“It seems obvious that he wants ordinary Americans to view their fellow citizens who are Muslims as an enemy within and to fear them for no reason except that they are Muslims”
Daniel Pipes’ views on who is or is not a “moderate Muslim” (basically no Muslim is really moderate in Pipesland) are not new.
Back in 2003 he wrote an article “The Moderation of American Muslims” in which he found fault with a survey of Detroit area Muslims by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding called “A Portrait of Detroit Mosques: Muslim Views on Policy, Politics and Religion” which had found that “The vast majority of Muslim Americans hold moderate’ views on issues of policy, politics and religion.” What I found most interesting in this article was Pipes statement that: “But do the survey results actually say this? Emphatically not; Bagby’s results indicate anything but moderation, as some specific numbers suggest:
- By a ratio of 67 to 33, Muslims in the United States think “America is immoral.”
- About (the graph does not allow complete precision) 90 percent of Muslims favor universal health care.
- Fully 79 percent favor affirmative action for minorities.
- Asked about the job being done as president by George W. Bush, 85 percent of Muslims disapprove and a mere 4 percent approve.”
And, as I pointed out at that time:
“So, it would seem that in order to slip from the status of moderate to that of extremist or even Islamist Muslim one only has to:
- have moral qualms about some of the policies of the U.S. government, or concerns about some of the trends in society that may be considered a slide into acceptance of immoral behavior.
- want to see universal health care (perhaps like that other “extremist” group, the Canadians or like Dennis Kucinich
- want affirmative action for minorities (as do many other Americans), in fact another recent PEW study found that a majority of Americans support the general idea of affirmative action).
- or disapprove of the job President Bush is doing (in the most recent PEW Research study Bush’s approval ratings are slipping with the American public in general and disapproval rate is at about 53%).
This most recent update to Pipes moderation test makes me feel like a Muslim Alice in a neo-Con wonderland. In order to understand Pipes’ convoluted logic I have to refer to the article “Presidential Library Terrorist Connection” by Robert Jensen. In reading these and many other articles and statements made by Daniel Pipes and others over the past year it seems obvious that the definition of moderation is shrinking steadily over time — and now would seem to include only those who are ready to join the new “madhab of Daniel Pipes”.
As Professor John Esposito has pointed out:
“In light of Pipes equation of mainstream and extremist[s] Islam under the rubric of militant Islam and his definition of moderate Islam as secular or cultural, uninformed or uncritical readers of this book will erroneously conclude that Islam, not simply militant (violent extremist) Islam, is a serious threat domestically and internationally.”
In Pipes most recent foray into the realm of unfettered Islamophobia and fear-mongering, he has written an article “Islamism 2.0” which is a disturbing article in which he calls violent terrorists like bin Laden, followers of Islamism 1.0 and people like Keith Ellison and Tariq Ramadan, followers of Islamism 2.0 which according to Pipes is non violent, but only strategically so, and much more dangerous.
To quote Pipes opening paragraph: “To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a U.S. congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.”
And, his closing paragraph: “In conclusion, only Islamists, not fascists or communists, have gone well beyond crude force to win public support and develop a 2.0 version. Because this aspect of Islamism undermines traditional values and destroys freedoms, it may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0’s brutality.”
In between these two paragraphs he goes on about all sorts of individuals all over the world, and says nothing about either Tariq Ramadan or Keith Ellison. He merely raises their names as dangerous individuals and says nothing about why he feels they are dangerous. He manages to smear these people by simply including their names in this article, and he attempts to rile up those who follow such blogs by suggesting that somehow, simply by virtue of being Muslims they “threaten civilized life” even more than bin Laden or al Qaeda. His suggestion is clear, ordinary “moderate” Muslims are really just softening up people and using their influence through Islamism 2.0 for the eventual takeover of the country as “Once in power, they can move the country toward Shari’a.” What exactly is he hoping his readers will do about this? It seems obvious that he wants ordinary Americans to view their fellow citizens who are Muslims as an enemy within and to fear them for no reason except that they are Muslims.
This is Islamophobia 3.0 and it is reprehensible. Ali Eteraz has the only answer we need to give to this sort of hateful, and ridiculous propaganda – Muslims should raise the other finger. It is the only reasonable response.
Sheila Musaji is editor of the American Muslim
A Response to Daniel Pipes’ Allegations, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_response_to_daniel_pipes_allegations1/
A Response to Daniel Pipes’ Allegations, Jeremy Henzell-Thomas http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_response_to_daniel_pipes_allegations/
A Response to Daniel Pipes, Irfan Khawaja http://praxeology.net/guest-khawaja1.htm
Blacklisting of Professors, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/blacklisting_of_professors/
Blaming Islam: Examining the Religion Building Enterprise, Louay Safi http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/blaming_islam/
Daniel Pipes, Smearcasters report http://smearcasting.com/smear_pipes.html
Daniel Pipes and His Inflammatory Comment about Palestinians, Loonwatch http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/a-defeated-people/
Daniel Pipes and the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) http://www.alternet.org/world/65956/
Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce: Sharia, Halakha, and Double Standards, Loonwatch http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/10/weak-sauce-2/
Daniel Pipes nomination to USIP http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/jul03_pipes-stalled.html
Daniel Pipes’ schemes http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/08/pipes-schemes
Daniel Pipes tracks our nation’s traitorous professors so you don’t have to, Valerie Saturen http://campusprogress.org/rws/2589/the-21st-centurys-joseph-mccarthy
Daniel Pipes Strange Understanding of Radical Religious Ideological Movements, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/daniel_pipes/
Daniel Pipes, Sirhan Sirhan, Obama, and the Avon Lady, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/how_far_will/
Identifying Christian Moderates, Austin Cline http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/28/identifying-christian-moderates.htm
Militant Islam Reaches America (Daniel Pipes), Professor John Esposito http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/militant_islam_reaches_america_daniel_pipes/
Pipes and Abou el Fadl, Marc Lynch http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2004/06/pipes_and_abou_.html
Promoting Islam in the Public Schools?, Sheila Musaji http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/through_the_looking_glass_promoting_islam_in_the_public_schools/003772
The Truth About Daniel Pipes, MPAC-DC http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=72