"The Longest and Most Vicious Confrontation"

abradley

Deity
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
2,202
Location
Thailand
Hopefully this short interview will wet the appetite for more of the Dr. Pipe's analysis:
"The Longest and Most Vicious Confrontation": An Interview
by Niram Ferretti
L'Informale (Italy)
August 30, 2016
http://www.danielpipes.org/16930/europe-and-muslims-in-confrontation

Share: Facebook Twitter Be the first of your friends to like this.
Daniel Pipes is today one of the most alert observers of the Middle East. From the history of Medieval Islam, he has shifted to modern and contemporary Islam upon which he has concentrated a large part of his focus as a scholar and historian, as well as son of another historian, Richard Pipes, the great Harvard specialist of Soviet Russia history.

Founder and president of the Middle East Forum he has written numerous books and countless articles on the subject of Islamism, Islamic history and jihadism. Among them, In the Path of God: Islam and Political power (1983), The Long Shadow: Culture and Politics in the Middle East (1999), and Militant Islam Reaches America (2002).

L'Informale: Dr. Pipes, thank you for granting this interview. I would like to start with a question about the connection between Islamic terrorism and Islam. We have been told repeatedly that the roots of Islamic terrorism are not to be found in the religion but in unemployment, frustration, nationalism, and (that favored explanation) in reaction to Western foreign policy, specifically the U.S. foreign policy. Please comment on this.

Daniel Pipes: The first explanation – about unemployment – is a silly, discredited idea that reflects a Marxist influence which insists that economic interests drive everything; as they say, "You are what you eat." I disagree. Yes, material concerns have great importance but ideas drive humans more. In other words, "You are what you think." To take a single example, it is impossible to argue that Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel killed 86 holiday-goers on the beach of Cannes, France, for economic reasons.

The second – about Western policy – is a convenient excuse. Yes, the West has a history of intruding around the world. But why is this violent response disproportionately among Muslims? Perhaps it has something to do with being Muslim?

Indeed, Islam is – no surprise – the key to political violence carried out in the name of Islam by Muslims. That's almost true by definition.

L'Informale: According to Samuel P. Huntington, Islam and the West are inevitably in conflict due to a deep and irreducible clash of values. Do you subscribe to this vision?

Daniel Pipes: Huntington was a brilliant scholar who in this case took an interesting idea too far. Yes, civilizational differences exist and have great importance. No, political conflicts and wars have less to do with these differences than with ideology and personal ambition. Tracing civilizational relations makes for a great seminar topic but should not be taken seriously by voters or policymakers.

L'Informale: What are, according to you, the main causes of the increased conflict between Islam and the West that has occurred specifically in the late twentieth century?

Daniel Pipes: Muslims tried emulating the liberal West (Great Britain and France primarily) in the era 1800-1920 to seek the sources of power and wealth without success; then they emulated the illiberal West (Italy, Russia, and Germany) between 1920 and 1980, and that also failed. In the past forty years, they have turned back to their own history. This too is failing. I often wonder what comes next; perhaps a return to liberalism, this time with better results? Or to illiberalism?

L'Informale: Between 1980 and 1995 - in other words, well before the Iraq invasion of 2003 - the United States had engaged in seventeen military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed towards Muslims; however, from President Clinton to President Obama, we have always heard that the West does not have a problem with Islam but only with extremists. Isn't this narrative wearing thin?

Daniel Pipes: I disagree with your premise. The U.S. government has intervened many times on behalf of Muslims, such as the Albanians, Bosnians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Saudis, Somalis, and Syrians. Further, millions of Muslims have been welcomed to the United States, some even brought over at taxpayer expense.

I also disagree with your "wearing thin" comment. It's been U.S. policy since 1992 to oppose not Islamism in general but only violent forms of Islamism. This policy has been largely followed in practice.

L'Informale: "For almost a thousand years, from the first Moorish landing in Spain to the second Turkish siege of Vienna, Europe was under constant threat from Islam", writes Bernard Lewis. Is the present Islamic resurgence in continuity with the past or a different phenomenon resulting from different causes?

Daniel Pipes: I see mainly continuity. The European-Muslim confrontation is possibly the longest and most vicious in human history, comparable to lions and hyenas. It has gone through many changes, with Muslims controlling substantial parts of Europe at times and Europeans ruling the great majority of Muslims just a century ago. This confrontation took a new turn with the German-Turkish labor agreement of 1961 and the American immigration reform of 1965.

The arrival in Germany of Turkish workers in the 1960s heralded a massive movement of Muslims to Europe.

