69 million page views

Indigenous-American civilization & radical Islam

Reader comment on item: Debate in London: Radical Islam vs. Civilization

Submitted by Alan Hootnick (Chile), Feb 2, 2007 at 07:21

Dear Mr. Pipes: I was intrigued by your analysis of the clash of civilizations. I believe you are absolutely correct when you refer to a crossover between societies in the face of the "common enemies", the US & Israel. Below I have copied an article I wrote in 2005 in an English-language web site in Latin America, explaining the true nature of the "Indigenous-American" civillization (which Samuel Huntington erroneously calls "South American").

It is significant that radical Islam has crossed over and supported the Indigenous movement in Bolivia under Evo Morales. Read it and think it over.

ALAN HOOTNICK

ahootnick@yahoo.com

EVO MORALES AND THE "INDIGENOUS MIND"

By Alan Hootnick

"Thank you, Pachamama, Mother Earth, thank you for the coca leaf."

"Viva la coca, Yankee go home!"

These are the opening and closing statements in a typical speech or document by Evo Morales, the leader of the Bolivian opposition party Movement Toward Socialism, the leader of the cocaleros, the indigenous peoples' movements, the organiser of the roadblocks and general strikes, and very possibly the next President of Bolivia.

Should we take him seriously? Should we take his inflammatory statements literally? More importantly, to what extent does Evo Morales believe in his own message?

OCCIDENT, ORIENT AND INDIGENOUS

It should be understood from the beginning that when trying to comprehend Evo Morales and his movement, we are not merely dealing with another typical Western-style politician. We are actually dealing with an entirely different mentality and set of values. Just as everyone in this globalised world recognises that there are inherent differences in the "Occidental mind" and the "Oriental mind", there are equally profound differences in the "Indigenous-American mind."

For the Indigenous peoples, the earth, the water, the trees and the rest of nature are servants of the Deity and therefore have a special spiritual significance for mankind. When Evo gives thanks to Pachamama, this should be interpreted as being equivalent to an invocation of the Lord or of Jesus Christ, and we should therefore respect those words accordingly. Similarly, when Evo gives thanks for the coca leaf, he is not exhorting his people to get high on coke or to get rich in the drug trade, but is reciting a benediction equivalent to the Jews who give thanks for "the fruit of the vine" not as a license to get drunk, but as a sacrament in a religious service. Granted, the skeptical, cynical Western mind will probably scoff at the idea of endowing the coca leaf with sacramental value, but we must understand that the indigenous peoples have been using coca for millenia, long before the Westerners perverted it by converting it into an addictive recreational drug.

It should also be added that the cocaleros -- the coca producers -- are only slightly less poor than the rest of the miserably poor subsistence farmers in Bolivia. The coca producers earn the smallest share of the world's drug revenue, mere crumbs in comparison with the enormous profits of the distributors. So one could say that the drug cartels are exploiting the Bolivian cocaleros just as the colonialists and capitalists have always impoverished the native peoples. Evo should open his eyes and not be so naive.

THE EVO PHENOMENON

Juan Evo Morales Aima, 45, is a native-speaking Aymara who was born in the altiplano mining town of Orinco, but in the 1980s his father moved the family to the eastern lowland town of Chapare where they became farmers of coca leaves. During the 1990s, the government of President Hugo Banzer, under enormous pressure from the US, began a war of eradication against the cocaleros. This provoked fierce resistance from the cocaleros, and Evo Morales emerged as a leader thanks to his organisational energy, his oratorical eloquence and his daily contact with the average cocalero. He was elected to the Bolivian Congress in 1997, representing the provinces Chapare and Carrasco de Cochabamba with 70% of the vote, the highest of any Congressman.

In January 2002, Evo Morales was impeached and removed from Congress on the grounds of supporting "terrorism" -- cocalero resistance to the eradication program. Evo and MAS blamed the United States Ambassador for his removal from office, and from then on he began to attack the US as being the "enemy number one", as he put it, of the indigenous peoples, and accused the political establishment as being puppets. Or rather, he began to equate the two, stating that "American dollars have bribed Bolivian officials, corrupted our institutions, and have united forces against us. Recently, the US Embassy in La Paz has set up a mercenary force with orders to eliminate the coca and the indigenous people who defend it."

