a distinction without a difference

Submitted by donvan (United States), Nov 7, 2007 at 15:25

I have seen Dr Pipes at American U. in DC, A more intelligent,thoughtful and polite gentleman scholar is difficult to imagine. I struggle with his insistence, however, that 'Moderate' Islam is the solution for 'Militant' Islam. I simply do not understand his rationale. Unless it is simply a recognition of political reality of the numerical solidarity of the Muslim global insurgency. In which case, is hardly a cause for optimism.

...'islam' has no redeeming social value. Aside from strict control of the masses it is , in all aspects, antithetical to to the nation -state, embraces pratical enslavement of females, allows no process for liberalization of the inhumane justice system. Are we blinded by its acceptence by conventional wisdom that it is "One of the three great monothestic religions of the world". We could have just as easily said that "Soviet communism is one of the great social economic systems in the world" which would be as truthful as the former.

Something else is at work here. Some ' meeting of the minds' of the elites of politics,academia, economics, to find some ways and means of 'civilizing' a pernicious mythology which is so apparently detrimental to the nation -states, and the independence of the individual, and the espoused values.

What would be the consequences of advocating the elimination of Islam and working toward that end be? The Muslims objections notwithstanding, Islam is not, has never been, and will not be moderated into a system of belief compatible with the existing order.

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".