We must criticize Islam mercilessly

Daniel Pipes shows appreciation for the fact that Americans Wake Up to Islamism but his last paragraphy gives me a moment’s pause.

    But I have one concern: the team’s increasing anti-Islamic tone. Misled by the Islamists’ insistence that there can be no such thing as “moderate Islam,” my allies often fail to distinguish between Islam (a faith) and Islamism (a radical utopian ideology aiming to implement Islamic laws in their totality). This amounts to not just an intellectual error but a policy dead end. Targeting all Muslims is contrary to basic Western notions, lumps friends with foes, and ignores the inescapable fact that Muslims alone can offer an antidote to Islamism. As I often note, radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution.

Islam doesn’t distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Yet to fail to do so, Pipes says is an intellectual error. Then he jumps from Islam to Muslims. He implies that to ignore such distinction is to target all Muslims. That’s too much of a non sequitor for me. To attack the religion is not to attack all Muslims. Where is the evidence to support that his hope in moderate Islam is justified. You see now he leaped back to Islam.

If there is any hope in moderate Islam or Muslims, it will only be fullfilled by an all out attack on what’s wrong with Islam.

September 8, 2010 | 21 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

21 Comments / 21 Comments

  1. Logicom avoids the thrust of my challenge and instead takes issue with my taking Islam as a monolith. All Muslims share the Koran which requires Jihad. But not all muslims put prioity on Jihad. Regardless, whether the Muslims are penetrating Europe of the west, their leadership want to replace their constutions with Sharia That is the Islam that I consider the enemy. If any of the Muslim groups you mention reject Jihad then that Muslim group is not my enemy but is still the enemy of human rights.

    I do not unite them, the Koran does.

  2. The fact that we interface with these organizations without actually attempting to change their (other) activities is legend.
    The Basis and background of 9/11 is available for anyone who has to patience and the willingness to accept unpopular conclusions.
    The reasoning, “…why then would (al-Queda, etc.) they not respond to the Russians…(etc.)….?” is spurious and you know it.
    I am quite familiar with the arguments you raise and have written on them as well. Your educational attempts are arrogant and at best irrelevant.
    I am making no attempt to change your thinking. I will appreciate the same from you.
    We have nothing further to discuss.

  3. We know that the U.S. regarded the Islamic terrorists who caused up to a million casualties (many of whom were civilians) as freedom fighters. That is no secret. The same for the strong ties that Bin Laden had with American intelligence.

    Things change and hindsight is 20/20. What may seem like a good idea may not be, but that doesn’t mean malevolence is the driving force. What is the point? There is no moral equivalence.

  4. Logicom, I disagreed with your claim that America has only itself to blame for aiding in the birth of and encouragement given Al Quaeda and from their to agree with Imam Faisal Rauf that Bin Laden was made in the USA and that America was complicit in 9/11.

    Your facts on this are wrong.

    Where I did agree however, is that America’s Mid East policies and actions, for instance in establishing bases in Saudi Arabia and other Mid East nations have infuriated the Jihadist organizations like Al Qaeda that see an infidel presence on Muslim land as defiling that land. The Saudis played a duplicitous game with America in that regard and continues to do so. When however Al Qaeda attacked Ryadh the Saudis became more co-operative with America in seeking out the Jihadists. That angered Al Qaeda even more.

    Further these Jihadists see weakness in America’s policies of appeasement, which has only served to embolden these organizations. Further, these organizations, moved by a greater sense of empowerment have managed to gain greater numbers and support amongst Middle East Muslims who like the Jihadists interpret and believe in Islam in the same way the Jihadists do.

    The same kind of perceptions of Iran’s Mullocracy have been evident ever since Khomeini rose to power and declared war on the U.S in 1979. Iran since has carried out in large measure a proxy war with America and Israel through Hezbollah and later Hamas as well, not to mention Syrian operatives.

    America is not to blame for al Quaeda or 9/11. As I noted, America’s policies to further her own interests in the Middle East, especially oil interests have led to actions that were contrary to the objectives and goals of Al Quaeda and American policies of appeasement have only served to embolden such Jihadist organizations and the nation of Iran.

    America supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s war against Iran because America was at war with Iran, but America did not want to say so for a number of reaons. Hurting iran through hnelping Hussein was a good way to engage the Iranian enemy. The U.S. used Hussein as their proxy in the war against Iran.

