I find myself in an incongruous position. For many years I've read the books, enjoyed the columns, and agreed with most political positions taken by Daniel Pipes; we diverge on his work: "Militant Islam Reaches America." In his usual well written, easily understood style, Pipes methodically attempts to build a case against what he and others profess to be true, that there exists a differentiation between Islam and militant Islam. Unfortunately, historical evidence does not support this premise. More to the point, Islam is Islam.
As the inside cover of the book suggests, the work is divided into two subjects, what he calls, "the crucial difference between Islam the faith and militant Islam the ideology." His secondary supposition claims the current conflict between Islam and the West is not a clash of civilizations "but a battle for the soul of Islam among Muslims themselves." In effect, Pipes is professing what two Presidents before him have stated as well, "Islam is a peaceful religion." This may be a politically correct espousal but it is also blatantly wrong.
What perplexes me is that throughout the entire book Pipes recognizes the dangers of militant Islam; radical; totalitarian; antidemocratic; anti-Semitic but continually comes to the wrong conclusions. In Chapter 4 he recognizes that through democratic elections radical groups like Hamas are gaining power and doing "dismayingly well" in the Muslim world. If they are doing "dismayingly well," people sharing their views must be supporting them. Since Hamas received almost unanimous approval from its electorate, couldn't you conclude that these constituents are as radical as the government they elected? Likewise, based upon the history and codified underpinnings of Islam, one must further conclude that Islam is an inherently intertwined religious, political movement. All Muslims are bound by the Qur'an and must study and adhere to the dictates of this "direct message from God." However along with the Sunnah and the iHadith these books are replete with invective toward all other religions and beliefs other than itself. This is not to say that every Muslim wants to kill you but it does mean that if he's devout and believes in his scriptures he must undoubtedly be militant. Under cutting his own thesis, Pipes so much admits to this on page 139 by stating: "the inescapable and painful fact is that only Muslims are tempted by militant Islam."To the serious student of this topic I urge that you read two thoroughly annotated books instead of "Militant Islam Reaches America;" the first is the easily read: "The Truth about Muhammad" by Robert Spencer and then the epic work by Dr. Andrew G. Boston, "The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism."
Finally at the risk of piling on, I must comment on his secondary apriorism, that the current conflict with Islam "is not a clash of civilizations." If ever in history there was a clash of civilizations, this is it. Once again, Pipes falls short of proving his point. Unless he believes the law of the Sharia is compatible with western jurisprudence; or that arranged marriages between under aged children and adults is in accordance with the western mind. Perhaps someday, misogyny will no longer be tolerated in the Islamic world and Christians, Jews, and other religious groups will have the right to practice or not practice their religions on the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere. Unfortunately, as we speak that's not the case. Until matters such as these are changed and precepts concerning others are amended in their scriptures, the uncoupling of militant Islam from faith based Islam is nothing more than a prevarication.
Jerrold L. Sobel
As the inside cover of the book suggests, the work is divided into two subjects, what he calls, "the crucial difference between Islam the faith and militant Islam the ideology." His secondary supposition claims the current conflict between Islam and the West is not a clash of civilizations "but a battle for the soul of Islam among Muslims themselves." In effect, Pipes is professing what two Presidents before him have stated as well, "Islam is a peaceful religion." This may be a politically correct espousal but it is also blatantly wrong.
What perplexes me is that throughout the entire book Pipes recognizes the dangers of militant Islam; radical; totalitarian; antidemocratic; anti-Semitic but continually comes to the wrong conclusions. In Chapter 4 he recognizes that through democratic elections radical groups like Hamas are gaining power and doing "dismayingly well" in the Muslim world. If they are doing "dismayingly well," people sharing their views must be supporting them. Since Hamas received almost unanimous approval from its electorate, couldn't you conclude that these constituents are as radical as the government they elected? Likewise, based upon the history and codified underpinnings of Islam, one must further conclude that Islam is an inherently intertwined religious, political movement. All Muslims are bound by the Qur'an and must study and adhere to the dictates of this "direct message from God." However along with the Sunnah and the iHadith these books are replete with invective toward all other religions and beliefs other than itself. This is not to say that every Muslim wants to kill you but it does mean that if he's devout and believes in his scriptures he must undoubtedly be militant. Under cutting his own thesis, Pipes so much admits to this on page 139 by stating: "the inescapable and painful fact is that only Muslims are tempted by militant Islam."To the serious student of this topic I urge that you read two thoroughly annotated books instead of "Militant Islam Reaches America;" the first is the easily read: "The Truth about Muhammad" by Robert Spencer and then the epic work by Dr. Andrew G. Boston, "The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism."
Finally at the risk of piling on, I must comment on his secondary apriorism, that the current conflict with Islam "is not a clash of civilizations." If ever in history there was a clash of civilizations, this is it. Once again, Pipes falls short of proving his point. Unless he believes the law of the Sharia is compatible with western jurisprudence; or that arranged marriages between under aged children and adults is in accordance with the western mind. Perhaps someday, misogyny will no longer be tolerated in the Islamic world and Christians, Jews, and other religious groups will have the right to practice or not practice their religions on the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere. Unfortunately, as we speak that's not the case. Until matters such as these are changed and precepts concerning others are amended in their scriptures, the uncoupling of militant Islam from faith based Islam is nothing more than a prevarication.
Jerrold L. Sobel
