Dating iraqi daniel pipes example of absolute dating geology

This is not the book for readers looking for a good summary of ISIS's global dimensions.

Daniel Pipes' speech before the convention of the American Jewish Congress on 10/21/2001).

Considering that Israeli discusses Nigerian-based Boko Haram at some length, his lack of awareness that the terror group pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in March 2015 is baffling.

Stylistically, the book suffers from repetition of content and could have benefited greatly from an editor's clarifying red pen: In a discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for example, several sentences suggest Mohamed Morsi is still president despite the author's also referring to his overthrow in the July 2013 coup.

How little we learn..." Peter Rodgers, Weekend Australian, 11/16/02 Peter Rodgers is a former Australian ambassador to Israel.

A polemic has license for exaggeration, but Militant Islam makes indefensible claims.

As early as 1983, even an otherwise positive Washington Post book review noted that Pipes displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims..professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them." Pipes, said the reviewer, "is swayed by the writings of anti-Muslim writers...[the book] is marred by exaggerations, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject." (The Washington Post, 12/11/83) In The Weekly Standard (1/22/96), Pipes offered a glowing review of the infamous anti-Muslim book "Why I Am Not a Muslim." The National Catholic Reporter (11/17/95) called that book "the literary equivalent of hate radio...literary warfare against Islam," useful only to those "interested in returning to the polemical past to do battle with Islamic believers." Pipes called the book "quite brilliant" and "startlingly novel." "This religion would seem to have nothing functional to offer," remarked Pipes. of State The credibility of Pipes's account is weakened by his uncritical reliance on anecdotal and often partisan claims (chiefly by Israeli and Turkish sources), while dismissing the more measured State Department conclusion that there is no evidence of direct Syrian involvement in terrorist activities since 1986 (p. Andrew's, Scotland WHAT THE CRITICS SAY ABOUT DANIEL PIPES: "Reading Daniel Pipes's latest book, brimming with dire warnings of Islamic threats, made me deeply envious.

But Daniel Pipes is NOT an objective source on the issue of Islam, Muslims, American Muslims, or Israel/Palestine, and has demonstrated this time and time again.

And most importantly, someone with so strong and well established a bias over many years can not be trusted to make clear, accurate decisions about what is best for our national security.

Besides being a re-articulation of the author's own prejudices (e.g., there is no such thing as "moderate Islam"), much of the book comprises rambling disquisitions that provide no insight into the Islamic State; long paraphrases of single articles written and published by others; precious little by way of citations to support his arguments, and virtually no engagement of primary sources in Arabic.

On the subject of the Islamic State, basic errors immediately arise.