Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 251:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me.”

From there Pipes really starts to go off the deep end…

In particular, Auster’s argument is based on a static understanding of the Koran, ignoring how much Muslim views have changed in the past and continue to do so. Interpretations already exist (such as that of the Sudanese scholar Mahmud Muhammad Taha) that upturn centuries of Koranic interpretation and would make Islam compatible with modernity. They exist, ready for the taking.

Well, the fact is that Islam allows the capture and rape of sex slaves, and I am pretty sure that is not compatible with modernity. Maybe Mr. Pipes himself would like to “interpret” Koran verse 33:50 to prove his point?

{ يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِيُّ إِنَّآ أَحْلَلْنَا لَكَ أَزْوَاجَكَ ٱللاَّتِيۤ آتَيْتَ أُجُورَهُنَّ وَمَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ مِمَّآ أَفَآءَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ وَبَنَاتِ عَمِّكَ وَبَنَاتِ عَمَّاتِكَ وَبَنَاتِ خَالِكَ وَبَنَاتِ خَالاَتِكَ ٱللاَّتِي هَاجَرْنَ مَعَكَ وَٱمْرَأَةً مُّؤْمِنَةً إِن وَهَبَتْ نَفْسَهَا لِلنَّبِيِّ إِنْ أَرَادَ ٱلنَّبِيُّ أَن يَسْتَنكِحَهَا خَالِصَةً لَّكَ مِن دُونِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ قَدْ عَلِمْنَا مَا فَرَضْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيۤ أَزْوَاجِهِـمْ وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ لِكَيْلاَ يَكُونَ عَلَيْكَ حَرَجٌ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُوراً رَّحِيماً }

O Prophet! Indeed We have made lawful for you your wives whom you have given their dowries and what your right hand owns, of those whom God has given you as spoils of war, from the disbelievers, [whom you have] taken captive, such as Safiyya and Juwayriyya, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you, as opposed to those who did not emigrate, and any believing woman if she gift herself [in marriage] to the Prophet and if the Prophet desire to take her in marriage, and ask for her hand in marriage without paying [her] a dowry — a privilege for you exclusively, not for the [rest of the] believers (nikāh, ‘marriage’, when expressed by the term hiba, ‘gift’, denotes [marriage] without dowry). Indeed We know what We have imposed upon them, namely, the believers, with respect to their wives, in the way of rulings, to the effect that they should not take more than four wives and should only marry with [the consent of] a legal guardian, [the presence of] witnesses and [the payment of] a dowry, and, with respect to, what their right hands own, of slavegirls, in the way of purchase or otherwise, so that the handmaiden be one lawful for her master, such as a slavegirl belonging to the People of the Scripture (kitābiyya), and not a Magian or an idolater, and that she should be ascertained [as not carrying child] with the necessary waiting period (istibrā’) before copulation; so that (li-kaylā is semantically connected to what came before [this last statement]) there may be no [unnecessary] restriction for you, [no] constraint in marriage [for you]. And God is Forgiving, of what is difficult to guard against, Merciful, in giving dispensations [allowing for latitude] in this respect.

Back to the Wizard of Oz…

I am “deluded,” writes Auster, into thinking that moderate Islam (or anti-Islamist Islam) exists. But I personally have worked side-by-side with moderate Muslims and have provided specifics (see “Naming Moderate Muslims” for details) about some of them. For Auster to deny their existence suggests he is driven more by theory than facts.

Isn’t that something? ACT!’s henchman Guy Rodgers told me the same thing. But I will stand with facts, and the fact is that the Zuhdi Jasser is most likely the best known so called “moderate” Muslim in the country. Yet he has no Mosque support! Maybe Pipes should actually pay attention to the Islamic scriptures and face the fact that Mohammad instructed Muslims to lie. Then ask himself why Jasser spends so much time with high profile non-Muslims, instead of pounding the pavement going Mosque to Mosque?

Pipes gets “offended”: (This reminds me of when Brigitte Gabriel called critics of Zuhdi Jasser “bigots”.)

SNIP: I find Auster’s comparison of Islam with Soviet communism offensive. But if he must compare a faith with a political ideology, then he should compare Islam with socialism as a whole, inclusive of its range from social democrat to Stalinist.

