some fictional ones as well.
I recently met him for the first time and we had dinner.
Tall, lean, wearing a conservative navy suit and crisp white shirt, Pipes politely ordered the poached salmon with sautéed vegetables and a Caesar salad, took the napkin ruffling his wine glass and folded it on his lap. No blood in sight yet.
I deal in facts, he said pleasantly. He speaks quietly, so quietly that I must lean forward to hear him. His demeanor is that of a researcher presenting the top line of his 30-year study to the world. He is a scholar. His points are referenced carefully. There are no flights of fancy, no emotional digressions. It is this very academic sturdiness that renders him such a threat to radical Islam. He is unassailably credible.
When I speak on campuses, I want to hear their questions, he says earnestly. I want to dispel the myths. He wants to correct distortions, expose lies. Hit me with your best shot, he seems to challenge. And they try. And one by one, he takes them on, patiently, kindly, never losing his cool. Those who seek to silence him know that they cannot fight him fact to fact. So they must content themselves with trying to discredit him, with ad hominem attacks.
There is a very illustrative BBC Radio interview with Pipes and one of the writers for the website Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah. Abunimah, right out of the gate, insults Pipes personally saying he never gets it right. He was wrong two years ago and hes wrong now. Pipes reminds the interviewer that the terms of his being interviewed is that he will brook no ad hominem attacks. Nevertheless, not only does Abunimah seem fixated on discrediting Pipes, it quickly becomes obvious that discrediting Pipes is his only mission. Only when pressed does he reluctantly offer a gratuitous comment on the topic at hand, before returning to slurring Pipes.
Those unfamiliar with Pipes actual writings and beliefs can easily be taken in by such vehement and deliberate smear campaigns. Pipes recalled his engagement at Canadas York University: Many of the faculty protested vigorously that I not be allowed to speak, but in the end they had to back down turned out they hadnt even read my stuff, but were merely going on hearsay. But the most astonishing thing was when a detective in the Toronto polices Hate Crime Unit briefed me just before my talk to make sure I was aware that Canada´s Criminal Code makes advocating genocide or promoting hatred of a specific group punishable by prison terms up to five years.
To anyone familiar with Pipes work, the idea of his advocating genocide or promoting hatred of Muslims is counter to everything he stands for. Would an Islamophobe spend his life studying Islam, living in, and traveling to Muslim countries?
So who exactly are Pipes enemies?
Naming the enemy is very important, Pipes explains. The enemy is not terrorism. The enemy is militant Islam and it is not so much a religious as a political movement. Militant Islam sees itself as engaged in a cosmic struggle with infidels over the future course of all human experience. No other extreme version of any religion has this kind of ambition. Militant Islam is in this fundamental way comparable to fascism and communism - the ambition, the ruthlessness, the goal of taking over governments, the goal of controlling every aspect of a persons life ...
He pointed out that moderate Muslims are often the first victims of the militants, citing Algeria, where over 100,000 have been killed through militant insurrections. And of course, this desire to take over extends to non-Muslims. An example would be in the Sudan, where two million have been killed and four million displaced by militant Islams drive to dominate the Christians and animists there.
Pipes warned that although North American militant Islamist groups appear peaceful, their goal of taking over, controlling our society, remain the same as the more violent versions, and are just as threatening to our way of life. Militant Islam is spreading significantly, especially in the last five years. Pipes believes that our aim should therefore be to defeat militant Islam, and encourage the return to moderate Islam.
Several prominent North American Muslim groups have painted you as a radical. What do you say to that? I asked.
I am a moderate. For instance, I was on an American panel recently and I was the only one who made the distinction between radical and moderate Islam.
What were the rest saying?
The rest were saying that Islam was all bad.
This is the essential Pipes, the willingness to rescue moderate Islam, the religion, from its politically inspired militants, to pinpoint exactly the source of the problem. What could possibly be more welcome news to Muslim moderates than that? In fact, the most obvious reason a Muslim group would be opposed to him is if they were, in fact, radical.