L'Informale: According to the German political scientist, Matthias Kuntzel, "The starting point of Islamism is the new interpretation of jihad, exposed with uncompromising militancy by Hassan al Banna, the first to preach it as a holy war in modern times". Do you agree that the Muslim Brotherhood has been the main agency for the resurgence of jihadism in modern Islam?

Daniel Pipes: No, I see it as only one of several important Islamist movements. The most important is the Wahhabi (or Salafi) doctrine espoused by the Saudi government with all its vast resources, then the Khomeinist line of the Islamic Republic of Iran, then the Muslim Brotherhood, then the Deobandi school in India.

L'Informale: Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her latest book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, places Muslims into three categories: The Mecca Muslims, the largest majority who represent the more tolerant side of religion; the Medina Muslims, or the jihadist wing; and the Modifying Muslims, the dissidents and reformists who challenge religious dogma. Do you think this broad scheme is useful?

Daniel Pipes: Yes, and it generally corresponds to the triad of responses to modernity that I offered in my 1983 book, In the Path of God, which I called reformists, Islamists, and secularists.

L'Informale: In a recent interview I did with Israeli historian Benny Morris, he was very clear in emphasizing that Arab rejectionism has always been from the start the main obstacle to a resolution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. If Morris is right, then every notion of a possible peace is completely delusional. Is this also your point of view?

Daniel Pipes: I agree about Arab rejectionism being the cause of the conflict, noting that it has taken four main forms over the past century: Pan-Syrianism, Pan-Arabism, Palestinianism, and Islamism. But I disagree that peace is delusional; were Israel and its allies tough enough, deterrence could work and the conflict would likely conclude.

L'Informale: Of all countries in the world, Israel is the most vilified; just look at the UN resolutions against it from 1967 onwards compared to those against any other state. What are the main causes for this state of affairs?

Daniel Pipes: I count four: Nazi influence; Soviet influence; antisemitism; and the large number of Arab and Muslim UN member states.

L'Informale: With the ongoing civil war in Syria, Iran heading towards nuclear weapons, and Russia's growing power in the Middle East, America seems increasingly irrelevant to the region. What do you foresee?

Daniel Pipes: Don't count the United States out. I foresee the region going through even worse crises and many parties turning to the United States to take on a larger role, as is already happening in East Asia.

The original Italian-language version of this interview, "Il confronto più perdurante ed aggressive," is available at www.linformale.eu/3877-2/.
Related Topics: History, Islam
The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.
Pretty much agree with Dr. Pipes, my main difference is his view that Islam can be reformed, I don't see how.

Dr. Pipes has many pages of analysis of the Middle East.
 
I'm curious why you think you know better than Dr. Pipes about Islam not being reformable.
 
L'Informale could stand to hire some better editors. Going by this, Pipe's specialty seems to be common sensical soundbites, phrased with sufficiently academic style to make the reader feel better about their prejudices, and the structure of the presentation, the disconnected stream of questions and the bite-sized, wise-but-shallow answers, doesn't do much to discourage that impression, which I can only assume is in truth an unfair one.

They're supposed to be talking to an academic about world politics, but they've written it like they're asking a musician about their latest album, which isn't really appropriate or effective.
 
So basically Pipe is our William F. Buckley here?
 
I'm curious why you think you know better than Dr. Pipes about Islam not being reformable.
My understanding is Mohammad is to be held as an ideal example of a Muslim for emulation, if so his life style gets in the way of reform.

IMHO For any reform to succeed Islam needs to dump Mohammad, but would it survive without Mohammad?
 
My understanding is Mohammad is to be held as an ideal example of a Muslim for emulation, if so his life style gets in the way of reform.

IMHO For any reform to succeed Islam needs to dump Mohammad, but would it survive without Mohammad?

Well, Jesus is the ideal for emulation for Christians, and it seems to not stand in the way of most politically active evangelicals.
 
isn't this guy a zionist intent on sacrificing Americans to his cause?

The second – about Western policy – is a convenient excuse. Yes, the West has a history of intruding around the world. But why is this violent response disproportionately among Muslims? Perhaps it has something to do with being Muslim?

Gee, they shouldn't be reacting violently to our intrusions... How did the N Vietnamese and N Koreans react to our intrusions? Perhaps it has something to do with Republicans and Democrats intruding around the world.
 
L'Informale: Dr. Pipes, thank you for granting this interview. I would like to start with a question about the connection between Islamic terrorism and Islam. We have been told repeatedly that the roots of Islamic terrorism are not to be found in the religion but in unemployment, frustration, nationalism, and (that favored explanation) in reaction to Western foreign policy, specifically the U.S. foreign policy. Please comment on this.

