Some consistency needed

Submitted by Irfan Khawaja (United States), Jun 11, 2002 at 12:53

I'm not interested in defending Zayed Yasin, jihad, Harvard, or Islam, much less terrorism, but I'm still having some difficulty understanding Dr. Pipes's position here.

In this interview, he accuses Yasin of "fabrication" for Yasin's claim that jihad has
a non-military aspect. But the summer 2001 issue of Middle East Quarterly contains
an article by Abdul Palazzi defending exactly the same proposition. ("The
Islamists Have It Wrong").

Either both Yasin and Palazzi are guilty of fabrication, or neither are. If both are,
both should be condemned. But if both are, why is Palazzi's article published in Middle East Quarterly and linked to this site with apparent approval? And why does Dr. Pipes generally praise Palazzi rather than describing him as an apologist for terrorism? If neither are guilty, neither should be condemned. And yet Dr. Pipes has condemned Yasin but offered no comparable condemnation of Palazzi.

The position taken here is simply not consistent.

---

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".