Some objections

Submitted by Alexandros (United Kingdom), Oct 19, 2016 at 07:26

What you have been describing doctor Pipes is just a fight among radical perspectives of Islam and nowhere is there a modest version of Islam. In that sense i think that the observation you are making is not correct. What you have described has been the case for many decades. Radical Shia against radical Sunni. They fight each other for decades, however both movements are stronger than ever and have different versions as well. ISIS or Islamic State is something that is definitely worth to be studied. How on earth did they emerge and by whom are they supported in order to sustain a war for more than 5 years with evidently the whole world against them?

Radical Islam is unfortunately rising. In Europe migrants or refugees from the Middle-East, and i do not know whether they should be considered as refugees in Europe legally, bring with them Saria and violence! The same happens in America and in every state they go. In Turkey Erdogan ,who is a fanatic Islamist, rules with the approval of the vast majority of the population. In this case Gulen was the most moderate part of the conflict. Moreover, Erdogan is invading Iraq and Syria in order to defeat the only secular power in the region which is the Kurds! You talked about Saudi Arabia. It is impossible in my opinion for the IS to have survived that long without any help from Turkey and Saudi Arabia. You said that Saudis are afraid because the other Islamic powers are supposed to be Republic. On the contrary, not only they are not republic but they are imperial! Erdogan is trying to kill even that ill version of Republic in Turkey and construct an imperial system. In that sense the Saudis have nothing to be afraid of from people who blindly believe in Mohammed because their rule emanates from him directly.

Concluding, i believe that Radical Islam is of course rising and the only secular forces in the region the Kurds, and Assad are under seize. Only in Egypt the secular government managed to take power and that is because of the army and not because of people revolting. The army remained loyal it its nationalist and secular beliefs and took power, if the army had changed values, Morsi would have been the ruler and Egypt would have been a tool in the Emperor's hands and we all know who the emperor is....

I know it is a matter of perspective but i believe that mine is backed from more evidence either empirical or rhetorical.

Best Regards Dr Pipes!

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".