Daniel Pipes

Some would have people believe that all scholarly opposition to Daniel Pipes comes from his conservatism. Instead, it has a lot to do with, shall we say, errors in the presentation of his arguments. As an example, consider this column from the Chicago Sun-Times in which Daniel Pipes argues, somehow, that European fear before the Muslim character of resistance to occupation led the Europeans to avoid colonizing Muslim countries during the Age of Expansion.

Oh really, well, part of this may have to do with the large state known as the Ottoman Empire, which was on the offensive against Europe for most of that period. Europe did try to confront it - the Varna Crusade is one such example - but unsuccessfully. Meanwhile, Spain and Portugal, alongside the vast region of the Americas, set their sights on...Morocco. During the 1400's and 1500's, both those nations gobbled up various cities attempting to conquer the country before their final defeat in the Battle of Three Kings. In East Africa, the Swahili coast was largely Muslim and colonized by the Portugese. Much of French West Africa was Muslim - the Futa Djallon Revolution was in fact very much an Islamic Revolution - and under steady European assault throughout those centuries. The Dutch gobbled up Muslim Indonesia. (just fixed from India...ed.)

Pipes's point in this column is to persuade the U.S. to leave Iraq to "a democratically-minded Iraqi strongman." His vaguely racist portrayal of Muslims as people who won't shut up and abandon their religion and adopt European culture and insist on rebelling all the time is a means to that end. Pipes isn't as much of a hack as, say, Bat Yeor, but because of pieces like this, I still find him difficult to trust.

UPDATE: More here.