For Muslims in America, the rhetorical war of words continues to escalate at
home. Two weeks after sparring publicly with Jewish advocacy groups over the
accurate number of Muslims living in the U.S., the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) Thursday issued a call to stop the "Islamophobic smear
campaign" against the American Muslim community and its leaders. CAIR urged
journalists and public officials not to "be used as unwitting tools in this
campaign or to undermine President Bush's efforts to show that the war on
terrorism is not a conflict with Islam."
CAIR angrily pointed to a recent Los Angeles Times article which reported,
"Pro-Israel or Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the
Jewish Defense League and the Middle East Forum think tank have provided news
organizations with reams of critical documentation on Muslim leaders in recent
weeks."
And the group singled out Middle East Forum's Daniel Pipes for special scorn,
calling Pipes "one of the foremost proponents of the current smear
campaign," which has tied CAIR with Islamic radicalism and even violence.
In an interview with Salon, Pipes answers those charges, and warns that many
Muslims in America want Islamic law to rule the land.
What's your reaction to CAIR's claims?
My reaction is that CAIR realizes that the obscurity in which it toiled before
Sept. 11 has now ended, and the sort of activities it engaged in and could get
away with then [has ended]. It acknowledges in this press release, "On an
almost daily basis we have been forced to defend our organization," they
say.
But they suggest they're having to defend themselves from stereotyping and
smearing, not just scrutiny.
It's not stereotyping. There are Muslim organizations I think are great and
Muslim organizations I think are terrible. CAIR is the worst. It's the most
aggressive, the most extreme. The most destructive. It's not stereotyping.
What's the stereotype? It's typical of CAIR that it pleads this sort of
discrimination all the time. Instead of standing up and fighting squarely for
what it's arguing, it's hiding behind this smear campaign. I'm saying this is a
radical organization that does not belong in the mainstream of American life.
So were you disappointed when President Bush met with CAIR in September?
I think that's a mistake, yes.
You wrote of the Muslim population in this country, "A substantial body
shares with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States." What
percentage of Muslims in America would you estimate share that hatred of
America?
The numbers are fluid. There have been a number of polls. There's one cited
today on National Review Online that shows really quite a substantial proportion
feeling alienated from the country. I can't offhand give you numbers. What I can
say on the phone is there is a substantial body of people who are not
integrated, who do not feel they are American first. The problem is even more
acute in Britain, where really it's become a national issue in the last few
weeks with British citizens going off to Afghanistan to [support the Taliban
and] fight potentially their own nationals.
But we haven't seen that here.
We've seen a little bit of it. Very little. It has not become an issue as it has
in Britain.
What's the percentage of American Muslims who want to see the government, as
you've said, "brought to its knees"? Would that be at the same level
of those here who share bin Laden's hatred for America?
Well, there are different degrees. Some, a small number, actively embrace the
bin Laden ideology. But that is very small. There are a large number who feel an
alienation from the country.
Do you think CAIR wants to create an Islamic state in America?
Without a doubt.
Would that include prohibiting conversion out of Islam?
Of course.
Criminalizing adultery, banning consumption of pork and doing away with the
equality of the sexes?
Of course. Now, they don't say that in black and white in their writings. I
can't prove that to you. I can tell you that there are all sorts of intimations
of it. I can tell you I can sense it. I can make this case, but I can't make it
specifically for CAIR. But you asked me, do I think that's what they want? Yes.
That seemed to be the most startling part of your writings-the notion that
Muslims in America want to create an Islamic state here and institute Islamic
law.
I'm not saying it's going to happen. I'm just saying if we do have a body of
people who want this, this is something we should know about. And pay attention
to.
But if they're not saying it, how do we know that's what they want?
