Maybe before making a comment for or against Pipes, guppies should at least mention how much of his work have they read, so that their point of view is taken in context. I doubt very many have read his books, or even follow his regular columns.
I have read only a couple of his books, which he wrote in the 80s. Other than that I am on the email list where I get most of his articles. In my opinion, he claims that their is a difference when he talks of Islam as a doctrine, Islam as a political power and Muslims in general & extremists in particular. Though from his work that I have read, such a distinction is very hard to gather. It could be that the books he wrote in 80s are not part of his self-proclaimed evolved opinion where supposedly he is very clear on his points.
One of the books his supporters quote is “Militant Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution” .. I haven’t read it but if someone else has, please do give us a review. More importantly, what is his view of a moderate Islam? Usually this term is used for Hollywood lovin’, no need for politics, pessimistic Muslim who doesn’t care what goes on around.
From an intellectual point of view, I find it hard to accept him as an “expert” mainly for two reasons. (1) His own experience of the Muslim world, which BTW for American popular public opinion very conveniently revolves around the Middle east & have no mention of Muslims in China, Russia, India, Bangladesh Indonesia etc. that greatly out number the ones in Palestine, Syria, Iran & Saudi Arabia, is his 3 years in Egypt as a student studying abroad. I doubt living 3 years “among the people” makes him an expert. (2) In the books I read, his basis of knowledge starts and ends with the history written at the time of Ottoman Empire. Most of the citations were from the books that were translated by Europeans who themselves where only interested in the Ottomans & their influence on Islamic Civilization for political reasons! Thus his views when it comes to Islam as a doctrine & also very political in nature.
Anyway, the following article has some interesting quotes … thought I should share.
Muslim groups oppose Bush peace nominee
By Katrin Dauenhauer
Updated Aug 24, 2003, 12:12 pm
WASHINGTON (IPS/GIN)-U.S. Arab and Muslim groups are strongly opposing the controversial nomination of an outspoken Middle East scholar to a federally-funded peace institute, but the administration recently said that Daniel Pipes might get to take his place without a Senate vote.
President Bush nominated Mr. Pipes to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) in April, but the move has been stalled by concerns about Mr. Pipes’ highly controversial views on the Muslim world and the Arab-Israeli conflict, among others.
President Bush suggested he might use a “recess appointment” to place Mr. Pipes, director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, in the USIP position while the Senate is on its summer break. The appointment would last until the next Congress is sworn in, potentially not until 2005.
“Such an appointment, which would bypass the legitimate role of the Senate on such nominations, would be an inappropriate manner to install an inappropriate nominee,” Hussein Ibish, the spokesperson of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) told IPS.
“This back-door move by the president is a defeat for democracy and an affront to all those who seek peace,” according to Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a statement.
At a meeting last month of the Senate committee on health, education, labor and pensions, the body that would have taken the initial vote on the nomination, several senators expressed opposition to Mr. Pipes’ views.
“The United States Institute of Peace is the last place that we need someone who is going to be a lightning rod for controversy—and Mr. Pipes is a lightning rod. If he is on the board, more of the talk is going to be about him and his views than it will be about the work of the entire institute,” said Democratic Senator Tom Harkin.
That meeting ended without a vote.
Opposition to Mr. Pipes’ nomination is also coming from a number of newspapers, including the Washington Post, the Dallas Morning News, and the Chicago Tribune.
**Mr. Pipes’ nomination also caused controversy within the Jewish community, with peace groups opposing his nomination, but other bodies, like the American Jewish Committee (AJC), endorsing the decision. **
Mr. Pipes has used his work to “alert the American public to the dangers posed by extremist Islamism in this country and abroad,” wrote the AJC’s Harold Tanner and David Harris. “At the same time, Dr. Pipes has been a defender and champion of moderate Islam.”
Mr. Pipes has long infuriated Arab organizations with his warnings of Islamic fundamentalism and its threat to U.S. security. But his opinions have ranged far wider.
**“Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene. All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most,” he told the National Review in 1990.
More recently, Mr. Pipes has called for law enforcement bodies to use racial and ethnic profiling and has fiercely advocated that mosques in the United States be regular targets of police surveillance. **
“This man’s hateful views stand outside the mainstream American tradition of equality and tolerance. He is a bigot. He promotes fear and hatred of many communities, not just Arabs and Muslims,” said Mr. Ibish.
**“His attacks on Black Americans are particularly vicious. He is also a strident opponent of the Oslo peace process and President Bush’s road map for peace,” he added. “And interestingly enough, it was Pipes who in the 1980s was criticizing the administration for not giving enough support to Saddam Hussein.”
Mr. Pipes has established a project called Campus Watch, a website run by the Middle East Forum that monitors the work of Middle East scholars for pro-Arab bias. Many scholars have likened it to academic neo-McCarthyism. **
“Daniel Pipes is not a credible, non-biased person. This involves his points on Islam, but also his intellectual credibility. He is literally harassing fellow academia by establishing a monitoring website,” Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society-Freedom Foundation (MAS) told IPS.
She also criticized the White House’s role in the nomination process.
“I think the reason is pretty obvious. It’s the Christian Right. Daniel Pipes fits to this constituency and has friends among them. And it has been the core constituency of this president and that’s why he is doing this step,” Mr. Bray added.
Congress created the USIP in 1984 as an independent, non-partisan federal institution to “promote the prevention, management and peaceful resolution of international conflicts.”
The esteemed institute’s bipartisan 15-member board is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Critics fear the current controversy could severely damage the USIP’s integrity and credibility.
“Given Mr. Pipes’ opposition to the president’s call for understanding and respect and his disdain for the principles of conflict resolution, any such appointment must be seen in the larger context as an attempt to undercut the very mission of the USIP,” said the Arab American Institute in a statement.
"With someone of Mr. Pipes’ caliber serving on its board, our friends and allies around the world will undoubtedly have questions about whether we are serious about ending violence and what we mean by ‘conflict resolution.’ "
i wish i could personally apologize to Mr. Pipes for the lack of hygiene found in every brown-skinned person on earth. i have an idea for him that i’m sure he would welcome - why not just wipe out all us brown-skinned people from the face of the planet. Drop a nuke on all Muslim countries. That should take care of the stink of the curry and samosas. After that, he can expand his eugenics programme towards anyone whose hair is not blond enough to suit his personal preferences.