Islam does not seek Islamic supremacy, says Pipes

Notwithstanding intensified criticism of his “moderate Islam” thesis from these quarters and elsewhere, Daniel Pipes keeps pushing more strongly than ever his dangerous myth about a false, “radical” ideology of Islamism that violates the true, “moderate” religion of Islam. He writes at Jewish World Review:

The mentality of radical Islam [emphasis added] includes several main components, of which one is Muslim supremacism—a belief that believers alone should rule and otherwise enjoy an exalted status over non-Muslims. This outlook dominates the Islamist [emphasis added] worldview as much in the elegant streets of Paris as in the rude caves of Afghanistan….

The Ehrgott and Okashah incidents fit an ugly Islamist [emphasis added] pattern of double standards. Although CAIR presents itself as a civil-rights group, it is just the opposite—an organization asserting special privileges for Muslims and derogating the rights of others.

So, Pipes would have us believe that it’s only the radical ideology of Islamism, not the religion of Islam, that believes in Muslim supremacy, that holds that “believers alone should rule and otherwise enjoy an exalted status over non-Muslims,” and that promotes a pro-Islamic double standard. According to Pipes, Islam qua Islam does not seek Muslim supremacy over non-Muslims, does not promote a pro-Muslim double standard, does not assert special privileges for Muslims, and does not derogate the rights of non-Muslims. I will concede that of course Muslims don’t do those things when they lack the numbers and power to do them, as is still the case in the U.S. But when they acquire such power, the Koran commands them to do those things. Does Pipes really not understand this?

What Pipes is doing here is removing more and more of what pertains to Islam per se and transferring it to Islamism. All along, his argument has been that what was objectionable about Islamism was that it was extreme and terrorist, while regular Islam was at least potentially moderate. But now he’s saying that what’s objectionable about Islamism is that it seeks Muslim supremacy and pro-Muslim double standards, which, in the context of his thesis, means that these things are not true about Islam. To underscore and repeat the point: Pipes is not merely saying, as he has said for years, that Islam is not terrorist. He’s saying that Islam does not seek the supremacy of Islam. Which, dear reader, is the same as saying that Islam is not Islam.

Pipes’s denial of manifest reality can perhaps be explained by the theory that he is engaging in a conscious (though deluded) calculation similar to what the Israelis adopted during the Mideast “peace process.” The Israelis knew that the Palestinians still wanted to destroy Israel and that they were not going to keep their part of the agreement, but the Israelis nevertheless held out the hope that the “peace process” itself, with all the benefits it gave the Palestinians and the promise of more to come, would somehow change the Palestinians, so that, by the time final settlement talks had arrived, the Palestinians would really be ready to accept the existence of Israel.

Similarly, Pipes seems to think that even though the Moslems are not now the moderates he claims they are, they will become so over time, if we keep flattering them and calling them “moderates” and doing everything we can to make them feel welcomed and honored in America. Just as the deluded Israelis believed that the “peace process” itself would transform the terrorists into peaceful neighbors, Pipes seems to believe that praising “moderate” Islam will transform Muslims into moderates.

At bottom, notwithstanding the conservative and realist elements in their respective thought processes, the Israelis and Pipes are liberals, meaning that they see Moslems as “like us,” as rational people who act on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Therefore if Moslems see benefits accruing to themselves from the embrace and approval of Israel or America, they will, as rational beings, want to maintain that relationship by adopting our standards and getting with our program. In reality, of course, Israel’s acceptance of the Palestinians as “peace partners,” without any meaningful quid pro quo on the Palestinians’ part, triggered far greater Palestinian aggression than had ever been seen before. In the same way, our continuing, Pipes-like flattery of non-moderate Moslems as “moderates” is likely to convince them that we are saps lacking the wit and will to defend ourselves, and so radicalize them further.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 18, 2005 06:27 PM | Send