Daniel Pipes, Islam 2.0 and Islamophobia 3.0 - updated 3/25/11

Sheila Musaji

Posted Mar 26, 2011      •Permalink      • Printer-Friendly Version
Bookmark and Share

Daniel Pipes, Islam 2.0 and Islamophobia 3.0

by Sheila Musaji

Daniel Pipes is a very active Islamophobe whose name comes up in almost every issue involving Muslims and or Arabs in America.  We have had so many articles referencing Pipes and his work, that we will now collect information in this one article collection.

Daniel Pipes was a founding Director of the Middle East Forum, is a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, is on the Board of Directors of the Jewish Policy Forum, on the Advisory Board of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, and is the Director of Campus Watch about which I wrote an action alert asking academics to “turn themselves in” to Campus Watch.  In that alert, I noted that

The site, Campus Watch at http://www.campuswatch.org has begun with an initial “blacklist” of? 8 professors and 14 universities that they consider biased and claim “fan the flames of disinformation, incitement and ignorance”, and it proposes to maintain what it calls “dossiers” on professors and academic institutions deemed insufficiently pro-Israel, or too “soft” on Islam, and collect information from students regarding their professors’ scholarly conclusions and political views. The dossiers themselves are flimsy and the conclusions drawn are from out of context quotes, innuendo and guilt by association.? The problem is that most of those incited to react by these materials will not read past the headlines.

...  The reasons these professors need monitoring are varied, they may support the Palestinian cause, oppose war in the Middle East, support human rights, have expressed any criticism of Israel, or have defended Islam.? This somehow offends MEF and is seen as contrary to their stated purpose of “defending the interests of America.”

It seems that the only reason that the list of professors is so short is because these have been singled out to be a test case or example to others.? If this tactic is successful, then it seems likely that others will be added and targeted in their turn.?

The “dossiers on institutions” section leads with numerous condemnations of Colorado College for inviting Palestinian activist Hanan Ashrawi to speak at a symposium. Also included are the University of North Carolina where freshmen were assigned readings from the Qur’an, and Harvard where a student delivered the commencement address originally entitled “My American Jihad.”

This organized national campaign to silence academic criticism of Israel and to marginalize American Arabs and Muslims is incompatible with the cherished American values of free speech and inquiry. Such intellectual intimidation also serves to cut off avenues for exploring possibilities for peace.

It is also clear that any reasonable person could have foreseen (particularly in the current political climate) that this McCarthyite tactic of listing individuals in cyberspace could provoke extremists to respond inappropriately. Expression in cyberspace includes a far greater speed of communication and a capacity to convey messages to a far wider audience. This has been the case and has already generated email spamming, hostile or threatening phone calls, internet identity theft, and harassment of the professors named. In some cases the targeted professors’ email communications have been rendered inoperable.

Academic freedom in universities is essential. Free speech is not simply an aspect of academic freedom to be weighed against other possibilities, it is the precondition for academic freedom. Professors and students must be able to exercise their legal rights as citizens, and to express opinions whether or not they agree with the majority. Academic expression of ideas may inspire vigorous debate on social, economic, and political issues that arouse strong passions. This debate of ideas is critical. However, when rather than debate ideas, we instead attempt to tarnish the reputation of the individual expressing the ideas that can only be seen as an attempt to coerce silence or acquiescence.

The Campus Watch Site of the Middle East Forum states that it is “dedicated to defending the interests of America”, however such activities can only harm the interests of America.

Surprisingly, Pipes has himself supported the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK)  who are considered by the U.S. State Department to be a foreign terrorist organization.  Danny Postel has an excellent article Neocons Embrace Islamic Terror Group which goes into detail about this support and Pipes urging of the lifting of the terrorist designation from this group.

FAIR has a report on Pipes which notes

Pipes’ “expertise” has included erroneously linking the Oklahoma City bombing to Islamic groups (USA Today, 4/20/95), as well as warning (National Review, 11/19/90): “ Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene…. All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

A defender of racial profiling of Arab-Americans (CNN American Morning, 11/18/02), Pipes has also warned (American Jewish Congress, 10/21/01) that “ the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims” entail “true dangers” for American Jews.  As one of the leaders of the “Stop the Madrassa” campaign against a secular Brooklyn based Arabic language school (see FAIR’s “Daniel Pipes” Case Study), he himself has admitted (NYTimes.com, 4/28/08) to misleading the public by using the word “madrassa” to get attention.

