The Civil War of Words: Islam vs. Islamism (Continued…)

By Walid Shoebat

Note: if you haven’t been brought up to speed about this point of disagreement between Daniel Pipes and I, click here.

Daniel Pipes posted a comment on May 18, 2013 stating that his article – Islam vs. Islamism – “has been misinterpreted, for example by Walid Shoebat who states that “Pipes makes an unsubstantiated claim that a majority of Muslims are moderate and that Islamism is only supported by 10-15 percent of Muslims.”

He argues:

“No, I do not claim that 85-90 percent of Muslims are moderate. Let’s use more precise language. I estimate that a very small percentage of Muslims are actively opposed to application of the Shari’a and can be defined as anti-Islamists. That leaves a vast body that includes traditionalists, Sufis, Islamic supremacists, and completely apolitical types. I do not characterize them as moderate. I only call them not Islamist.”

But I misinterpreted nothing, since my article was not focused primarily on Mr. Pipes’ recent article, but on his entire premise.

The issue with playing the percentage game is obvious and Pipes knows it; he has to weigh between pleasing a constituency of readers who dislike Islam and then he has his other constituents (foundations and elite media like Fox) who reject the usage of “Islam” and is why they publish such junk. Pipes is caught between a rock and a hard place; the struggle to please both creates a conflict and is why we believe this phenomenon exists. By doing this, Pipes (like Fox News) actually minimizes his contributions to solving the problem; he only aids in creating confusion, i.e., who is this enemy?

We used his past faulty research when he wrote years ago: “10 to 15 percent of Muslims worldwide support militant Islam” which is blatantly false, even according to Pipes himself, to only then switch it in a Fox News article to “10-15 percent” are “Islamists”.

The term “Islamist” now comes with a new spin, strictly a creation by Pipes, a new standard. These are Muslims who advocate the creation of an Islamic state in recent times after 1924 and by this it excludes the bulk of Muslims from the usage of the term “Islamist”.

So now “militant” “Islamists” “Jihadists” “fundamentalists” “Shariists” “honor killers” “mahdists” are a mixed-multitude, some of which become exempt from his newly elected terminology and by this he pleases the few ‘movers’ and ‘shakers’; I have been in this field long enough to understand this game and how it is played.

And we argue, again, what is the use then of such attempts to come up with standards like this, especially since Pipes himself admits that “traditionalists” and “Sufis” (according to him) are not “moderate”? The common term used today is “moderate” or “fundamentalist”. If we use “Muslim” or “Islamist” most will still equate these with “moderate” or “fundamentalist” anyway.

Why does Pipes do this? It’s simple; he must follow the common theme that “most Muslims are peace loving” or else he gets booted out.

More unusual, we posted this view to Pipes’ own comment section on his blog and he censored it.

This speaks volumes.


, ,

  • Demelza

    There may be moderate muslims, but they are considered apostates of Islam. The Quran is not moderate. I have a Quran which was published here in the US, but then I bought ‘The Generous Quran,’ by Usama Dakdok, who was raised in Egypt. He is a Christian who speaks Arabic. Anyway, The Generous Quran’ is much different than the watered down version of the Quran muslims use to fool converts into believing Islam is peaceful and nonviolent.

    Walid, what is your expert opinion on Usama Dakdok’s book? Would appreciate your input.

  • dapreach.1

    Fox News is very rapidly losing my vote of confidence! I heard one of their guests earlier today state that the Fort Hood shooting was definitely an act of jihad and Gretchen Carlson, who was interviewing him, quickly cut him off by saying, “Yes, well it’s considered to be an act of ‘work place violence’. AND THAT ENDED THE CONVERSATION! She made no attempt to even give him the benefit of the doubt! She clearly showed that she was uncomfortable with his calling it ‘an act of jihad’! I FELT SICK!

    • sumsrent

      The biggest investor in Fox Network is a muslim… Prince Al Waleed of Saudi Barbaria.

      Prince Al Waleed [Osama Bin Laden’s cousin]… along with Murdock are proudly creating a huge network of Islamic stations across this globe.

