Looking in the Rear View Mirror
Reader comment on item: Harvard Loves Jihad

Submitted by Howard Schechter (United States), Jun 12, 2002 at 14:18

Daniel,

I enjoyed your insightful article. It is amazing that in the quest to be "non-reactionary" and "liberal", Harvard has failed to look at world as it really is today, and recognize that democracy itself and free access to institutions such as Harvard, are under attack.

If the lessons of the 20th century are not enough to prevent us from gazing in the rear view mirror and saying, "if only we could have known or had more information", we should look at the recent events of just the past 12 months to know that "Jihad" in today's world, is a holy war against the freedom of speech, religion, women's rights and all those beliefs that we in democratic nations hold to be unalienable rights. And yes, under these rights, we allow and encourage, individuals to practice the religion of their choice.

To hide from the facts about the Jihad of today, makes the world no safer and no better then when the democratic nations hid from the facts about Germany in the 1930's; and most recently the atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda. The difference today is that these wars are no longer "far away from our shores". The fact is "Jihad" is no longer in Afghanistan, Iran, or Israel, but on American soil.

The goal of "Jihad" is to shake the foundations of our democracy, our economic infrastructure and our support for other nations striving to achieve "a government of the people, by the people and for the people".

We need to constantly publish and state the true facts. We need to write history today and not look in the rear view mirror and try to be revisionist tomorrow. We need columnist such as yourself to reach all of America and explain "Jihad" as it is, without obfuscation and disinformation. Please keep up the good work.

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.