How to support nomination
Reader comment on item: Muslims for Pipes

Submitted by Ilona Melstrads (United States), Apr 21, 2003 at 13:25

I was going to send the following e-mail to he Washington Post; but now I realize I may have been too quick in accepting a quote by Washington Post as accurate. At any rate, would a letter like the following (corrected for any errors) make sense?

"The Editor
The Washington Post
1150 – 15th Street, NW Re: Your Editorial "Fueling a Culture Clash"
Washington, DC 20071 April 20, 2003

Dear Sir:

Coming from a Christian background, I wholeheartedly agreed with your earlier editorial that the Reverend Graham should not hold a service at Pentagon facilities because of his ignorant condemnation of Islam. However, I disagree with your editorial suggesting that the Congress not accept the White House's nomination of Daniel Pipes (presumably to the Board of Directors) of the U. S. Institute of Peace. You mentioned his statement that government employees in certain fields who are Muslim should be watched for connections to terrorism. You forgot to mention that the Institute itself does not advance any policies for the Congress or for the public.

Daniel Pipes has extensive knowledge of traditional Islam; but equally importantly, he also has knowledge of the modern state terrorism and infiltration tools of Hitler (earlier applied to most European and Middle East countries) and Stalin (applied worldwide) that many "Islamic" terrorists have adopted. The question is whether a person of such knowledge should be in a position to advise on the studies and speakers the Institute might support. If he were the only person on the Board, perhaps one might question his appointment. But he will be only one member of a large Board. His analytic capabilities are extremely valuable, and would prevent the wishy-washy studies that many think tanks fund.

Sincerely,

ILONA MELSTRADS...

---

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.