Pipes estimates that right here in North America, 80% of Muslim leaders, those who run the mosques and madrassas, are radicals. Fortunately, more and more individual Muslims are willing to say so. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to these powerful associations, especially if one is a Muslim. They risk becoming pariahs in their communities. Nevertheless, they are beginning to come forward, angered at radical groups like CAIR purporting to speak for them. These include Palestinian writer Nonie Darwish, Washington writer and scholar Jamal Hasan, medical student Khurshid Ahmad, renowned scholar and authority on Islamic history Khalid Duran, President of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance Tashbih Sayyed, Dr. Khurshed A. Chowdhury, and Egyptian author and scholar Dr. Younus Mansour.
All would agree with Sayyed, who said President Bush won my heart that he is serious about fighting terror and fostering a more peaceful world when he nominated Daniel Pipes to the board of directors at the U.S. Institute of Peace.
And all are resentful that militant Islamists and organizations like CAIR, MPAC, and AMC purport to speak for them. As Dr. Chowdhury said I am a Muslim, but I do not support the anti-American agenda of terrorism.
These moderate Muslims look to Daniel Pipes to provide support for their views. In my own community, there is a prominent Muslim writer who has decided to come out on his stance against terror, even the terror in Israel. He is now an untouchable in his Muslim community and looking to contact (who else?) Daniel Pipes. I think that says it all. Pulling the rug out from under Daniel Pipes, giving in to radical Muslim groups, delegitimizing him, will be doing a grave disservice to the moderate Muslims who need our support now more than ever. They need to know that when they forsake their radical communities that there will be somewhere to turn.
Radical groups are bullying Daniel Pipes. They are unfairly, baselessly demonizing him. These smear tactics make a mockery of the values of the United States of America and they must not be allowed to triumph. We must not back down on this.
Let your voice be heard:
Judd Gregg (R-NH) Phone - 202-224-3324; Fax - 202-224-4952
Bill Frist (R-TN) Phone - 202-224-3344; Fax - 202-228-4637
Michael Enzi (R-WY) Phone - 202-224-3424; Fax - 202-228-0359
Christopher Bond (R-MO) Phone - 202-224-5721; Fax - 202- 224-8149
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Phone - 202-224-4944; Fax - 202-228-3398
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Phone - 202-224-4543; Fax - 202-224-2417
James Jeffords (I-VT) Phone - 202-224-5141; Fax - 202-224-5468
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Phone - 202-224-4451; Fax - 202-228-0121
Charlotte West is an MBA, marketing analyst and writer based in Arizona. Her articles have appeared in numerous international publications. She can be reached at CharlotteWest@hotmail.com.
Perhaps this was the typical reaction in the circles of academia that Charlotte West hangs out in. I don't know a single real life American who reacted that way. Every single person I know (well with the exception of maybe one or two ultra-liberals) was pissed off! Far from cringing and self-doubt, 90% of America was ready to go righteously kick some terrorist butt. And most still are. Much as I like Daniel Pipes, we sure didn't need him to tell us that.
The filthy swine let their hair down and offered a glimpse into what we (the US) have in store. If the general American public had witnessed this scene there wouldn't be another filthy mosque built on our soil.
THEY ARE OUT TO KILL US AND THAT'S THE TRUTH.
Every time President Bush and FBI head Mueller meet with terrorist front groups like CAIR and AMC I want to puke.
When challenged on why they are meeting with terrorists, they have no answer, transfer the call, or just hang up.
Exactly. But no one wants to send troops there. That angers me. Why is Liberia more important than a country that once harbored Osama?
Exactly. But no one wants to send troops there. That angers me. Why is Liberia more important than a country that once harbored Osama?
(Figuratively speaking, mind, you.)
If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me. ~
Haa, haa!! Welcome to the world of the America hating neo-left, Kennedy on down. They'll protect their little gods of multiculturalism and political correctness no matter who gets scrificed on their pagan alters.
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.