|
The moderately unrealistic position on Islam, versus the extremely unrealistic position on Islam
After my criticism of Daniel Pipes yesterday, I intended to swear off directly attacking him for a while, as I didn’t want it to seem as if I’m on a personal campaign against him. But Pipes publishes so many articles (yesterday at FrontPage Magazine, and again today), and keeps providing such obvious targets, that it’s impossible not to comment. In his piece today, Pipes discusses a new book by the man with the unpronouncible name, Mark Reuel Gerecht, about what America’s policy should be toward Islam. While Pipes says that moderate Islam is the solution to radical Islam (a position I’ve definitively refuted here, though Pipes doesn’t seem to have noticed), Gerecht says that radical Islam is the solution to radical Islam. Pipes naturally disagrees, seeing Gerecht’s position as dangerously unrealistic. What neither of these guys realizes is that there is no solution to radical islam, i.e., there is no good form of Islam. The only “good” Islam is powerless, defeated, isolated, or non-existent Islam.
As an aside about Mark Reuel Gerecht, I would never trust a man’s advice on American politics if his name has such a foreign spelling that I can’t even figure out how it’s pronounced. What happened to assimilation? Email entry |