Pipes not only was a leader in the Stop the Madrassa campaign against the Khalil Gibran Academy, but ruthlessly attacked Debbie Almontaser, who was to have been the first principal.

One of Daniel Pipes key concerns is how to identify “moderate” Muslims.  Daniel Pipes’ has been worrying over this since at least 2003.  In his view, it seems that basically no Muslim is really moderate. 

Back in 2003 Pipes wrote an article “The Moderation of American Muslims” in which he found fault with a survey of Detroit area Muslims by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding called “A Portrait of Detroit Mosques: Muslim Views on Policy, Politics and Religion” which had found that “The vast majority of Muslim Americans hold moderate’ views on issues of policy, politics and religion.”  What I found most interesting in this article was Pipes statement that:

“But do the survey results actually say this? Emphatically not; Bagby’s results indicate anything but moderation, as some specific numbers suggest: 
- By a ratio of 67 to 33, Muslims in the United States think “America is immoral.”
- About (the graph does not allow complete precision) 90 percent of Muslims favor universal health care.
- Fully 79 percent favor affirmative action for minorities.
- Asked about the job being done as president by George W. Bush, 85 percent of Muslims disapprove and a mere 4 percent approve.”

And, as I pointed out at that time:

“So, it would seem that in order to slip from the status of moderate to that of extremist or even Islamist Muslim one only has to:

— have moral qualms about some of the policies of the U.S. government, or concerns about some of the trends in society that may be considered a slide into acceptance of immoral behavior.
— want to see universal health care (perhaps like that other “extremist” group, the Canadians or like Dennis Kucinich
— want affirmative action for minorities (as do many other Americans), in fact another recent PEW study found that a majority of Americans support the general idea of affirmative action).
— or disapprove of the job President Bush is doing (in the most recent PEW Research study Bush’s approval ratings are slipping with the American public in general and disapproval rate is at about 53%). 

This most recent update to Pipes moderation test makes me feel like a Muslim Alice in a neo-Con wonderland.  In order to understand Pipes’ convoluted logic I have to refer to the article “Presidential Library Terrorist Connection” by Robert Jensen.  In reading these and many other articles and statements made by Daniel Pipes and others over the past year it seems obvious that the definition of moderation is shrinking steadily over time — and now would seem to include only those who are ready to join the new “madhab of Daniel Pipes”.”

As Professor John Esposito has pointed out in regards to Pipes’ book Militant Islam Reaches America:  “In light of Pipes equation of mainstream and extremist[s] Islam under the rubric of militant Islam and his definition of moderate Islam as secular or cultural, uninformed or uncritical readers of this book will erroneously conclude that Islam, not simply militant (violent extremist) Islam, is a serious threat domestically and internationally.”

In one foray into the realm of unfettered Islamophobia and fear-mongering, Pipes wrote a very disturbing article “Islamism 2.0”  in which he calls violent terrorists like bin Laden, followers of Islamism 1.0 and people like Keith Ellison and Tariq Ramadan, followers of Islamism 2.0 which according to Pipes is non violent, but only strategically so, and much more dangerous.

To quote Pipes opening paragraph:  “To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a U.S. congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.”

And, his closing paragraph:  “In conclusion, only Islamists, not fascists or communists, have gone well beyond crude force to win public support and develop a 2.0 version. Because this aspect of Islamism undermines traditional values and destroys freedoms, it may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0’s brutality.”

In between these two paragraphs he goes on about all sorts of individuals all over the world, and says nothing about either Tariq Ramadan or Keith Ellison.  He merely raises their names as dangerous individuals and says nothing about why he feels they are dangerous.  He manages to smear these people by simply including their names in this article, and he attempts to rile up those who follow such blogs by suggesting that somehow, simply by virtue of being Muslims they “threaten civilized life” even more than bin Laden or al Qaeda.  His suggestion is clear, ordinary “moderate” Muslims are really just softening up people and using their influence through Islamism 2.0 for the eventual takeover of the country as “Once in power, they can move the country toward Shari’a.”  What exactly is he hoping his readers will do about this?  It seems obvious that he wants ordinary Americans to view their fellow citizens who are Muslims as an enemy within and to fear them for no reason except that they are Muslims. 

This is Islamophobia 3.0 and it is reprehensible.  Ali Eteraz has the only answer we need to give to this sort of hateful, and ridiculous propaganda - Muslims should raise the other finger.  It is the only reasonable response.