Daniel Pipes: The first explanation – about unemployment – is a silly, discredited idea that reflects a Marxist influence which insists that economic interests drive everything; as they say, "You are what you eat." I disagree. Yes, material concerns have great importance but ideas drive humans more. In other words, "You are what you think." To take a single example, it is impossible to argue that Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel killed 86 holiday-goers on the beach of Cannes, France, for economic reasons.
Too bad he is wrong.
In every economic study of terrorism I've encountered unemployment is a factor in the likelihood of someone becoming a terrorist or carrying out terrorist actions. In college I did a research paper on this topic and while my research was relatively crude, it was consistent with the results.
Interviews with kadogo and militants in many of Africa's sordid little wars highlight that many people become soldiers and stay on as soldiers because they have no other possibility for employment. They can either fight and feel their life has value (and engage in power-tripping) or become a dirt farmer or beggar in the slums of Kinshasa. It isn't a hard decision to make.
It isn't poverty that encourages people to become terrorists - most members of Hezbollah have better education than the average Lebanese citizen- and there is no strict 1:1 correlation between lack of employment and terrorism but to dismiss it out of hand is foolish. One of the major drivers for people joining up with the NSDAP and other Weimar street gangs was a lack of employment and a search for meaning in life (see Eric Hoffer, The True Believer). Given Nazism and several forms of Islamic militancy (and militancy in general a la the IRA) share similar aspects to provide meaning and identity in life, a link between unemployment/underemployment and people joining up with terrorist groups should not be dismissed out of hand as this "scholar" does as the literature on the matter is definitely not settled.

L'Informale: "For almost a thousand years, from the first Moorish landing in Spain to the second Turkish siege of Vienna, Europe was under constant threat from Islam", writes Bernard Lewis. Is the present Islamic resurgence in continuity with the past or a different phenomenon resulting from different causes?

Daniel Pipes: I see mainly continuity. The European-Muslim confrontation is possibly the longest and most vicious in human history, comparable to lions and hyenas. It has gone through many changes, with Muslims controlling substantial parts of Europe at times and Europeans ruling the great majority of Muslims just a century ago. This confrontation took a new turn with the German-Turkish labor agreement of 1961 and the American immigration reform of 1965.
What a [censored].
Even a cursory look at European history indicates that kings and warlords Europe and the Near East were perfectly happy hitting up for loot any of their neighbors regardless of religion and there definitely was no "clash of civilizations", however much military autocrats like John Tzimisces might have wanted that.


L'Informale: With the ongoing civil war in Syria, Iran heading towards nuclear weapons, and Russia's growing power in the Middle East, America seems increasingly irrelevant to the region. What do you foresee?
Given that the freaking Mossad does not believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and the United States is still the final arbiter of what goes on in the region* the interviewer is either stupid or baiting this Pipes person.

*It was adorable seeing Europe pretending it was relevant in the Iran Nuclear Deal. They were only included so we would have someone to blame it on if it fell apart.

So yeah, a stupid person says stupid. In other news; politicians have sex scandals and bears crap in woods.
 
My understanding is Mohammad is to be held as an ideal example of a Muslim for emulation, if so his life style gets in the way of reform.

IMHO For any reform to succeed Islam needs to dump Mohammad, but would it survive without Mohammad?

Jesus disobeyed God's command to go forth an multiply, yet he seems to be respected by the two spin-off cults from Judaism.
 
My understanding is Mohammad is to be held as an ideal example of a Muslim for emulation, if so his life style gets in the way of reform.

IMHO For any reform to succeed Islam needs to dump Mohammad, but would it survive without Mohammad?
Don't you think he has already considered that? He is an expert on Islam after all, who has published many papers on the topic.
 
All would be well with the world if people would just follow a strict adherence to the teachings of Sid Meier.
 
Reformed Church of Soren Johnson: all religions are the same sans aesthetics, but if someone has a different religion you have to hate them.
 
Go ye therefore, thou shalt send missionaries to the North Pole and the South Pole, to convert the barbarian heathens. Form ye mighty armies of penguins and Santa's elves, and march on Buenos Aires and demand tribute!
 
And he sent the missionaries, and lo! He received the bounty of +6 diplo bonuses.
 
Don't you think he has already considered that? He is an expert on Islam after all, who has published many papers on the topic.
Yes, he has considered my views on reforming Islam and still feels it can be:
Can Islam Be Reformed?
History and human nature say yes


by Daniel Pipes
Commentary
July/August 2013

http://www.danielpipes.org/13033/can-islam-be-reformed
In the opening paragraph of this commentary he points out that there's a growing group who feel it can't be reformed and links to an article on that view.
 
Top Bottom