    Similarly before that, because the Soviets were not just competitors, but enemies of America in the cold war, it was only natural for the U.S. to back the mujahadin in their efforts to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

    I asked you before however, why would al Quaeda not declare that the Soviets and Russia were enemies of Islam? Why did Al quaeda when it took a position, not see America as having helped Afghani mujahadeen to liberate Afghanistan from Soviet occupation?

    Things are not nearly as simple as you make out Logicom.

  5. Ted Belman:

    The issue is not whether we bear any responsibility, but what are we going to do about it. One thing we should not do about it is to continue to call Islam a religion of peace and in any other way show that Islam is not a threat.

    Please be specific Ted, you are vey wishy washy with your terms. When you write Islam, who are you referring to? There is no one monolithic group called the Muslims. There are the Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia who fear the Shiites from Iran. There are Sunnis who hate and fear the Shiites. There are numerous factions, Groupings, sects, cults, tribes, etc. etc. who fall under the umbrella of Islam. There are moderate Muslims, there are extremists and plenty of kooks.

    What are you gaining by artificially uniting them all in one category? It is sheer strategic madness and totally false, to make more enemies than necessary by designating them all opponents and demonizing their religion.

    Stalin tried it and failed, Mao tried it and failed and Ted Belman is 1000% certain to fail.

  6. Narvey:

    Logicom-Intrepidum, it is facile, myopic and wrong to say that America (the West) have only themselves to blame for the creation and encouragement of al Qaeda and other Jihadist organizations.

    It is also wrong to say that al Qaeda began in Afghanistan in the 1980?s.

    The Soviet Afghan war was between 1979 – 1989, though the Soviet presence in Afghanistan was already on its last legs in 1988.

    Al Qaeda had its start in Pakistan in 1988-1989. Other jihadist groups that existed before or since began to see their mission as more global then just regional.

    What are you trying to do, rewrite history. Do you not know the history of America’s involvement with the el Quada A.K A. as Mujadaeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation.

    First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression.

    Not so, says Khaladi. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action:

    “I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.”

    Second, the interview is instructive concerning so-called “conspiracy theory.” To be sure, there are plenty of nutty theories out there. And of course, there are plenty of just plain wrong theories. But as is obvious , the US foreign policy establishment did, for want of a better word, conspire. Even as they claimed to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly fomented it *as a weapon of policy.* And they lied about what they were doing, pretending they were helping freedom fighters resist an invasion. In other words, deceit on two levels.

    One must ask oneself: if the US foreign policy Establishment used Muslim extremism as a weapon once, how can one argue *in principle* that they would not use it again?

    We say they *have* used it again; that they have used it continuously; and that we are seeing the fruits of this policy. Most recently we have seen the real essence of the Brzezinski doctrine in the horrendous events this past week in Russia (culminating in the school attack) and Israel (the double bus bombing).

    Narvey, we are not fools. We know that the U.S. regarded the Islamic terrorists who caused up to a million casualties (many of whom were civilians) as freedom fighters. That is no secret. The same for the strong ties that Bin Laden had with American intelligence.

    We are not to be hoodwinked by Narvey, an ambulance chasing, Canadian shyster lawyer from a backwater prairie community, with no background in international affairs.

  7. Bill Narvey’s comments an articles appear in a variety of places, each with the intent of subtly diverting attention away from the real underlying causes and justifications of the precipitous and necrotic planning to ride on the back of the EvilDoers

    necrotic?

    Which organisms are pathognomonic of acute necrotic ulcerative gingivitis? Ans.: Alter Cocker Doctors looking to get some nooky.

  8. These known associations with Saudi Arabia and the formation of the other organizations is not the point, nor is the presence of the Soviets–which, if you insist on considering it, shows that other people gave these people reason to resent our presence there. Also you selectively ignore my observation about understanding the perspective of the people who live there, and you equally as irresponsibly ignore the disaster we have produced–illegally and without end in a war with no legal declaration. (Also, tack on to that the ignored Bolland Ammendment.)
    The fact of our years of advanced planning of operations in Oman and the seamless move of our troops from the Gulf on the advent of “the attack” of 9/11, , the influence on–and the contribution to the creation of–Al Queda and our ongoing relationship with and our seminal role in the formation of–the Taliban behind the scenes–all–allows you to set up the people who live there as having less justification than we have in what they see and how they respond in their own countries’ interests.
    This is a very subtle method of operation that our government mastered some time ago. It has been around in generic form for hundreds of years. With the advent of the OSS and its spawn (I was recruited for OSS but saw what was happening and refused) we see our subtle playing of one side, then the other, always and ever in whatever way is in our (perceived) best interests. By “our” I referred to the corporations that have owned us since the Act of 1871.
    You and I both know the truth.
    “Joshua” commented in Jan. ’09 on the blog following an article by Patrick Poole regarding “The Ohio Terror Charity….” as follows:

