About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, August 5, 2005 - 11:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Also the holy war on the kuffar was declared 14 centuries ago. Time for a reality check Mr Pipes.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, August 5, 2005 - 11:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ruth,

All knowledge follows from induction, and in this case Pipes seems to have a wider range of facts at his command than you: not only the present state of Islamic cultures, but also their history; not only the culture of Moslem separatists, but also the cultures of Moslems who are full integrated into human civilization. I count among the latter several friends, including Arab Israelis whom I knew when I lived in Israel; several of my MIT classmates; and my colleagues both at Bell Labs and in my University.

The fact that Moslem separatists constitute a numerical majority of Moslems at this time is not a permanent given, but something that the rest of Human civilization - and Western policy - can change. Because all knowledge follows from induction, the most powerful instrument of the change we want is Capitalism, because only Capitalism can give its participants inductive knowledge of the harmony of interests among men. You are new to this forum; please read my article about Bush's failure to impose Capitalism in Iraq for more on this point.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The fact that Moslem separatists constitute a numerical majority of Moslems at this time is not a permanent given
 
But its a fact we have to deal with that now and Pipes realizes that.  We're not fight Malayisa, or Indonesia, or Bangladesh; if your not fighting against us or helping those who are, I don't give a damn what religion you are.  Look, he breaks it down here:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/103

 Let me try to specify with greater exactness the constituency for militant Islam. It is divisible into three main elements.
The first is the inner core, made up of the likes of Osama bin Laden, the nineteen hijackers, al Qaeda, leaders of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the rest of the network of violent groups inspired by militant Islamic ideology. Such groups have mostly come into existence since 1970, becoming since then an evermore important force in the Muslim world. The network, dubbed the "Islamintern" by some Muslim critics, contains both Shiite and Sunni variants, appeals to rich and poor alike, and is active in such far-flung locations as Afghanistan, Algeria, and Argentina. In 1983 some of its members initiated a campaign of violence against the United States whose greatest triumph so far was the spectacular operation on September 11. In all, the network's adherents are as few as they are fanatical, numbering perhaps in the thousands.
The second ring comprises a much larger population of militants who are sympathetic to al Qaeda's radical utopian vision without themselves being a part of it. Their views were on display daily as soon as hostilities began in Afghan istan: protesters and mujahideen by the tens of thousands, all expressing a determined loathing of the United States and an enthusiasm for further acts of violence. Countries not normally heard from, and hardly hotbeds of radicalism, came to life to protest the U.S. campaign.
As best I can estimate from election data, survey research, anecdotal evidence, and the opinions of informed observers, this Islamist element constitutes some 10 to 15 percent of the total Muslim world population of roughly one billion - that is, some 100 to 150 million persons worldwide.
The third ring consists of Muslims who do not accept the militant Islamic program in all its particulars but do concur with its rank anti-Americanism. This sentiment is found at almost every point along the political spectrum. A secular fascist like Saddam Hussein shares a hatred of the United States with the far leftists of the PKK Kurdish group who in turn share it with an eccentric figure like Muammar Qaddafi. Reliable statistics on opinion in the Muslim world do not exist, but my sense is that one half of the world's Muslims -or some 500 million persons- sympathize more with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban than with the United States. That such a vast multitude hates the United States is sobering indeed.
That is not to say, of course, that anti-Americanism is universal among Muslims, for important bastions of pro-American sentiment do exist. These include the officer corps of the Turkish military, who are the final arbiters of their country's destiny; several leaders of Muslim-majority states in the former Soviet Union; the emerging dissident element in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and, more generally, those Muslims who have experienced at first hand the dominion of militant Islam.


Post 3

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 11:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sadly, Islam hasn't developped since the 15th century as historical documents on associations as the Assassines (Haschischyyn) show. They are still ignorant towards women rights and tend to be highly aggressive against other ideologies than yours.