Evo Morales declared his candidacy for the June 27, 2002, Presidential elections although public opinion polls showed his national strength at only 4% (but bear in mind that opinion polls in countries such as Bolivia are highly susceptible to manipulation). His party obtained state funding for his campaign ($200,000), and Evo directed his rhetoric principally against US Ambassador Manuel Rocha. His posters read: "Who's in charge? Rocha or the Voice of the People? You decide." None of the other candidates wanted public debates with Morales, dismissing MAS as "a minor party." Evo himself said he would rather debate with US Amb. Rocha. "I prefer to argue with the owner of the circus, not the clowns."

Amb. Rocha declared just a week before the elections that if Evo won, the US would cut off all foreign aid and close off its markets. This provoked the inevitable backlash which helped Evo to finish a strong second with 21% of the vote, just two percentage-points behind the leader. Evo sarcastically thanked Amb. Rocha for his help. "Every statement [Rocha] made against us helped us to grow and awaken the conscience of the people."

Evo Morales then mobilised an unbeatable combination of farmers, shopkeepers, miners and truckers, and paralysed the country on numerous occasions with blockades of roads, strikes and shutdowns. This would probably sound familiar to any Chilean who remembers the tactics of the resistance movements in Chile against the Marxist government of Salvador Allende. The farmers and truckers of any country, if mobilised efficiently and if they have support among other sectors of the rural countryside, could effectively strangle an entire nation by cutting off food supplies. As a wise North American Indian once said: "If there is no food on your table, what are you going to eat? Money?"

The issue of Bolivia's natural gas is acutely neuralgic and emotional, and the indigenous movement's ferocious opposition to any exports to or through Chile is very confusing to Western observers. Why would Evo Morales prefer to sit on his gas rather than export it for the benefit of his people?

The explanation lies in the indigenous mind. As explained above, the indigenous peoples live in communion with nature, recognising that all living things are created and controlled by a kind of "Holy Spirit." They also recognise that all non-living elements in the Earth, such as soil, water, minerals and energy resources, are similarly controlled by the forces of this "Holy Spirit". Therefore natural gas is not just another economic resource which could be exploited strictly for economic gain, but is endowed with a life-giving intrinsic value, and is thus seen as being perishable, just like any living thing.

Therefore Chile's historic disputes with Bolivia -- the lack of a Bolivian outlet to the sea, the matter of the Silala "river" or "springs", and now the question of natural gas exports through Chilean territory which was once Bolivia's -- hit the Bolivian indigenous mind where it hurts the most: waters, resources and territory. So we should not be surprised by Bolivia's emotional reactions, because what we have here is a series of three interrelated casus belli. Wars in Europe have been started over much less.

THE HAND OF GADDAFI?

It must also be noted that many of Evo Morales' political allies are not motivated by indigenous cultural values, but rather by old-fashioned special interest groups and by traditional anti-American ideologies and demagoguery.

Their political agenda includes: 1) nationalisation of all natural gas resources either by way of confiscatory taxes or outright seizure, just like in Libya after Gaddafi's seized power; 2) a cartel of gas exporters, led by Bolivia and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez (whom they see as an ideological brother), just like OPEC; 3) a "new order" for South America, amazingly similar to Colonel Gaddafi's ambition to create a new order for Africa and an all-Africa Army commanded by none other than Colonel Gaddafi himself, and 4) a new political system in Bolivia based upon an "Asamblea Constituyente", curiously similar to Libya's "People's Assembly."

Merely coincidence? Or is this the subtle handiwork of Muammar Gaddafi? It is a known fact that Gaddafi has given financial aid to certain Latin American indigenous movements by way of NGOs in Europe. Although Colonel Gaddafi has demonstrated little interest in Latin America, this is only because Libya has no way of interacting directly with these countries. But he is always alert to the possibility of acquiring new allies.

Ex-President Sánchez de Lozada told the BBC in an interview on Oct. 21, 2003, that "it's interesting to note that Evo Morales received a peace prize in Libya awarded by (Colonel) Gaddafi." This is a fact. Evo Morales received the "Gaddafi Prize" in 2000 from the hands of the Colonel himself. Last November, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela had the great honour of receiving this distinguished award. Yet another example of how birds of a feather flock together.

