Using "Islamism" - Dr. Pipes Himself is Trying to be Politically Right

Submitted by Singha (India), Jun 29, 2008 at 07:22

Dr. Pipes has pointed out that enemy has a name and that leaders are reluctant to name it.

Dr. Pipes himself seems to be trying to be politically right by using a non existent construct called islamism.

India will be a useful ally only if it is ruled by rightists. (Most of the rightists in India dislike christianism as well on account of evangelist and catholic efforts to convert Hindus to christianism). Leftist congress and communists are supported by muslims and are unlikely to be reliable partners in the war on islam.

China's commitment on figting islam is more complex.

China has been ruthless with muslims inside its borders. It has with its totalitarian ruthlessness reduced its muslim population (1938-50 million, now-15 million) and possibility of islam as a political force detrimental to china.

Outside, china has strategic links with muslim nations ranging from the Sudan, darfur regime to the islamic generals in pakistan. It has used them to further its interests.

China's stakes in the war on islam are small except to the extent of tying the west up in a long war while using this time to modernise its economy further and copy technology from the west.

China will fight islam and that too in a limited way only if muslims ally with the west to split china up in east turkistan.

There have been accusations that China enabled pakistan based terrorists to take on West so that the afghan mujahaddins did not start creating problems for them in the neighboring east turkistan (chinese province).

West faces two challenges: One, challenge from islam which while diffuse is quite potent and another from totalitarian china which remains a long term threat on account of its well camoflaged intent to dominate Asia and the world.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".