Pipes wrote an article titled “Stealth Islamist: Khaled Abou El Fadl” attacking Prof. Khaled Abou el Fadl, and as Marc Lynch points out

How does Pipes attack Abou el Fadl? First, he simply smears him by association by naming a series of American Islamic institutions and then linking him to them, however tenuously. Abou el Fadl’s other offences? He has spoken out and written forcefully against Wahhabism… but apperently not forcefully enough for Pipes. He has defended American Muslims and argued against demonizing them - in no small part because he fears their radicalization. How dare he defend American Muslims, who are obviously guilty of so many things? And he predicted a wave of hate crimes against Muslims shortly after September 11, which according to Pipes didn’t materialize.

... But those attacks, while tendentious and weak, pale in comparison to the main line of attack. Abou el Fadl’s interpretation of Sharia is not radical enough for Pipes, so Pipes substitutes his own reading of Sharia for Abou el Fadl’s, and then attacks Abou el Fadl for this (Pipesian) vision of Islam. Abou el Fadl has written lengthy, learned treatises about the meaning of jihad from the position of an Islamic scholar, with the express aim of rejecting extremist and Wahhabi doctrines. But Pipes will have none of that. Like a good Wahhabi, Pipes insists that his - and only his - concept of jihad is true, and that all of Abou el Fadl’s scholarly efforts are nothing but an elaborate ruse to hide this ugly reality from American eyes.

And then, this conclusion: “The case of Abou El Fadl points to the challenge of how to discern Islamists who present themselves as moderates. This is still possible to do with Abou El Fadl, who has left a long paper trail; it is harder with those who keep their opinions to themselves. In either case, the key is old-fashioned elbow grease: reading, listening, and watching. There is no substitute for research. It needs to be done by White House staffers, district attorneys, university search committees, journalists, Jewish defense agencies, and churches. Failing proper research, Islamists will push their way through Western institutions and ultimately subvert them.” [Jewish defense agencies? I dunno - Pipes wrote it, not me.]

Pipes published an article “Militant Islamic Intentions for the United States”.  In this article he found fault with the logo of The American Muslim.  Pipes said “Militant Islamic Intentions for the United States. I frequently meet with disbelief when I explain that the Islamist goal is to take over the United States and replace the Constitution with the Koran. Well, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and here is that picture, culled from “The American Muslim” website: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org  The Arabic written across the United States is the basmalah, usually translated into English as “In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.” This Koranic invocation, the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam (vol. 1, p. 1084) informs us, “at the beginning of every important act, calls down the divine blessing on this act and consecrates it.”

Actually, this logo has always been on our front page in print and online, and therefore doesn’t take much “culling” or “sleuthing” to find.  And, yes, horror of horrors, The American Muslim logo calls down Divine blessings on America and American Muslims.

I wrote a response to Pipes, as did Jeremy Henzell-Thomas.

Pipes inserted himself into the Harvard Jihad Speech controversy which prompted Pipes to write: “Imagine it’s June 1942, soon after Hitler declared war on us. At Harvard University, a faculty committee has chosen a German-American to give one of three student orations at the festive commencement ceremony. He titles it ‘American Kampf,’ purposefully echoing the title of Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (‘My Struggle’) in order to show the positive side of ‘Kampf.’”

Mother Jones points out that Christopher Hitchens, writing for Slate, slams Pipes as “dangerous and unreliable.” Hitchens points out Pipes’ blatantly racist comments towards Palestinians, and cites Commentary magazine’s February 2003 issue in which Pipes attacked road map proposals and used the words “the so-called Palestinian refugees” and what Hitchens calls other “crude tricks of language” to imply there had been no Palestinian disposession.

Pipes said about the Palestinians The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.

Pipes wasn’t very happy when one of those pesky Arabs won the Miss USA Beauty Pageant.  Daniel Pipes posted an article Affirmative Action in Beauty Contests? in which he points to other Muslim women who have won beauty contests around the world and then concludes “They are all attractive, but this surprising frequency of Muslims winning beauty pageants makes me suspect an odd form of affirmative action.”

In a 1990 article “The Muslims Are Coming, The Muslims Are Coming”, Daniel Pipes could only come up with what now seems like a lame comment on Muslim hygiene:  Fears of a Muslim influx have more substance than the worry about jihad. West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene.

Pipes wrote an article Obama Would Fail Security Clearance discussing the President’s “connections to extremist Islam”.