Nevertheless, one should not get overly paranoid about Colonel Gaddafi. Whether or not he influences Evo's movement directly or merely by example, the impact of Evo's policies upon Western Hemisphere relations would be equally devastating.

COULD EVO MAKE PEACE WITH CHILE?

Now that Bolivian President Carlos Mesa has effectively discredited himself and the entire traditional political system -- after having threatened to resign, then withdrew his resignation, then tried to call snap elections, and then had to agree for the moment to finish out his term -- Evo Morales is the only alternative left. If he were to come to power, how would he govern? What would his attitude be toward Chile?

As an opposition force, Evo and previous leaders of indigenous movements have always obstructed a final settlement with Chile. In 1975, President Banzer reached a verbal agreement with Chilean President Pinochet on a territorial exchange: the Arica Corridor to Bolivia in exchange for the Silala area for Chile. But the Bolivian social movements nearly brought down Banzer's government. In the mid-'90s, President Frei designated Eduardo Pérez-Yoma as negotiator, and "almost" reached an agreement with Bolivian President Jorge Quiroga, but the Bolivian government was too weak to sell the agreement the people. And then Bolivian President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada "almost" reached an agreement with Chile to export its natural gas through Chilean territory in exchange for further economic integration. But Evo's social movements brought a violent end to the government, forcing President Sánchez himself into exile in the US.

In the final analysis, every attempt to apply Western-style logic to the problems of Bolivian access to the sea and exports of natural gas have always been rejected violently. Why?

The answer lies in "the Indigenous Mind". Western-style economic models are rejected by the Indigenous Mind precisely because they fear that the modern industrial economic model is a threat to the very existence of the indigenous way of life. Therefore any "logical" Western formula applied to Bolivia will be seen as an imperialist trap. Any dialogue proposed by Chile would become a dialogue of the deaf, as we have seen on repeated occasions.

Nevertheless, Evo Morales would be the only Bolivian leader capable of signing a peace treaty with Chile, precisely because he controls all movements which would oppose it. It could be observed in history that the most intractable "hawk" and "extremist" leader of a country often becomes the leader who brings peace. Classic examples are: Anwar Sadat of Egypt, who had to launch a war against Israel in order to make peace; Menachem Begin of Israel who had enough "hawkish" credentials to sign a treaty with Egypt; Charles de Gaulle of France who had the patriotic credentials to end the colonial war in Algeria, and US President Richard Nixon, whose anti-communist reputation helped him to justify détente with China, détente with the Soviets, and to end the war in Vietnam.

Could Evo Morales do the same?

At this point, the answer would be no. He would first have to restore Bolivia's honour before entering into negotiations with Chile, just as Sadat had to launch a war in order to recover Arab honour, and just as the Palestinians had to launch an Intifada before negotiating with Israel. Evo Morales as President of Bolivia would first have to demonstrate a show of military strength or achieve a diplomatic victory over Chile before being able to sit down to talk with the Chileans.

But does Bolivia have the strength to achieve anything which could restore its honour? By itself, no. Bolivia would need an ally. And Bolivia is helplessly isolated and ignored in the international areana.

But an ally is now looming on the northern horizon: President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.

* * *

Submitting....

