empowering the "not so" radical Muslims?

Submitted by Carmen Waggoner, Ph.D. (United States), Sep 7, 2010 at 11:56

Thank you Dr. Pipes for another outstanding article. The only point that causes me concern is your leniency toward "moderate Muslims". I cannot find anything moderate in this religion based on hatred of non-believers. From the political point-of-view, I understand your thinking, however, but wouldn't it be leaving a festering boil as we eradicate the open one? The very basic tenets of Islam are there, whether for radical Islamists or the so-called more modern ones, who have adjusted to a more evolved view of existence. I believe that the latter will always back radical Islam, openly as well as inwardly, because they have been endocrinated by Islam from birth to death, and are constantly reinforced by the very practice of Islam. For this very reason, I never believed that Obama abandonned Islam, and used conversion to Christianity as a start of his conquest of the presidency of the United States of America; it was a way to succeed in spreading Islamism, in the traditional way described in the Q'ran, the effect of using lies as an acceptable mode to secure the hegemony of Islam over the entire world, in the name of Allah. The so-called moderate Islam provides funds and other assistance to radical Islam.

The US overcame the expulsion of Japanese Americans; I would have no qualms removing the Islamic cancer eating away at America. It was an error of judgement to not beliieve the Japanese were true Americans; Muslims are only true to Islam. Zionists are the only ones who truly see Islam for what it is. It is not appropriate to the sensibility of the Obama/Clinton followers for obvious reasons.... Nevertheless, it is a true assessment of evil. I repeat once again what I stated years ago: Copernicus spoke about "the Yellow peril", he erred only with theril he predisted to the world; instead of the Chinese, the world is faced with the Arab peril.

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".