Jacob Hausner notes that Pipes has relayed his fear of Muslim Americans in no uncertain terms at an AJC convention in 2001 “I worry very much from the Jewish point of view that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims…will present true dangers to American Jews.”  The anxiety and irrational fear expressed by Pipes regarding the enfranchisement of Muslim Americans and his belief that it will present “true dangers to American Jews” is the textbook definition of Islamophobia.  It speaks to the motivations of a significant trend within the Islamophobia movement, Zionists who fear that American Jews and the United States’ relationship with Israel will be transformed by the “increased stature and affluence” of Muslim Americans.

Interesting Inter-connections

FAIR’s Smearcasting Report makes an important point on page 6 Together, these Muslim-bashing outlets and pundits constitute what is, in effect, a network. Funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a prominent right-wing foundation, Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum is connected to a range of other right-wing think tanks; its editors and editorial board include representatives from the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Pipes’ Campus Watch and Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch operate out of David Horowitz’s Freedom Center.  Prominent members of this network also have official connections; Pipes, for instance, was appointed by George W. Bush to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003.  Max Blumenthal in The Great Islamophobic Crusade expands greatly on this point of interconnectedness. 

Right Web notes in an article on the Clarion Fund which has has produced the rabidly anti-Muslim films Obsession, The Third Jihad, and Iranium that

Clarion was founded in 2006 by Raphael Shore, a conservative Israeli rabbi. Clarion’s advisory board includes a number of neoconservatives and other militarist policy advocates, including Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) and narrator of the Clarion Fund’s Third Jihad documentary; Clare Lopez, executive director of the Iran Policy Committee; Harold Rhode, a former staffer under Douglas Feith in the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon who serves as an adviser to the Hudson Institute; Ilan Sharon, executive director of Minnesotans Against Terrorism; and Sarah Stern, president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), which has assisted in the distribution of Clarionfilms.

...  Obsessionpresents the views of a number of people associated with militarist or neoconservative political groups, including Daniel Pipes, Caroline Glickof the Center for Security Policy; Steven Emersonof the Investigative Project on Terrorism; and Brigitte Gabrielle,founder of American Congress for Truth and advisor to the Intelligence Summit.

After its initial 2005 release, showings of Obsession spurred heated debates regarding “Islamophobia”on U.S. college campuses,[10] where the film has been aggressively promoted by David Horowitz as part of his “terrorism awareness project.”[11] When copies of the DVD appeared in swing-state newspapers and mailings during the last months of the 2008 election season, some observers charged that Clarion and the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), which aided the distribution effort, were running a stealth campaign on behalf of Sen. John McCain(R-AZ) and other Republican candidates who had made “battling the threat posed by radical Islamists a central platform of their campaign, while presenting their Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL], as being weak on the issue.”[12]

Right Web in an article on The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) which is working with the Clarion Fund, and is tied closely to an Israeli organization called Aish HaTorah, notes

The fund is distributing 28 million copies of the DVD through newspaper inserts in key electoral “swing” states—like Michigan, Ohio, and Florida—that, according to recent polling, could go either way in November’s presidential election.    According to Delaware incorporation papers, the Clarion Fund is based at the same New York address as Aish HaTorah, a self-described “apolitical” group dedicated to educating Jews about their heritage.

...  Notable members of EMET’s advisory board have included prominent hardline neoconservatives, including the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, onetime U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; and the Hudson Institute’s Meyrav Wurmser, spouse of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top Middle East adviser, David Wurmser.

Other prominent neoconservative members of the board include Center for Security Policy (CSP) president Frank Gaffney; former CIA chief James Woolsey; and Heritage Foundation fellows Ariel Cohen and Nina Shea, who has also served for years on the quasi-governmental U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom. The U.S.-born and -educated hardline deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post and senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at Gaffney’s CSP, Caroline Glick, is also an EMET advisor.