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".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (144) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
WHERE'S THE REST OF THE TRANSCRIPT??? [73 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
I LOVE AMERICA!Aug 29, 2010 13:28177429
More relevant now than ever [53 words]Chris BlizzardSep 14, 2009 12:30161512
3Where are the moderates ? [105 words]Phil GreendJun 29, 2009 12:03158203
Islamophobia Cometh [185 words]moderate MuslimMar 18, 2007 22:2786814
1radical islam vs civilization [110 words]muhamadul arabie contehJul 30, 2008 08:3586814
WRONG [257 words]akMar 16, 2007 17:0286535
1No, I'm correct. [953 words]WestonMar 16, 2007 17:0686535
5For our dear ak: Christian Arabs and the word Allah and his poor Muslim education! [576 words]dhimmi no moreMar 17, 2007 07:4486535
4For our dear ak: and his poor Muslim logic part deux! [234 words]dhimmi no moreMar 17, 2007 16:3886535
3For our dear ak: and his poor Muslim logic part one! [263 words]dhimmi no moreMar 18, 2007 07:3986535
3For our dear ak and reading history part trois! [86 words]dhimmi no moreMar 18, 2007 12:2486535
Concurrence with Weston [127 words]E.J. ShaferMar 19, 2007 03:2186535
Obsessed [142 words]TerryMar 20, 2007 17:3386535
response to WRONG [41 words]Michal GutmanJun 5, 2007 04:2886535
radical Islam [67 words]john jamesJun 9, 2007 01:4486535
Two unforgivible Sins [13 words]Ron ProfittJul 6, 2007 14:5786535
Dhimmi no more [30 words]jennifer solisApr 7, 2008 23:3286535
MARTYRS AND THEIR REWARD [100 words]E.J. SHAFERMar 8, 2007 15:5785274
Mandi, what are you talking about ? [258 words]MarkFeb 26, 2007 11:4579037
Livingstone's multiculturalism is the West's albatross [387 words]Ibn Saud...Feb 25, 2007 06:2778770
Profound...truly well said!! [90 words]another infidelFeb 25, 2007 23:3678770
better understanding Islam [199 words]Imdad AliFeb 27, 2007 06:3278770
Women [58 words]JuliaMar 8, 2007 18:4878770
FEMALE MARTYRS REWARDS: [102 words]E.J. SHAFERMar 9, 2007 15:5778770
RADICAL ISLAM VERSUS WESTERN CIVILIZATION [284 words]E.J. ShaferMar 9, 2007 20:5378770
understanding islam [331 words]Imdad AliMar 12, 2007 02:1178770
RADICAL ISLAM VERSUS WESTERN CIVILIZATION [265 words]E.J. ShaferMar 13, 2007 00:3078770
understanding islam [255 words]Imdad AliMar 14, 2007 01:2878770
Imdad Ali response [224 words]E.J. ShaferMar 14, 2007 18:0078770
You would not find them [55 words]TerryMar 20, 2007 17:4078770
8AHMADINEJAD'S RANTINGS [186 words]E.J. SHAFERJul 15, 2007 16:2678770
war [23 words]ankururduFeb 21, 2013 03:4678770
Different way of looking at it [137 words]MandiFeb 19, 2007 17:0977936
Profound ........ Apologist [129 words]another infidelFeb 20, 2007 02:0377936
Thank you....."Another Infidel" [307 words]MandiFeb 20, 2007 18:5077936
1Mandi, Submission to Islam is the answer [310 words]InfidelFeb 20, 2007 19:2577936
Yes, Mandi, we already know the cause! [316 words]Noah WilkFeb 21, 2007 07:2777936
A little more patience, compassion or practical thinking [279 words]MandiFeb 22, 2007 03:3977936
Mandi and fantasy [353 words]dhimmi no moreFeb 22, 2007 06:5077936
Hmmmm...by the same logic.... [296 words]MandiFeb 22, 2007 17:5177936
Mandi, you sound like a Bliss Bunny [823 words]Noah WilkFeb 23, 2007 02:5677936
Mandi's logic? What logic?And justifying the absurd [1063 words]dhimmi no moreFeb 24, 2007 06:5077936
For Mandi and her poor Muslim education part deux! [152 words]dhimmi no moreFeb 24, 2007 10:5977936
Constructive criticism is better [694 words]TarekFeb 24, 2007 11:5077936
I agree with Tarek...to a point! [102 words]Noah WilkFeb 24, 2007 20:4577936
Collecting the booty is their main goal [80 words]JaladhiFeb 26, 2007 14:4177936