Let me see if I have this correct? He claims to have decades of study on this issue, and he does not know that Islam is a complete way of life which includes a political aspect? Wow….

He wonders that I do not judge Islam, to which I say that a person’s faith is not within my purview, only the person’s politics and actions. I suggest it is generally a good idea not to mix scholarship with matters of faith.

How sweet…..well then I suggest Pipes expands his purview, because Islam is the problem. It has been for 1400 years and once again, Islam IS political.

SNIP: As for his dig, “Since when does studying a subject preclude one from criticizing it?” I reply that my study is not of Islam the faith but of Muslims in history.

The article starts off with Pipes stating he has been studying Islam since 1969. Now he says he does not study Islam. So which is it Pipes, you did or you didn’t? Try and get your fantasy straight.

In 2002 Pipes penned an article entitled “The Evil Isn’t Islam”. Unfortunately this article shows he is either uneducated on Islam, only sees what he wants to, or just does not have the courage to speak the truth.

Here is the rub: It is a mistake to blame Islam (a religion 14 centuries old) for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam (a totalitarian ideology less than a century old). The terrorism of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran.

The “rub” is that he is not even close to being accurate, and on  his Twitter page Pipes claims to be an historian.

Daniel Pipes
@DanielPipes
Historian, foreign policy analyst, specialist on the Middle East and Islamism, president of the Middle East Forum. www.danielpipes.org/bios/
United States · http://www.DanielPipes.org

Did he forget about the Islamic conquests of the Coptics of Egypt, and the Persians?

Just one quote from Mohammad and one from the Koran also proves Pipes to be wrong.

Muslim Hadith Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Koran verse 008.060
YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Seriously, where does he come up with this stuff?

SNIP: My response, however, is that no matter what Islam is now or was in the past, it will be something different in the future. The religion must adapt to modern mores.

Why because you an unbeliever says so? It is absurd that you would even begin to think that non-Muslims will dictate what Islam is.

In 2004 Pipes stepped into the real world, and admitted he ignores the Islamic scriptures.

I am frequently asked why I make a distinction between Islam and Islamism, between Muslims and Islamists – are they not, in fact the same? The short answer: I am a historian and I focus on what has happened over nearly fourteen centuries, not on scriptures.

I have two questions for Daniel. Is the Koran the book of Islam or “Islamism”? Was Mohammad a Muslim or an “Islamist”? For the record Pipes has already ducked those questions from me on Twitter. As for the rest, that line of thinking is the equivalent to an alcoholic having his up and downs for years, but not getting to the root cause of his problems. In other words the problems goes on and on.

Even though the threat of Islam taking over America has severely increased under his watch, he  continues to sell us the same fantasy for over a decade.

Calling Islamism the Enemy

by Daniel Pipes
December 1, 2001

President Bush and others were properly careful not to foster or be seen as fostering the idea that Islam—a faith observed by more than one billion people across the world—was our enemy.

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
November 23, 2004

There is good news to report: The idea that “militant Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution” is finding greater acceptance over time.

September 7th, 2010

But I have one concern: the team’s increasing anti-Islamic tone. Misled by the Islamists’ insistence that there can be no such thing as “moderate Islam,” my allies often fail to distinguish between Islam (a faith) and Islamism (a radical utopian ideology aiming to implement Islamic laws in their totality). This amounts not just to an intellectual error but a policy dead-end. Targeting all Muslims conflicts with basic Western notions, lumps friends with foes, and ignores the inescapable fact that Muslims alone can offer an antidote to Islamism. As I often note, radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution.

Once this lesson is learned, the new energy brings the defeat of Islamism dimly into sight.

We can easily see that Pipes does not care that he is misleading America, as he is still carrying the same message!

APRIL 20, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has said, “The problem is radical Islam. The solution is moderate Islam.”

Unfortunately it appears that Pipes does not have it in him to admit he is wrong on this issue. Deadly wrong. Daniel Dorothy Pipes, you can click your heels all you want…

But moderate” Muslims are going to save America from Islam. Man up and admit you are wrong. Deadly wrong, your fantasy is killing America.