To be or not to be (an expert)

Submitted by Rebecca Ellen Moulds (United States), Sep 24, 2012 at 10:07

After a rudimentary perusing of the MPAC document, it seems that this is a case of 21st Century tar and feathering. Although the document seems well-researched, it lacks gravitas. Each "candidate" has a profile with a photo. The profile for Walid Shoebat, for instance, states that " . .an investigation by CNN found Shoebat's alleged terror past was false, and that he used this fraudulent narrative to get paid for speaking in front of law enforcement about the threat Islam, as an entire faith, poses to the United States." Making such sweeping statements claiming that Mr. Shoebat is a liar, is not only libelous in nature but requires absolute proof. Similarly, the profile for Dr. Pipes makes claims to certain "facts" that require substantiation. The inclusion of the justification of the internment of Japanese during WWII, as Dr. Pipes wrote, "has zero bearing" on his "knowledge of Muslim history." It may have been included as an added assault, just for effect.

Although my six years in Indonesia and ten years in Egypt don't qualify for "expert" or "pseudo-expert" status, I think I'm qualified to have an opinion of Islam based on daily observation, conversation and even friendships with Muslims. Thankfully, I will not be judged and condemned by MPAC. And thankfully, Dr. Pipes can continue to be a genuine expert on Islam.

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".