The Left's ignorance of history (and reality) [755 words]DrRJPFeb 13, 2007 16:3677055
Patronizing [59 words]KendraFeb 12, 2007 09:2976886
clarification of previous comment [19 words]kendraFeb 12, 2007 23:5876886
Islam and radical Islam: knowing the difference [371 words]AbdullahFeb 8, 2007 19:4976598
Abdullah - another propagandist [1415 words]Noah WilkFeb 11, 2007 19:5476598
in answer to abdullah [98 words]snakesavageFeb 12, 2007 00:2676598
moderates [234 words]kendraFeb 12, 2007 09:5076598
For Abdullah and Islam is not a violent religion? Really? [326 words]dhimmi no moreFeb 12, 2007 12:0676598
For Abdullah and the doctrine of Jihad [59 words]dhimmi no moreFeb 12, 2007 12:1576598
snakesvage - Jihad is here to stay [205 words]JaladhiFeb 14, 2007 11:0876598
MANY MODERATE MUSLIMS SPEAKS OUT...... [163 words]ahmadzafireFeb 17, 2007 14:5476598
Prove it! [622 words]Noah WilkFeb 21, 2007 08:0176598
Ah - those non-existent moderate Muslims!! [167 words]JaladhiFeb 22, 2007 10:2276598
Noah Wilk [107 words]ahmadzafireFeb 22, 2007 17:2276598
a milquetoast Muslim.. [171 words]donvanFeb 28, 2007 15:3176598
christianity [47 words]SohailMar 3, 2007 09:4476598
not quite.. [96 words]donvanMar 5, 2007 09:4376598
donvan [29 words]SohailMar 7, 2007 13:1076598
clarify.. [125 words]donvanMar 8, 2007 08:5676598
Validating Donvans' statement [271 words]E.J. ShaferMar 14, 2007 15:2276598
Good work sharing reality [118 words]obed dawoodFeb 8, 2007 03:5476514
wow daniel you are talking about muslims dont follow islam [142 words]syed mohammad aliFeb 7, 2007 05:2476351
The effect of foreign policy on radical Islam [118 words]Emmanuel PFeb 6, 2007 04:2676225
in my opinion... [104 words]almisaktiFeb 18, 2007 20:2976225
hatred empowers the powerless [141 words]trans-parereFeb 5, 2007 21:0276169
Hatred breeds ignorance [344 words]abdul KhanFeb 5, 2007 18:2276141
Some more Comments [75 words]abdul KhanFeb 5, 2007 18:3776141
Denial of reality!!! [239 words]JaladhiFeb 7, 2007 09:2376141
true Islam [98 words]KendraFeb 12, 2007 09:5776141
Islam is the enemy of Muslims. [60 words]Vladimir DraitserFeb 4, 2007 15:5375964
VILADIMIR'S OBSERVATION: [25 words]e.j. shaferMar 9, 2007 23:4175964
Sunni-Shiite Violence [19 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
John RFeb 4, 2007 11:5175939
Sunni-Shiite Violence [67 words]abdulFeb 5, 2007 18:4575939
Abdul the ignorant [177 words]HarrakFeb 7, 2007 00:2375939
Question for Dr. Pipes [1052 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Noah WilkFeb 4, 2007 07:0875901
and the debate goes on.. [507 words]gellin&infidellinFeb 5, 2007 11:5875901
How do you come to that conclusion? [381 words]Noah WilkFeb 5, 2007 19:1875901
Moderate Islam And Shairah Law [70 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
John RFeb 7, 2007 19:0075901
Re:Question for Dr. Pipes [56 words]shakeelFeb 11, 2007 17:0675901
Shakeel, get a clue [117 words]Noah WilkFeb 11, 2007 21:3275901
Muslims worship Allah [82 words]InfidelFeb 11, 2007 23:3975901
Re:Muslims worship Allah [127 words]ShakeelFeb 14, 2007 19:0675901
Re:Shakeel, get a clue [96 words]ShakeelFeb 14, 2007 19:1475901
1Our dear Shakeel and you have no credibility! Chutzpah? Big time [253 words]dhimmi no moreMay 19, 2007 18:1075901
RUTHLESS ISLAMIC terrorists [100 words]skydiverFeb 4, 2007 03:3775868
Radical Islam is just Islam, pure and simple. [717 words]Caesar M. ArevaloFeb 4, 2007 01:1975853
Mr. Pipes' message gives hope [32 words]Adam MosesFeb 3, 2007 11:5975776
Islam Itself is the Enemy [483 words]Domenic PepeFeb 3, 2007 09:1375761
Give yourself a gold star Domenic! [56 words]Noah WilkFeb 4, 2007 07:1775761