So, I don't think that we can calculate with "moderate" mainstream Islamism, at least not  in the Middle East.
When it comes to Islamism in European countries it depends from individuum to individuum. Some communities preach the same stuff we can get in the Middle East, but also many (financially successful) Arabs have shown that they don't care about many segments of the Koran, but rather enjoy their religious thinking like many Christians in the US.

Religious fanatism is also in many ways related to failure in life or unemployment, but not necessarily confined to it (as with National-Socialism).


Post 4

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 12:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm a strong advocate for fighting an aggressive War on Terror, but I don't think it's fair to call Pipes a Judas.  You castigate his approach as PC for not trying to alienate every single Muslim in the world.  I can have friends that are Christians without trying to convert them to full reason every time we interact.  Why shouldn't we try to form alliances with Muslims that may be somewhat religious, but that reject terrorism and want to live as civilized people?  One of those less-than-fully-rational people might help us catch some terrorists. 

On Pipes's website right now is an article on whether CAIR was founded by Islamic Terrorists.  Of all the people in this country to pick a fight with about their commitment to the WOT it's laughable to go after him.  How about the entire Democrat party instead, for starters?


Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel Pipes...a "Judas"?

What absolute rubbish. Let me give a specific example of his integrity, from my own direct experience.

For my swan song as publications editor at the Capital Research Center, I persuaded the formidable Dr. Pipes, and his associate Sharon Chadha, to write a lengthy special report: "Council on American-Islamic Relations: The Benign Public Face of America's 'Wahhabi Lobby'." It's just been published in the August issue of CRC's publication Organization Trends, available online at the preceding link in PDF format.

CAIR, which wears the mask of "moderation," is in fact the biggest, best-organized group of excuse-makers and apologists for Islam's Wahhabi wing in America. Some of its representatives are far more sinister and unsavory than that. See for yourself: the special report by Pipes and Chadha is the most comprehensive effort yet to unveil these characters and their machinations. Persuading the ever-busy Dr. Pipes to write it, then editing and publishing his special report, constitutes one of my proudest achievements while working at Capital Research Center.

If Pipes were really the "Judas" claimed above, he would be falling all over himself to make excuses for groups like CAIR, accepting at face value their claims of "moderation," as encouraging signs of Muslim reform. Many in American political, media, and intellectual circles have been doing just that. But Pipes has been resolutely uncompromising against these phonies, and has been treated like a pariah by many political and "opinion leaders" for his efforts.

The mere fact that Daniel Pipes draws careful distinctions among various Muslims -- i. e., judges them as individuals, rather than as undifferentiated clones -- suggests to me that he is operating on principles that ought to be applauded, not denounced, by supposed "rational individualists."

If you're looking for someone to lay the label "Judas" upon, look elsewhere.

Post 6

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 6:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for that touch of sanity, Robert.

We must provide good ideas like individualism, not scapegoat.

Michael


Post 7

Sunday, August 7, 2005 - 7:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
""The bulk of Muslims are not actively engaged in the campaign of violent jihad against the West, although many support it either materially or ideologically."

Isn't this the most salient fact in formulating our policies against the jihadists?

Post 8

Sunday, August 7, 2005 - 6:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Pipes is by far one of the most important individuals exposing the Islamist threat. His work precedes others by decades. Rarely does he ignore reality and engage in fantasy solutions – like the Oslo appeasement process, which he criticized. Still, I believe he is wrong in his categorization due to some philosophical errors. It doesn’t, however, negate his overwhelming contributions to our understanding of the problem.

 

Edit (correct typo - thanks Pete)

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 8/07, 7:17pm)


Post 9

Sunday, August 7, 2005 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason, I for one do not think of as Islamists as being any sort of "treat".  :-)

Post 10

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 12:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ramblin' Robert--I downloaded and read the report over lunch. What an eye-opener. Every American should read it and understand that there is indeed a 'fifth column' here in the US.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.