[Note: I had written a comment on the accusation that Daniel Pipes is a Zionist Islamophobe by Muslims. The recent occurrence of riotous destruction by Muslims in France made this re-posting relevant.]

Mr. Daniel Pipes is a leading American scholar on the Middle East Politics and a no-nonsense critique of the Palestine Authority and of the Islamic world in general. He has naturally made too many enemies that not only include the Muslims but also their strange but committed leftist allies.

CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations), which has recently been named defendant in the "9/11 terror attack" lawsuit for providing funds to 9/11 attack-linked terrorist groups, has been a fierce enemy of Mr. Pipes. "Mother Jones" (www.motherjones.com) is an association of the leftist and liberal Americans, in whom the Muslims have found such a devoted bedfellow. Author Michael Scherer of "Mother Jones" has been after the blood of Mr. Pipes for his allegedly being anti-Muslim. This half-witted author in his article titled - "Daniel Pipes, Peacemaker?" - has sought to prove that Daniel Pipes is an evil anti-Muslims Zionist. Here, I have delved into a section of this article which contains a number of very controversial comments by Daniel Pipes and I have briefly evaluated the validity of those comments. Mr. Scherer writes:

"Pipes frequently issues such warnings, declaring that militant American Muslims intend to mount a second American Revolution, and impose Islamic law. In this context, he has criticized Bush for suggesting in public that Islam is a peaceful religion. "All Muslims, unfortunately, are suspect" he wrote in a recent book, though he added that only "10 to 15 percent" of Muslims are militant. If Muslims have jobs in the military, law enforcement or diplomacy, Pipes states in another column, "they need to be watched for connections to terrorism." He also finds Muslim immigration problematic: "All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

There is no doubt that Muslims and their non-Muslim sympathizers would be most disturbed by these comments of Mr. Pipes. I will evaluate them one by one to determine how wrong Mr. Pipes has been in making those comments.

1. American Muslims intend to mount a second American Revolution, and impose Islamic law.

Has Daniel Pipes been wrong in making that assertion? Aren't the Muslim communities in the West pitching for "Sharia Law" wherever they are forming a reasonable number? Hasn't Sharia been introduced or to be introduced in Canada already? And in places where they don't have the number - aren't they just waiting for the day to come? Of course, their high growth-rate (through fast breeding, interfaith marriages and conversions) would help them achieve that goal without a long wait.

Am I wrong on this? And surely Muslims are aware of the coming good days, aren't they? Doesn't every good Muslim want the sinful American culture be destroyed? Surely, when Muslims become a strong force (read in number - not necessarily in intellectuality) - they would destroy all the places of sins like the beaches, the Casinos, the dance bars and what not. Am I wrong about that? What is thinking of the Islamist and their leftist sympathizers on these points? Is Mr. Michael Scherer or any Islamist/Muslim going to explain how wrong Mr. Pipes has been in making that comment, which definitely has disturbed them immensely?

2. He (Pipes) has criticized Bush for suggesting in public that Islam is a peaceful religion.

I believe that Muslims and their leftist/liberal sympathizers have been most disturbed by this comment of Mr. Pipes. But are they going to explain how wrong Mr. Pipes has been in making this assertion? If Mr. Bush wishes to say that he was correct in his public claim that "Islam is a religion of peace" - is he going to come forward and furnish the reasons (as per Koran, Hadith and Prophet Muhammad's life & actions) to substantiate his claim. Mr. Bush, being the President of America, should show the integrity and responsibility of telling the truth to the people at this dangerous time. It is not about making a mistake on Saddam's having WMD. Islam (Koran, Hadith & Mohammad's life) is there in the open for everyone to see, read and judge.

When Bush says, "Islam is a religion of peace" - it is not at all difficult to be sure about it. He must have read Koran, Hadith and the Islamic history. If Mr. Bush has done that and then reached that conclusion, then he should respond to Mr. Pipes' comments and explain to the Americans as to why Islam is truly a religion of peace. If he hasn't read Koran and Sunnah, he shouldn't have made such a statement to be responsible and to avoid being sounding idiotic.