Islam the religion vs. Islamist Extremists [151 words]George RobertsFeb 2, 2007 21:1275693
How large is the public square? [160 words]David W. LincolnFeb 2, 2007 19:5875684
it's not islam?? [86 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
BearsterFeb 2, 2007 19:4075681
1Why Islam is winning in the battle to take America [83 words]ItchymanFeb 2, 2007 18:3775668
Integrity? [246 words]JRMFeb 2, 2007 16:4775659
Radical Islam vs. Civilization [35 words]Harry RogersFeb 2, 2007 16:3975656
Radical Islam V. Civilization [144 words]Robert KellyFeb 2, 2007 15:0575650
Indigenous-American civilization & radical Islam [2221 words]Alan HootnickFeb 2, 2007 07:2175583
the PA analogy [86 words]Yuval Brandstetter MDFeb 3, 2007 05:2575583
In the 21st Century the tides are turning compared to the 20th century. [95 words]AnonymousSep 15, 2013 19:2675583
Crux of the debate [120 words]jayFeb 2, 2007 00:4375558
Egyptians talking about dogs and pigs! [95 words]HarrakFeb 2, 2007 00:0575554
I disagree [492 words]AbijahFeb 1, 2007 22:2275545
Thumbs up, but.... [630 words]nick4693Feb 1, 2007 22:0475543
Great speech [200 words]f.shaFeb 1, 2007 22:0375542
islamic idolatry [867 words]S.David CarsonFeb 1, 2007 21:5175540
There is no such a thing as moderate Islam. There is only Islam! [6 words]dhimmi no moreFeb 1, 2007 18:5775523
Moderate Muslims are more deadly [388 words]Nazia KhanFeb 2, 2007 18:2775523
Mythical moderates. [194 words]JaladhiFeb 5, 2007 10:3475523
dhimmi, moderate islam is [15 words]InfidelFeb 25, 2007 12:2675523
It is superfuous to use the word "RADICAL" [191 words]Keith SkillicornFeb 1, 2007 18:4175520
The new Samizdat [135 words]Mladen AndrijasevicFeb 1, 2007 16:1875499
Radical Islam vs Civilization [190 words]steven LFeb 1, 2007 15:4975495
The Truth for those who will hear it. [34 words]Page GaddisFeb 1, 2007 15:1475493
The distinction between radical Islam and Islam as a religion is artificial [249 words]MichaelFeb 1, 2007 15:1475492
"Notorious Quotes" [336 words]Fredric FastowFeb 1, 2007 13:0275473
Fastow recognizes heroes [133 words]InfidelFeb 1, 2007 21:2275473
Excellent presentation! [172 words]J.S.Feb 1, 2007 12:4475472
Bravo! [76 words]Joy WezelmanFeb 1, 2007 11:2175399
Now What? [64 words]Martin SchaffelFeb 1, 2007 11:1475398
WRT London forum/transcript [63 words]D.K.Feb 1, 2007 10:3675397
thank goodness! [48 words]SandiFeb 1, 2007 10:3275396
the problem is a 'version' of Islam or Islam itself? [271 words]dlpFeb 1, 2007 09:2475392
Problem is Islam itself [93 words]JaladhiFeb 1, 2007 16:3675392
antithesis... [254 words]donvanFeb 1, 2007 17:2475392
Re: Problem is Islam itself [44 words]Pez DispenserFeb 2, 2007 10:0275392
The koran [160 words]gellin & infidellinFeb 2, 2007 10:4375392
Pipes is right but the clarity of his message is obscure [267 words]Rick HouseFeb 2, 2007 16:4175392
Good analysis, Gellin and Infidellin! [57 words]Noah WilkFeb 4, 2007 07:2775392
Debating with the Devil [529 words]HomefrontFeb 5, 2007 05:0075392
To Pez [155 words]JaladhiFeb 6, 2007 10:2075392
Video: Ayaan Hirsi Ali argues with Alan Colmes about Islam [454 words]gellin&infidellinFeb 6, 2007 13:2575392
Re: Problem is Islam itself [185 words]Pez DispenserFeb 7, 2007 04:0075392
detentadores de la integridad del islam [201 words]Rodrigo restrepoFeb 13, 2007 15:0275392
Doctrine of God's Will as the culprit behind muslim's mania [102 words]sandyFeb 22, 2007 06:4375392
tolerance in Islamic countries ? ? ? [35 words]questioner ?May 6, 2007 19:4375392
1Islam is the truth [52 words]kathyJun 19, 2007 07:0075392
jerusalem [299 words]jayOct 23, 2007 02:1175392
Hi Noah [59 words]MichelApr 7, 2008 17:1375392

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)