A Response to Daniel Pipes’ Allegations (regarding the American Muslim logo), Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_response_to_daniel_pipes_allegations1/
A Response to Daniel Pipes’ Allegations (regarding the American Muslim logo), Jeremy Henzell-Thomas http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_response_to_daniel_pipes_allegations/
A Response to Daniel Pipes (on Pipes’ views on the Iraq War), Irfan Khawaja http://praxeology.net/guest-khawaja1.htm
Blacklisting of Professors, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/blacklisting_of_professors/
Blaming Islam:  Examining the Religion Building Enterprise, Louay Safi http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/blaming_islam/
Burkas, Bikinis, and Bigotry, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/burkas_bikinis_and_bigotry/
Campus Watch are damned liars, Hussein Ibish http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2009/09/25/campus_watch_are_damned_liars
Campus Watch just can’t stop lying, Hussein Ibish http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2010/07/30/campus_watch_just_can%E2%80%99t_stop_lying
Clarion Fund http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Clarion_Fund
Clogged Pipes http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080033 
Fascist Leaves Daniel Pipes “Elated”  http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/04/fascist-evokes-daniel-pipes-elation/
FAIR backgrounder on Pipes http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3687
The great Islamophobic Crusade, Max Blumenthal http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/19/opinion/main7166626_page3.shtml?tag=contentMaincontentBody
Hardliners in Search of Moderate Muslims, Louay Safi http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/hardliners_in_search_of_moderate_muslims/
Harvard Jihad Speech Controversy, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/6_2002_harvard_jihad_speech_controversy/
Identifying Christian Moderates, Austin Cline http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/28/identifying-christian-moderates.htm
Islamophobia and Arabophobia: Laying The Groundwork - Us vs. Them, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/islamophobia_laying_the_groundwork_us_vs_them/ 
Militant Islam Reaches America (Daniel Pipes), Professor John Esposito http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/militant_islam_reaches_america_daniel_pipes/
The Muslims Are Here!  The Muslims Are Here!, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_muslims_are_here_the_muslims_are_here/
The Myth of Modern Jihad, Robert Wright http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/the-myth-of-modern-jihad/
Neocons embrace Islamic terror group, Danny Postel http://www.alternet.org/world/65956/
Pipes Admits NY “Madrassa” claim was “a bit of a stretch”, Richard Bartholomew http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/daniel-pipes-demagogue-part-94/
Pipes and Abou el Fadl, Marc Lynch http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2004/06/pipes_and_abou_.html
Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch, Valerie Saturen http://campusprogress.org/articles/daniel_pipes
Daniel Pipes, Smearcasters report http://smearcasting.com/smear_pipes.html
Daniel Pipes and His Inflammatory Comment about Palestinians, Loonwatch http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/a-defeated-people/
Daniel Pipes and the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK)  http://www.alternet.org/world/65956/
Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce: Sharia, Halakha, and Double Standards, Loonwatch http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/10/weak-sauce-2/
Daniel Pipes nomination to USIP http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/jul03_pipes-stalled.html
Daniel Pipes relied on disputed LA Times article to revive Obama-Muslim falsehood http://mediamatters.org/research/200801020004
Daniel Pipes’ schemes (USIP appointment) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/08/pipes-schemes
Daniel Pipes tracks our nation’s traitorous professors so you don’t have to, Valerie Saturen http://campusprogress.org/rws/2589/the-21st-centurys-joseph-mccarthy
Daniel Pipes Strange Understanding of Radical Religious Ideological Movements, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/daniel_pipes/
Daniel Pipes, Sirhan Sirhan, Obama, and the Avon Lady, Sheila Musaji http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/how_far_will/
Daniel Pipes’ Witch Hunt at a Public School, Steve Rendall and Isabel Macdonald http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3685 
Promoting Islam in the Public Schools?, Sheila Musaji http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/through_the_looking_glass_promoting_islam_in_the_public_schools/003772
RELIGION BUILDING:  Daniel Pipes the New Voice of Moderate Islam?, Sheila Musaji   http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/religion_building_daniel_pipes_the_new_voice_of_moderate_islam/
Religious Right Warns English-Arabic School ‘Incubator’ for Terrorists http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/religious-right-warns-english-arabic-school-incubator-terrorists 
Right Web backgrounder on Pipes http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel
Spat between McCarthyites: Daniel Pipes vs. Israel Academia Monitor http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2008/01/30/spat-between-mccarthyites-daniel-pipes-vs-israel-academia-monitor/ 
Sen. Specter Withdraws from Pipes Anti-Muslim Conference, Richard Silverstein http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/05/19/sen-specter-withdraws-from-pipes-anti-muslim-conference/
Those Danish Muhammad Cartoons (Pipes interview with Jyllands Posten), Gary Leupp http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/those_danish_muhammad_cartoons/
The Truth About Daniel Pipes, MPAC-DC http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=72
What a shocker! Brandeis welcomes Daniel Pipes, but Norman Finkelstein still left wondering http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2007/02/24/what-a-shocker-brandeis-welcomes-daniel-pipes-but-norman-finkelstein-still-left-wondering/ 
Will the Extreme Right Succeed?: Turning the War on Terror into a War on Islam, Louay M. Safi http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/will_the_extreme_right_succeed_turning_the_war_on_terror_into_a_war_on/ 
Zombie Lie: Right Still Clinging To Decade-Old Fabrication About Radicalized Mosques http://mediamatters.org/research/201102020008