If he thinks that he has read Islam well and Islam is, indeed, a religion of peace, then he must defend his claim in a debate against people like Ali Sina, Sher Khan (www.faithfreedom.org) or ibn-Warraq in public forum or elsewhere. If he cannot defend his claim, he should apologize to the Americans for misleading them in such an uncertain time when Islamic fanatics are killing innocent people day in and day out - the latest being the brutal annihilation of an entire Coptic Christian family in USA, who had migrated from Egypt and were critiques of Islamic mistreatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt.

3. "All Muslims, unfortunately, are suspect", he (Pipes) wrote in a recent book, though he added that only "10 to 15 percent" of Muslims are militant.

"All Muslims are unfortunately suspect" - how wrong is this assertion? If Muslims and their non-Muslim sympathizers would not agree to this assertion - are they going to explain, why not? Are they going to tell us, how to separate the real suspects from the innocent Muslims? Is any innocent Muslim going to tell us, "How the USA law enforcing agencies could distinguish him/her from the real suspects?" Or they should explain how those 19 Arabs, who rammed Airplanes into the Twin Tower on the fateful day of 9/11 (2001), were different from them.

As far as my own knowledge is concerned, those 19 terrorists were people who were very intelligent, well-behaved, honest, soft-spoken and law-abiding members of the public. I am sure - they would have been lesser suspects than many innocuous Muslims. Do the Islamists and their sympathizers disagree to this observation of mine? If they disagree, are they going to explain why? If they cannot disagree then it becomes clear that it is extremely difficult to distinguish the militants from the innocent Muslims.

Under such circumstances, how should the American law enforcing agencies view Muslims in general? Surely, it is of prime importance for America to make her citizens as safe-n-secure as possible. Where Mr. Pipes has been wrong in his apparently most controversial comment on the Muslims? Doesn't his most controversial comment appear most correct?

4. If Muslims have jobs in the military, law enforcement or diplomacy, Pipes states in another column, "they need to be watched for connections to terrorism."

If the analysis in section-3 holds true that it is impossible to distinguish the militant Muslims from the innocuous ones, then this statement of Pipes also holds true without any further argument. There have been ample cases of Mr. Pipes' alleged worry as well - including one Muslim soldier's throwing grenades into their camp-house causing serious casualties in Iraq as well as the recent desertion of one Lebanese Muslim soldier. Isn't it the best to keep Muslims away from the US military and other law enforcing agencies, which is so sensitive and dangerous to her security? And those already in the military must be watched.

5. He also finds Muslim immigration problematic: "All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

Why one would think that Mr. Pipes has been wrong at all? Countries of Europe plus USA, Canada, Australia etc. are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to keep watch on the Muslims. Those countries are probably wasting more than the Muslims' contribution to the economy of the country. In fact, the Islamic terrorism has caused the world economy losses, which may amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. In many Western countries (say in Netherlands) today, prominent public figures cannot walk on the streets freely which was not a problem in the recent past. Haven't immigrant Muslims only added slum culture, poorer education and social segregation (instead of cohesion) in the Western society?

Muslims will not eat in restaurants run by non-Muslims, they wouldn't join social and official parties with their local colleagues, they wouldn't buy groceries (especially meats etc.) from shops run by the locals, and Muslims wouldn't do banking with the local banks (they do banking with Islamic banks) because they have to pay or take interest and what not. And don't Muslims bring hate towards the local culture, tradition and way of life of Western countries. Surely, they do - which no other community brings into the Western society like the Muslims do. Hasn't Daniel Pipes only been fair and square on this assertion?

As a resident of America, I want to feel secure on the street and so should every American citizen. Daniel Pipes is doing a superb job by awakening the gullible Americans and the Westerners to the true dangers of Islam - a danger not many Westerner understand as well as Mr. Pipes does. He should be commended by all American citizens, who love their country and value the citizen's life. I have my full commendation for him.