Lacunae in Pipes' writings on Islam related issues

Submitted by Shankar Sharan (India), Oct 1, 2004 at 07:19

Whenever Pipes mentions Islam's intolerance to non-believers, he only mentions Christians and Jews. As if Buddhists, Hindus have had nothing to suffer. Or, does Pipes think Islam's intolerance to people not of the book is okay?

Pipes should use the history of Islam in the Indian sub-continent to illustrate, to teach the intent and tradition of Islamic scriptures and rules in action. Will Durant had written, 'Islam's conquest of India has been probably the bloodiest in history'. Islam's cruelty in Kashmir cleansed it of its famous traditional habitants - the great Kashmiri Hindu Pandits, whose ancesters were renowned sages and scholars of several classic Hindu texts.

Besides, India is currently facing incessant Islamic terrorist activities for more than a decade. Meanwhile the fanatic ideological fountain head of Islamic terrorism comfortably resides in Deoband, India. From Deoband, via Pakistan, to all over the world - that is the route of modern Islamic fanaticism. Why Pipes ignore this?

In short, Buddists and Hindus have been a worst sufferers at the hands of Islam, and yet Dr Daniel Pipes never takes note of this in his discourse on Islam.

I fail to understand why Pipes repeatedly fails to mention Hindus. Perhaps he thinks they are not strong enough, or not have nuisance value and could be taken for granted? The problem with this neglect is that it makes his arguments a little less rich.

---

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".