It was almost two in the morning the day before Halloween, when the bright rays emanating from my laptop brought to my attention a Facebook group entitled ‘Binghamton Review Presents: Daniel Pipes on Radical Islam.’ Immediately I was hit by the shock behind the idea that Daniel Pipes, a historian who has staked his fame on strong conservative rhetoric in regards to the Middle East, was coming to Binghamton. The shock then was enhanced by questions which stemmed from why our University would desire to hear from a man who has argued in favor of the Japanese internment during World War II and who favors the profiling of Muslims.
It would be with these thoughts in mind that I contacted the individual listed as the creator of the ‘Daniel Pipes on Radical Islam’ Facebook group, a person who I assumed to be at least partially responsible for bringing Mr. Pipes to Binghamton and an individual who holds a prominent position on the Binghamton Review staff. Questioning this person on the wisdom of bringing such a man to our University, where one would hope ideals of the values of civil rights, tolerance and equality would be significant enough to keep a speaker like Pipes far away, I quickly found myself backed against a wall. The group’s creator had responded back to me expressing, to put it modestly, his disappointment in my comment, and suggesting that I do some homework on Mr. Pipes’ background; this suggestion turned into one piece of advice that I am certainly very glad to have taken.
Early research indicated to me that the logic behind Daniel Pipes’ ideology, as according to the information on his Web site, divides Islam into two groups ‘ radical Islam and moderate Islam. This division is made as to distinguish the differences between Muslims who practice the religion and groups who have aimed to turn the religion into a totalitarian movement in which radical Islam runs matters of daily life along with a nation’s political system; Mr. Pipes calls the leaders of this latter movement ‘Islamists.’
With finding rhetoric like this, it was tough to argue against the line that Mr. Pipes was bringing to the table.
Yet even as I dug deeper, I found no qualms with the policy presented by Mr. Pipes. It was very sensible and very legitimate. The historian presented the idea that the problems faced in the Muslim World between moderates and Islamists in deciding how to act out their system of beliefs contains only a solution that will emerge from the clash between the two movements; the former thin in numbers and lacking in power, while the latter being rich in both categories that fail the moderates. Pipes proposes that the United States aid these moderates in a strike against the Islamists.
To this point I must say that I was quite impressed with the reasoning behind Mr. Pipes’ ideology. Although I would go on to learn how Pipes advocates for violent military action to suppress Islamists and how he hypocritically supports using a terrorist group known as the ‘People’s Mujahedin of Iran’ to fight against the current Iranian regime (thereby making us sponsors of international terrorism), the calls for further research that stemmed from my encounter with the Review brought some justice to why Pipes was invited to speak here at Binghamton.
It is with this story in mind that I strongly urge everyone who is concerned about our nation’s investment in the Muslim world to open an ear to Mr. Pipes during his visit to our campus on Dec. 4 ‘ regardless of whether you believe his views to be ignorant or brilliant.