By Sharon Altaras, Special to JTNews
“It’s a source of extreme frustration to me that we tend to learn from murders,” Daniel Pipes said to a packed audience last week in the University of Washington’s Kane Hall.
His speech, which was sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, was entitled “The War on Terrorism and Militant Islam.” Pipes argued radical Islam is the source of terrorist actions against the United States and should be targeted as the enemy.
Ushers for the event estimated that 200 waited outside during the sold-out lecture. Inside, the auditorium was filled with young and old, community members and students, keffiyahs and yarmulkes. It was attended primarily by members of the Jewish community. There also were large numbers of students and Muslim-community members in the audience. Four security guards and a mediated question-and-answer period following the speech helped to maintain a controlled atmosphere inside the lecture hall, which was interrupted a few times by outbursts and clapping.
Pipes, who is fluent in Arabic, has written four books about Islam. In September of last year he received the Cassandra Award from the Los Angeles Times for, according to UW English professor Edward Alexander, “having repeatedly warned — and just as repeatedly been ignored — of the danger coming to Americans from radical Islam.”
After thanking Alexander for “perhaps the most controversial introduction I’ve ever had,” Pipes addressed the audience.
“There has been an attempt to close down the discussion of these issues,” Pipes said, adding that “there has been a war under way” since the attacks of Sept. 11.
Identifying his role as a critic who focuses on problems, Pipes asked three questions: Who is the enemy? What are American goals? And what is the United States’ strategy? Throughout the rest of the speech, he attempted to provide answers.
After listing terms used by President Bush to describe “the enemy,” such as: “terrorists,” “evil doers” and “people without a country,” Pipes pointed out the ambiguity of those definitions. He said that while politically, ambiguity allows for flexibility, it makes it difficult to assess goals and determine strategies.
Pipes mentioned the random rather than targeted airport-security searches as an example, arguing that without a specified enemy, allies are uncertain.
“The message of Sept. 11 was loud and clear,” Pipes said. “It told us that the strategic enemy of the United States is militant Islam — not terrorism — but a terroristic version of Islam.”
Pipes pointed out that “all or nearly all” the persons indicted or suspected by the U.S. for involvement in terrorist attacks have been adherents of militant Islam.
“This is not explicit. It is implicit in [their] actions,” Pipes said, explaining his means of categorizing militants.
According to Pipes, militant Islam is “a modern response to modern problems.” He identified it as “a 20th-century phenomenon,” akin to the rise of communism and fascism in the West.
“It is a way to organize society,” Pipes said. He added that members of militant Islam are not looking for conversion, but power, and said that “the spirit is totalitarian.” Pipes stressed the shift from “precepts traditionally left to the individual” in Islam, to the state mandates of militant Islam. An example he gave was the Afghani law that required women to cover their entire bodies with burqas.
Though some analysts say that militant Islam is rooted in economics, Pipes gave greater attribution to “a far deeper problem of identity and sense of self” among Muslims, stemming from the 19th-century shift of wealth and success from the Middle Eastern world to the West. Pipes said the Islamic response to the question, “Why are we now the laggards?” was that things went wrong because Muslims had betrayed their religion and tradition and therefore they “must go back to it.” He also said: “There is a deep feeling among the militant Islamic element that the Muslim world is under siege [by the West].”
According to Pipes, the discrepancies between the Muslim world and the Christian and Jewish worlds “leads to rage and frustrations and explains aggressive reactions.”
Pointing to a “civilizational grudge” from perennially poor relations between the Muslim world and the West, especially the U.S., Pipes called Sept. 11 a defensive response to perceived “Western tricks and aggression.”
“I believe that the goals of the United States are nothing less than to modernize Islam,” Pipes said. He outlined two “required steps” to achieve this: weaken militant Islam and strengthen moderate Islam.
“There has never been a time when the radical interpretation of Islam has had the power and the reach that is has today,” Pipes said. He added: “There is good reason to be optimistic that this is a bad moment and a moment that need not last.”
Since “militant Islam thrives on success,” Pipes said, “to weaken and even to crush, to marginalize [it], is to make it less important.” He compared this idea to the reduction of fascism and communism by the U.S. prior to and during the Cold War.
According to Pipes: “The ultimate battle here is not between the United States and militant Islam, but it’s between variants of Islam — militant and moderate.”
“This is not a ‘clash of civilizations,’ but a clash over the definition of Islam,” Pipes said, referring to it also as the clash between Turkey and Iran about ideology. Arguing that most potential for change is in the hands of Muslims, Pipes identified strategies to “help the moderates prevail and weaken the militants.”
Pipes said the U.S. government, supported by the American people, must engage in military activities such as bombing, on a case-by-case basis. “The problem of militant Islam is also domestic,” according to Pipes, who advocated focusing on immigration by doing more thorough background checks.
Pipes warned that unless steps were taken to fight militant Islam and to work with moderate Muslims, Americans “are in for further unpleasant surprises.”
Kevin Lenssen, a Seattle resident, thought Pipes gave “a very articulate analysis of the situation.” Lenssen said he appreciated Pipe’s “intelligent manner of addressing questions and his courage in the face of risk.”
Paul Landers, another Seattle resident, added: “We’d all be better off if we had heard this five years ago,” and said: “We need more calm, reasoned debate.”
Muhammed Arrabr of Seattle thought Pipes stretched the concept of extremism farther than what is correct, but said that he accepted a lot of what was said and that the speech was “academically accurate.”
Rameez Iqbal, a student of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at UW, said, “[Pipes] had a good point but a set agenda — he wants people to think he feels sorry for [Muslims].”
Daniel Swedlow, program director for Seattle Chabad, said he thought the speech was helpful, well-presented and level-headed. “It’s nice to have a non-emotional perspective,” Swedlow said. “I hope he talks to Bush.”
In addition to the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, the event was sponsored by UW’s Jackson School of International Studies, the Jewish Studies and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations programs, the Associated Students of the University of Washington, the College Republicans and huskiPAC.
(Sharon Altaras is a student in the University of Washington School of Communications News Laboratory. The Pipes lecture is available on www.tvw.org or Cable Channel 23.)