      Also… This Prince was involved in the Enron, CitiBank and WorldCom scandals which were being investigated and housed in Building Seven on 9/11/2001… which were destroyed when it miraculously collapsed.

      IMO… Fox News is used to motivate muslims across this world.

      See… muslims view these atrocities as acts of victories… hence exciting them to do more. This is where Fox comes in…

  • frankz

    I have to say that his attempt to break the continuity argument by saying that what he defines as Islamism came into being in 1920s isn’t very convincing to me.
    It may be that Islam started to define itself in a modern international context at that time.
    A big bang theory explanation doesn’t convince me here though.

    Also I don’t believe Islamists loathe the west because it’s “tantamount to Christendom”.
    I’m sure thats part of it but many seem to loathe people who are not of the book equally if not more and not just for historical reasons.

    Implementation of sharia ‘s supported by a huge percentage of Muslims around the world from what I’ve seen. Most of those people may not necessarily condone the specifics of violent actions taken by terrorists but they must be sympathetic to their aims and objectives to some extent.

    When you add the fact that many of the conspiracy theories I think he’s talking about are not just taken seriously by people he terms Islamists it becomes obvious to my mind that the problem is much deeper than just 10-15% of the Muslim world.

    So far that’s my take on it.

    • sumsrent

      I often describe the variety of roles muslims play to the “talents” of Christians…

      This makes sense to many…

      muslims take on different roles to discredit, buy up properties, terrorize, strike fear… etc…

      I’ve heard it all labeled as jihad…

      Business Jihad, Economic Jihad, Political Jihad…

      A muslim in the role of Business Jihad would appear moderate… his purpose is to buy up investments in companies and corporations…

      In economic Jihad… these muslims also appear moderate… but their purpose is to influence banks, finance, etc.

      The same principal applies in Political Jihad… these muslims are set up to take hold of political positions and influence Laws.

      Then there are the diversionist muslims… intent on diverting, discrediting and blaming other entities instead of Islam. Their purpose is to paint Islam in a good Picture in the eyes of the world.

      All together they serve different purposes to achieve the ultimate goal of world domination and subjugation.

      Fact is… Islam is satanic, untrustworthy and slick. Full of trickery, lies and deceit.

  • sumsrent

    Walid says… “pleasing a constituency of readers who dislike Islam and then he has his other constituents who reject the usage of “Islam” ”

    This is what it boils down to!

    All too often people seem to get derailed and start looking and believing there’s a good side to satanic Islam.

    But I also wonder if the fear of Islamic retaliation seeps in too…

    Walid… Ted… stay strong!

  • Walid, I find it perplexing why so many conservatives adhere to the politically correct dogma of ‘moderate Muslims’. Zuhdi Jasser posted a rallying cry for them to gather after 911 and found them to be almost non-existent.

    A vast majority of Muslims world wide favor Sharia, many of them here and still more in the UK and Europe, yet somehow many of our fellow conservatives manage to live in denial and cling to the ‘moderate’ illusion.

    Islam and Islamists…A matter of semantics, and percentages can be influenced by how questions asked. I have come to regard all Muslims as a potential danger to my nation, for even the so called moderates pay into Zakat that in turn finances the terrorists.

    I recently listened to a speech by Bret Stephens and encountered wisdom in a relatively young man. He pointed out a great weakness of we, the people of the west when he stated: “We like the idea that we would rather be righteous defenseless victims than potentially morally compromised victors.”

    That is a profound observation. That and two other thoughts of his led me to write. “If You Hope To Survive, First You Must Understand.”

    Incidentally, I was once subscribed to Daniel Pipes. I cancelled the subscription due to his vague premises and groundless optimism.

  • Dr T

    All the world is indebted to Br. Walid Shuaibaat for his exemplary conviction and boldness in exposing Islam and in the process calling a spade a spade rather than a round bladed spatulous agricultural tool with a long handle aiding in abraiding the surface of the top soil that is…………….!

    makes me want to donate when I get the chance.