Delusions for everyone!

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Apr 19, 2007 at 18:22

.... Here are some points and comments on the article, open for anyone to debate or discuss. I also invite Dr. Pipes to address these issues, if he's willing.

My first criticism is - where exactly is this "moderate movement" of Muslims? There was a Muslim summit in Florida last month, and only 400 people showed. How many of those 400 were Muslim is anyone's guess, but experience has shown us that usually only a very small percent are actually Muslim, as the rally years ago in Arizona proved. Even if all 400 attending were Muslims, that's only 400 out of an estimated 40,000 in the Florida/Georgia/Alabama area. So out of the 40,000 Muslims within an easy drive for such a huge "event", less than 1% showed up. Put another way, 99% of Muslims in the area refused to attend.

Out of the 2 million estimated Muslims in America, only 0.02%attended. In other words, 99.98% of all American Muslims could not be bothered to attend such an "important" reform event.

Out of the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, that accounts for 0.000025% of all Muslims worldwide. That means that 99.999975% of all Muslims worldwide refused to attend.

Consider now that in all likelihood less than half who attended were Muslim, so we must cut those aberrational percentages in half as well.

...

Now, let's move on to direct commentary on Dr. Pipes' comments.

DP: "Moderate Muslims do exist. But, of course, they constitute a very small movement when compared to the Islamist onslaught. "

Dr. Pipes is confusing an aberration with a movement. There is a world of difference between the two. When less than one in ten million stand up to reform Islam, there is no "movement". We have not seen this mythological "movement" grow, attain any significant goals, enact any changes in Islam, have any effect on terrorism or its sponsors, or produce any other achievement of benefit to the West. This mythological movement has not stopped one Hamas bullet from killing an innocent Israeli, it has not stopped Amadmanjihad from pursuing his nuclear holocaust fantasies, it has not resulted in the prevention of publication of even one pro-terror Islamic paper in Saudi Arabia or Iran. The only thing it has accomplished is proving that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim "movement". There are exceptions to any rule, but to look at an exception that is a tiny aberration to the rule is to be delusional.

DP: "This means that the American government and other powerful institutions should give priority to locating, meeting with, funding, forwarding, empowering, and celebrating those brave Muslims who, at personal risk, stand up and confront the totalitarians."

Again, how does Dr. Pipes propose that the American government meet with and support these mythological moderates inside Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc? It's a pipe dream, no pun intended. Not gonna happen. There is no actual reform "movement" inside Islam, so there is nothing to fund, forward, or celebrate.

DP: "One of those reasons is that over the last three decades, the Saudi government has generously funded the export of the Wahhabi version of Islam. Saudi efforts have promoted "the growth of religious extremism throughout the Muslim world," permitting the Islamists to develop powerful intellectual, political, and other networks."

Is Dr. Pipes suggesting that the American goverment invest BILLIONS of dollars into some mythological "moderate" movement in Islam in order to counteract the BILLIONS that the Saudis and the Iranians spend? Give me a break! We've yet to see any evidence of the existence of an actual "movement" in Islam (ie anything beyond a meaningless aberration), so why throw money at ghosts?

DP: ""This asymmetry in organization and resources explains why radicals, a small minority in almost all Muslim countries, have influence disproportionate to their numbers."

I'd say this is pure delusion or pure propaganda. A "small minority"? All polls, all studies, and historical reality proves otherwise. It's not some tiny minority causing problems. If that were the case, then why can the majority not reform the religion? Why are so few of the supposedly peace-loving majority of Muslims failing to attend vital conferences and rallies to reform Islam? Why are there so few rallies, conferences, or conventions? Once again, demonstrable reality proves all these theories that are supported by Dr. Pipes and others to be completely unfounded.

DP: "The study posits a key role for Western countries here: "Moderates will not be able to successfully challenge radicals until the playing field is leveled, which the West can help accomplish by promoting the creation of moderate Muslim networks."

Level the field? So once again, the suggestion is that we dump tens of billions of dollars into a ridiculous, unrealistic, fantasy solution in order to counteract the tens of billions the Saudis and others spend. With no historical reality to back the proposal, no polls or studies done to evaluate the reality of the results, etc. No thanks. Ban, deport, isolate, deter. The only solution for realists.

DP: "If this sounds familiar, perhaps it is because of a similar scenario in the late 1940s, when Soviet-backed organizations threatened Europe. The four authors provide a helpful potted history of American network-building in the early Cold War years — in part to show that such an effort can succeed against a totalitarian enemy, in part to suggest ideas for tackling contemporary problems. (One example — "a left hook to the Kremlin is the best blow" — implies that Muslims can most effectively overcome Islamism.)"

The Soviets and Islam are totally different and the analogy or comparison is utterly flawed. For one thing, the Soviets were not suicidal. They understood the concept of negotiation. They were not religiously motivated. And most Soviets hated the Soviet government, as the Soviet government killed tens of millions of its own citizens. We see the difference in the Palestinian territores, where Hamas (a terrorist group) was freely elected, in Afghanistan where Sharia was installed, in Iraq where Sharia trumps secular law, etc.

DP: "In contrast, the study proposes de-emphasizing the Middle East, and particularly the Arab world. Because this area "offers less fertile ground for moderate network and institution building than other regions of the Muslim world," it urges Western governments to focus on Muslims in Southeast Asia, the Balkans, and in the Western diaspora, and to help make their ideas available in Arabic. This novel stratagem defies a centuries-old pattern of influence emanating from the Middle East, but it is well worth a try."

Here I can at least offer the possibility of agreement. In a Western country, there it at least the potential possibility for converting Muslims to Christianity, or reforming them within their own religion, or secularizing them. However, this will not work in the Middle East, nor will it work anywhere in Southeast Asia where Islam dominates. It can only work in areas where Islam is weak, if even there.

Far better to ban, deport, isolate, and deter.

DP: "Although Building Moderate Muslim Networks is not the final word on the subject, it marks a major step toward the systematic reconfiguration of Washington's policy for combating Islamism. The study's meaty contents, clear analysis, and bold recommendations usefully move the debate forward, offering precisely the in-depth strategizing that Westerners urgently need."

Again, this is a delusion. It accomplishes nothing. The current power system in the US government will simply not deter the Saudis and others from spreading hatred and terror through Islam. These are ridiculous, unrealistic, unfounded expectations that cannot and will not lead to a situation. How anyone with a degree can believe this is beyond me.

---

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".