Pipes and Spencer

Both of these writers have helped to open the eyes of many people in the West to the true nature of Islamic dogma, which is currently being exploited by the same forces that led the terrorist movements of the 1970s and were mostly connected with the aims and objectives of the Soviet Union, which was the originator of the attempt to induce Iraq and Libya to join the terrorist war against the United States. Daniel Pipes' intricate dissection of the modalities of Islam's reception and position in Western countries, presented in his book Militant Islam Reaches America, is probably unique, and its view of the inter-cultural conflict between East and West is based on a strict disinction between "Islamism" and Islam proper - for which it has been criticised by those who prefer to see the issues in the more black-and-white terms favoured by Robert Spencer, for whom Islam itself is the enemy, as is any force or entity that can be seen to be encouraging Islam. For Spencer, most of Western Europe, with its tolerance of Islam, falls into the latter category - and there are signs that Pipes may also be moving towards a similar perspective.

While I find myself in sympathy with many of the viewpoints and positions adopted by these two important chroniclers and documenters of the spread of militant Islam throughout the world, I sometimes find their very negative perceptions of Europe a hindrance to a better understanding of what their proposals for a better world actually are. The concept of "Eurabia", to which Spencer in particular seems devoted, originated in a journal that was published in Paris in the mid-1970s, became known through the writings of Bat Ye'or, and was given even wider currency by the Italian writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci in the books she wrote in the aftermath of September 11. For Fallaci, the concept of "Eurabia" is one that contains a high degree of tragedy - as a convinced European, she does not use it lightly. For Spencer, however, and for Pipes as well, one sometimes feels, the term is used as a blanket condemnation of most things European - Europe, in their eyes, has compromised itself to the point where it can no longer be defended, and may even be an enemy of the United States, along with Arab countries, North Korea, and the like. Where Fallaci emphasizes America's dependence on Europe from a cultural and spiritual point of view - as she points out, it is not American but European culture that Islam wants to destroy, and so America will not be able to defeat Islam alone - Spencer and Pipes tend to regard Europe as fundamentally spoiled, corrupt and unreliable. Like many Americans, they make little attempt to distinguish between the different areas of Europe - Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the new entrants to the EU are all tarred with the same brush.

In Spencer's approach, there is also considerable tolerance and apparent support for Putin's Russia in its genocidal "war" against Chechen secessionists. The official Russian government line - that Chechen extremists are wholly responsible for the wave of bombings of civilians that have affected Russia since 1999 - is swallowed without argument, and contrary points of view - such as that presented at the website - are dismissed as unhelpful and even dangerous. Spencer also seems to take the view that the West supported the wrong side in Kosovo - and emerges from his books and articles as at least a tacit supporter of Serbian nationalism.

I find this viewpoint rather troubling, as it tends to lend support to forces which, far from helping the West, are deeply antagonistic to it. Jamie Glazov, in his recent interview with Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service, has brought out a much more accurate picture of the real designs of Russia and its allies - and has also shown the historical connection between Russia, the PLO, Saddam's Iraq and post-1979 Iran.

It may be that the view of Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer may in part be obscured to some extent by the fact that both writers are located not in Europe, but in the United States, from where clarity of vision - especially across the Atlantic - is not always easy to obtain. One is disturbed, for example, by Pipes' apparent insistence that in the United Kingdom, the discredited British politician Enoch Powell "predicted" the advent of Muslim immigration in his "Rivers of Blood" speech of 1968 - which was, of course, a racist appeal to anti-black sentiment, and had almost nothing to do with issues of religion.

I don't know what the answer to these puzzling questions may be - but intend to follow the publications of both authors with a view to discovering where the flaw in their view of the world really lies. And this is important, I think, as the influence of both men on world opinion is considerable, and in many respects worthy of encouragement and support.