    The scary thing is, if a case like this ever actually went to trial, the truth of the alleged links to terrorism could actually work in the terror-supporters’ favor. Think of the intimidating effect that would have on a jury. It would carry the credible implicit threat of “Allow us retribution through legal means, or our associates are perfectly ready any willing to use illegal means instead.” Or, put another way, “Find in our favor or [insert your worst nightmare terrorist attack scenario here]“.

    Bill Narvey’s comments an articles appear in a variety of places, each with the intent of subtly diverting attention away from the real underlying causes and justifications of the precipitous and necrotic planning to ride on the back of the EvilDoers. He is listed as “a retired attorney.” He is very useful.

  9. America and the West however, do bear some responsibility for the growing strength of al Qaeda and the Jihadist network including Jihadist Iran.

    Let’s not confuse responsibility and guilt. We live in an imperfect world where sometimes regardless of whatever is done there will be negative fallout. I lay by far the greatest part of guilt upon the tenets of Islam. As for where Iran is today, you can thank Jimmy Carter; there is where a lot of western guilt lies. Even so, regardless of western failures, the amount of blood that Islam has and is willing craving to shed negates the failures of western policy in terms of guilt. The guilt brought about by western policy failures should not be used to diminish or excuse the bloody ambitions of Islam. The guilt of the west when weighed in the balance against the aspirations of Islam is negligible in terms of how we must deal with the threat.

  10. Ted, all the more reason I don’t and we all shouldn’t trust the Saudis. They are not our (America and Israel) friend.
    Furthermore they cannot be trusted.

  11. Don’t forget the Brotherhood was founded in 1923.

    Wahabbism which upholds Jihad has been around for 700 years. It expanded exponentially when Arabs became rich from oil in the seventies and financed it, the Saudis included

  12. Logicom-Intrepidum, it is facile, myopic and wrong to say that America (the West) have only themselves to blame for the creation and encouragement of al Qaeda and other Jihadist organizations.

    It is also wrong to say that al Qaeda began in Afghanistan in the 1980’s.

    The Soviet Afghan war was between 1979 – 1989, though the Soviet presence in Afghanistan was already on its last legs in 1988.

    Al Qaeda had its start in Pakistan in 1988-1989. Other jihadist groups that existed before or since began to see their mission as more global then just regional.

    Ask yourselves, given that one of the objectives of al Qaeda and other Jihadist groups is to free Muslim lands of infidels, why have they not equally targeted Russia, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union before perestroika.

    America and the West however, do bear some responsibility for the growing strength of al Qaeda and the Jihadist network including Jihadist Iran. That blame lies however, in America’s/the West’s ineffective policies and actions of appeasement that have not worked to contain, undermine, marginalize or defeat these Jihadist organizations and Jihadist Iran.

  13. The issue is not whether we bear any responsibility, but what are we going to do about it. One thing we should not do about it is to continue to call Islam a religion of peace and in any other way show that Islam is not a threat.

  14. ligicom is absolutely correct: We have no one to blame but ourselves, for our government’s creation and encouragement of these terrorist organizations, so-called. As regards to the inaction on the part of the Muslim community, consider the following: Most Muslims would find themselves dead in an alley somewhere if they took a position contrary to the radical extreme position–in a similar fashion as you would find yourself if you publicly, loudly and continuously condemned the actions of our government on moral grounds. Daniel Pipes is an active anti-terrorist. Take a lesson from him: In order to combat an enemy, you need to know his understanding of a given situation, else you have no chance of success in dealing with it. Finally, don’t doubt for a moment that those very same super-patriots who take these extreme positions would hesitate to target the Jews, should they be chosen as the scapegoats-de-jour.

  15. I agree with Laura and I also understand where Bill is coming from. In the middleast it is much more difficult for muslims to make a stand. However here in Canada muslims have the freedom of their religion but I dont hear any of them rebuking Islamic terrorism. Just the opposite. At some Jewish events their has to be a police pressence because Muslims will show up and cause a squirmish as they harass Jews and their supporters entering these events. They bring their crap with them as a girl in Toronto was killed by her father for not wearing her Burka. I dont want to hear one damn word from any of them unless its denouncing the venom of their religion and the perpetrators who are committing these evil acts against humanity.

