June 07, 2008
For those of you wishing headaches, Pipes series on MENA
At the National Review, I haven't the gumption to actually go further myself. However the National Review's summary would seem to indicate he's losing the veneer on his pure bigotry to descend into batty land:
Daniel Pipes talks the odds. The chance that immigrant Muslims and indigenous Europeans find a way to live in harmony? Five percent, says Pipes. The chance that Europe becomes Eurabian, part of the Muslim world? Forty-seven-and-a-half percent. The chance that Europeans reassert control over the continent? Forty-seven-and-a-half percent, once more — and Pipes says it won’t be pretty.
Eurabia...well, I suppose if one gets that special combination of innumeracy and bigotry together, one can seriously believe that Europe is going to somehow become "Eurabia"...
[Crossposted from The Lounsbury]
TrackBack URL for this entry:
So: 5.0 + 47.5 + 47.5 =/= 100
On what planet?
Posted by: Ahem at June 7, 2008 09:08 PM
Veneer? What veneer?
Posted by: matthew hogan at June 7, 2008 09:47 PM
How does an immigrant population largely of non Arabs turn a continent into Eurabia?
Posted by: ab at June 7, 2008 10:41 PM
I think Daniel Pipes thinks he's Bernard Lewis, except that Mr. Lewis has an excellent record of academic journals and translations (see his non-polemical works produced during the 60s-80s, largely on the Ottomans but also broadly about Islamic history) - while Pipes (I can't really be polite about him, sorry) has no academic recognition, no standing amongst anyone but neocons, Zionist groups like Hillel and right-wing "think-tanks"...
not that I'm saying you need a degree from a recognized university to have an opinion on MENA (I don't) but when you claim to be credible on these issues, and rant all the time about academia's bias against conservatives and Zionists, but can't even get recognition from the many conservative and Zionist-friendly institutions in the US, such as Princeton and Harvard, well...
Posted by: dawud at June 8, 2008 03:48 AM
I recall having read some pretty interesting things by Pipes about Syria, from the 80s or early 90s, but it was badly mixed up with polemics already then. Nowadays, he seems to have dropped the research part altogether, to focus only on agitprop-infotainment for likeminded. (As for Lewis, they really shouldn't be compared, but these days he must be senile or something.)
Posted by: alle at June 8, 2008 07:09 AM
With due respect to the man's Ottoman expertise and a certain bit of broad-mindedness, I do think of Bernard Lewis as the Uberdick of it all. One of the things Edward Said got right in his one-note stopped clock polemic.
Posted by: matthew hogan at June 8, 2008 08:09 PM
that 'end of the world will come when ahmedinejad wants the mahdi to come on the night of miraj' article kind of indicated Lewis was losing it, but I couldn't figure out why mainstream newspapers didn't have the self-dignity to censor or refuse the editorial. Then again, the NYT accepted Judith Miller's pieces on WMD, the Washington Post has gone along with pro-war crud, and just about everyone has said something stupid about the American elections, before they've even started...
Posted by: dawud at June 8, 2008 11:53 PM
While we're at it, I must confess some partiality to Martin Kramer. He's also a polemicist, but much brighter than most of his opponents, and certainly than most of his supporters. Also very funny in a quiet sort of way. The photo on his website cracks me up every time I enter.
Posted by: alle at June 9, 2008 02:51 AM
"While we're at it, I must confess some partiality to Martin Kramer."
Oh, please don't.
Posted by: matthew hogan at June 9, 2008 12:57 PM
alle, I'll admit to checking out "Sandbox" occasionally, although I think he's more into calling out what he sees as disingenous bullshit by spreading his own disingenous bullshit. I'll demonstrate:
Of course, in America we don't have vast numbers of people who completely or largely or half-justify violent crime. We don't have bishops and journalists extolling its virtues. We don't teach our children that they'll go to paradise for killing a night attendant at a 7-11. And we don't wait for someone else to fight our crime; we police ourselves. Terrorism continues to flourish in the Muslim world precisely because many of Esposito's newly redefined "moderates" justify, excuse, and tolerate it—enough to allow it to burrow into the culture. This is why Who Speaks for Islam? is such a dangerous compendium of misinformation. Its purpose is to persuade us that Muslims don't have to do much of anything, and that the onus is on us—to banish "Islamophobia," or change our policies, or address the "grievances" of the "radicals." The book is a slick version of 9/11 denial. Its message is that the terrorists did what they did despite being Arabs and Muslims.
Kramer's review of Esposito
He tries to say that muslims who justify violence against civilians - terrorist attacks, basically - are prevalent, without reference to the numbers, and then disingenously compares those muslims who rationalize violence in the case of aggression (as most muslims understand American and Israeli actions, whether Americans or Israelis perceive it that way, this is how most Arabs and muslims perceive the insurgency in Iraq and intifada in Gaza and the West Bank) with Americans who "support crime" - although it would be amusing to point to the substantial number of people who do support crime, both white and blue-collar, as well as the popular music and cultural artifacts supporting that - it's more to the point to look at support for torture and bombing of civilians (of other 'bad' peoples) - where numbers get more interesting and relevant.
World Public Opinion poll on muslims supporting violence against civilians - compare with other data above
Posted by: dawud at June 9, 2008 07:38 PM
i obviously entered most of the html tags above incorrectly - if someone can either point me to the correct method - or correct them - that'd be appreciated.
the url reference for the quoted section (which should have gone with "Kramer's review of Esposito") is http://sandbox.blog-city.com/dr_esposito_and_the_seven_percent_solution.htm
Posted by: dawud at June 9, 2008 07:48 PM
dawud -- I think [Kramer] is more into calling out what he sees as disingenous bullshit by spreading his own disingenous bullshit.
Yes, and I wish he'd change that. Some of his own older writings (many also available via the webpage) are really worth reading. Him bashing Internet campaigners for some obscure Palestinian archaeology teacher in the U. S. is less so.
That, btw, is why academics (good or bad) should not be allowed to blog.
Posted by: alle at June 10, 2008 02:28 AM
Now now, alle. Marc Lynch is an academic.