“THE AMERICAN DREAM came from freedom and democracy,” declared Colorado Council on Economic Education Chairman Walter A. Koelbel, Jr. before introducing the latest speaker in our “Bridges to the Future” series, Dr. David Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and a columnist for the New York Post and The Jerusalem Post. His speech revolved around its title: “Is Islam Compatible with Democracy and the Free Market?” His answer was yes, but militant Islam is not.
Before delivering into the core of his lecture, Pipes began by stating the difference between Islam and militant Islam: “Islam is a religion; militant Islam is an ideology.” Rather than take on the theological worship of its predecessor, militant Islam is more of an “ism,” a radical and utopian movement “on par with fascism.” He went on to say that he is not a theologian, but a historian, so his discussion focused on militant Islam.
According to Pipes, militant Islam was founded about 80 years ago and has only gained in power through the Unitarian exploitation of Islam. With the rejection of outside influences, its key idea is that Islam has all the answers and that life must be run with strict adherence to its laws. A reflection of civilizational frustration within the Middle East, it is stereotyped to attract uneducated men of poverty-stricken communities. Pipes disputes this by bringing up studies arguing that these men were “ideal and model,” fairly well-off in social stature and highly educated in engineering and the sciences.
“These are not men looking to protest financial deprivation; these are men attempting to change the world,” he said. Therefore, “a solution does not lie in better standards of living,” but rather in the investigation of identity and politics. He says this can be addressed in the U.S. because many of our Muslim immigrants are educated, affluent and adapted to “modernity,” mainly the concept of interest, which is still outlawed in nations under Islamic rule.
So how does Pipes feel about our “war against terror”? It is actually a criticism he holds against the Bush administration, describing a war against violence as “meaningless.” He declared a victory cannot be obtained before an enemy can be named, which is something we have been unable to do. This is not a conflict against Islam, but rather the small sector of militant Muslims, the 10-15 percent that still wishes to live under radical rule. He configured it out to 85-90 percent of the Muslim population that are anti-militant and have no affection for the committed acts of terrorism. Pipes classified this as a war against an ideology, a distortion of a religion changed to meet the standards of certain leaders. These standards are gradually crippling the Middle East, sliding its industrialization into “the fourth world.”
How do we deal with the threat of militant acts? Not by violence, but by analysis and promotion of Muslims with “an alternate reading of Islam.” He said the governments need to come to terms with the modernity of the free market and begin to view the Western World not as an opposing force, but as a model of progress. In their minds the attack on the World Trade Center was not an act of terrorism or a declaration of war, but rather a defensive move, a feat of fear of the “ignorance” the militant leaders feel the rest of the world holds.
Yes, Islam is compatible with democracy and the free market, but “the key is in the way Islam is interpreted.” Pipes feels that like Christianity and Judaism, Islam can be conformed to function in today’s economic society. “Where you stand politically predicts where you stand economically.” A majority of Middle Eastern countries are at the lowest level of economic freedom and still continue to decline every year. This is because militant leaders such as Saddam Hussein are willing to “take economic hits to achieve political goals.” While these goals claim to be of a religious origin, they have diverted off-track to form ideals completely radical and off-base from their foundation. Dr. Pipes ended by saying we are engaged in a war against an ideology, a notion of how a minority feels life should be run.