  16. Narvey: Laura: We all know that the Jihadis did not begin operations on 9/11. They started in Afghanistan in the 1980’s and they were very much the creation of the west. They were no less brutal then, their ideology was no different then, there religious beliefs were about the same; the only difference, at that time they were our darlings and so could not be designated as terrorists.During the Reagan years, the Jihadis were armed, funded, provided with logistical support and trained by the west in the battle to remove the Soviets from Afghanistan. This was such a successful project that it was an important factor in the final collapse of Communism in Europe. We cared not a whit that in the process we were instrumental in building the foundation of the present extremist Islamic movement.

    Face up to the stark fact, that in the quest to find villians in this whole matter, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

  17. If “moderate Islam” will not take up arms against extremist Islam and kill the extremists themselves then they are not “moderate”, they are simply part of the infrastructure and support system of a world wide Jihadist machine. If the Palestinians in Gaza will not kill the Hamas firing the rockets then they are all part of the terrorist infrastructure and they are all enemy combatants.

    War is war, and war is heck and it is what it is.
    Islam as far as I can see is currently worldwide united in Jihad, the so called “neutrals” providing logistics and support. Unless there are some secret Islamic armies who of their own initiative, without foreign pressure are fighting Islamic Jihadists.

    Where are these Islamic armies who have taken up the cause of freedom against tyranny?

  18. “L’Shana Tova”

    To all my Jewish friends, Uncle Nahum (Yamit), Ted, Laura, Bill Narvey, RandyTexas, ShyGuy, Sam, Ed D, so many to mention and all who partake in commenting on Israpundit.

    May G-d bless His people, provide a sweet year with the peace and security they so desire, seek and rightfully deserve.

    Happy New Year

  19. But I have one concern: the team’s increasing anti-Islamic tone. Misled by the Islamists’ insistence that there can be no such thing as “moderate Islam,” my allies often fail to distinguish between Islam (a faith) and Islamism (a radical utopian ideology aiming to implement Islamic laws in their totality). This amounts to not just an intellectual error but a policy dead end. Targeting all Muslims is contrary to basic Western notions, lumps friends with foes, and ignores the inescapable fact that Muslims alone can offer an antidote to Islamism. As I often note, radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution.

    There are no such terms like “islamism” in the muslim world. These are politically correct western inventions. There is no distinction between “moderate” and “radical” in the muslim world. There is only islam.

  20. Conservatives like Daniel Pipes are part of the problem as I stated in my post. I’m still waiting for those silent majority of reformist, moderate muslims that Pipes and other conservatives claim exists, to come forward and fight the so-called “extremists”. Last week I read in a Caroline Glick column about a poll of muslims in countries which are allied with America, such as saudi arabia, egypt and jordan, which show among their favorite world leaders are erdogan, bin laden, ahmadinijad, chavez. So much for the notion that most muslims are moderate.

  21. Pipes’ message is strange to say the least, It appears he is adovcating from both sides of his mouth.

    Yes, he has frequently said that “radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution.”

    He also wrote an article some years back wherein he confessed that moderate Islam because of its silence in the face of Islamism, rendered itself insignificant and irrelevant in the West’s efforts, including war to defeat Islamism and to keep more of the Muslim world from turning to Islamism.

    Pipes also seems to be at odds with at least some of his allies when he says:

    my allies often fail to distinguish between Islam (a faith) and Islamism (a radical utopian ideology aiming to implement Islamic laws in their totality). This amounts to not just an intellectual error but a policy dead end.

    There is a view expressed by a few experts, whom Pipes I think would count as allies, that Islam is Islam and the religion of Islam is inextricably bound up with political Islam, Jihadism and Sharia.

    Obviously not all Muslims are Jihadists, but certainly there are far more Jihadists and Jihadist sympathizers in the Muslim world then the relatively small handful that our leaders proclaim there are.

    Though Pipes may not be going as far as the fear filled Westerners, from leaders to the person on the street who contend that bad Muslims, ie. Islamists count for only a very small number of the world’s Muslims, whereas the vast majority of Muslims are not Islamists at all, but rather peaceful and tolerant, his argument is certainly headed in that direction.

    Pipes thinking, based on this and other articles, suggests that he has become pretty adept at managing congnitive dissonance that he almost certainly has.