Well, CAIR is a Washington lobby group, and if it wants to be invited to the
White House it has to be somewhat cautious about saying this. There is an
environment in which such ideas are fairly common. So they're not specific to
CAIR. It is what anyone who is an Islamist [an Islamic fundamentalist with
extreme political views] wants. It goes almost without saying. If you're an
Islamist you want Muslims in power and application of Islamic law. There was a
nice quote in the San Francisco Chronicle in a story about the American Muslim
Alliance convention that took place a few weeks ago, quoting a man saying,
"I want to see a Muslim president by 2020." He didn't say "I want
the application of Islamic law," but what's the point of having a Muslim
president?
Well, what's the difference in somebody saying I want to see a Jewish
president by 2020?
Don't compare Judaism and Christianity with Islamism.
But the person you mentioned who said he wanted a Muslim president by 2020,
he didn't say he wanted he wanted a fundamentalist Muslim president.
It's like saying I want a fascist president.
Are you equating Islam with fascism?
No, I equate Islamism with fascism. And the person quoted by the Chronicle was
at an Islamist conference. Assume anyone at an Islamist conference is an
Islamist and wants Muslims in power. Granted, you can use the language and in
the mouth of somebody else it would be as innocuous as wanting a Jewish or
Mormon president. In this case, in the mouth of an Islamist it's not innocuous.
One has to have different filters. Islamism is a totalitarian ideology. An
Islamist is a danger in the same way a fascist is a danger. I don't advocate
locking them up. I do advocate keeping a close eye on them. Those people can
make real trouble.
Saying Muslims want to create a Muslim state in America, does that strike you
as alarmist at all?
How could that be alarmist when I can see signs all around?
Well, I'm just asking you.
Look, I have a filter. I've studied Islam and Islamism for 30 years. I have a
sense of how they proceed and what their agenda is like. And I see it. You
don't. You haven't spent the time. Most Americans haven't. So what I think I can
do that's of value is say look, "I recognize this pattern, I've seen it
before in Indonesia, in Iran. And now I see it here." I'm not saying it's
going to happen soon, or at all. I see elements that 15 years or 10 years ago I
didn't see.
When CAIR protests to CBS that it should not have Budweiser advertisements when
the U.S. soccer team is playing the Iranian soccer team, out of respect for
Iranians who don't drink alcohol, that itself is minor, right-who cares? But it
is part of a larger picture-first prohibit advertisements, and then
alcohol-which is part of the Islamist agenda. There is no end of small things,
each of which is not terribly important. But together is a different ordering of
society.
CAIR used a quote of yours in its press release: "At a minimum it would
have to entail the vigilant application of social and political pressure to
ensure that Islam is not accorded special status of any kind in this
country." I guess the question is what's the difference between special
status and acceptance?
I believe our Constitution does not allow for special status for members of a
religion. I don't want to see bias or prejudice against Muslims and I endorse
their full rights as American citizens. I just don't want them to have special
status.
I'm sure they would argue they simply want acceptance within society.
But their acceptance would go beyond what I consider normal acceptance. They
want the rules to be rewritten for them. They want a whole host of ways that
Islam and Muslims have special status.
The other quote that caught my attention from your writing was
"Officials need to scrutinize the speech, associations, and activities of
potential visitors or immigrants for any signs of Islamist allegiances and keep
out anyone they suspect of such ties." To some that might sound an awful
lot like old anticommunist rhetoric.
What's wrong with that?
Well, that's my question. Was that by design?
Our policy for decades has been based on a benign view of visitors and would-be
immigrants. That's foolish. And if Sept. 11 couldn't persuade you of that,
nothing will. There are lot of people out there who dislike this country and
want to do harm to it. And our immigration procedures have done nothing to
protect us from that. They have looked at ordinary criminality and they have not
looked at ideas and beliefs and I believe that they should. We do have laws
dating back to the '50s and I think they should be made operative.
Look, I like this country as it is and I don't want it to turn into something
quite different. What I'm advocating is a means to protect, roughly speaking,
the status quo. If you want to see an Islamist country, then you will have the
opposite view from mine and more power to you. The danger is within. If we don't
wake up to that now, we will have further attacks and blows that will wake us up
later. I would like to wake us up now.
All material on this site ©1980-2001 Daniel
Pipes.