Those who read Fayyad Sbaihat’s article “Inexcusable Muslim Stereotyping Proliferating” in the past week’s Badger Herald were confronted with a critical topic in today’s society: growing anti-Islamic sentiment.

Mr. Sbaihat’s presentation of this issue, however, quickly displayed a man with gross biases, contradictory messages and misleading information.

Fayyad’s attempt to use Daniel Pipes as a case study of anti-Islamic sentiment displays Mr. Sbaihat’s poorly conceived argument as he grossly and conveniently misrepresents Mr. Pipes’ qualifications.

Mr. Sbaihat refers to Daniel Pipes as a “self-appointed Middle East expert.” The connotation is, of course, that Mr. Pipes is not a legitimate source of information on the topic of the Middle East. Mr. Pipes, however, has earned two advanced degrees from Harvard, specifically concentrating on the history of the Middle East, has served in the U.S. Departments of State and Defense, has taught at Harvard and the University of Chicago and furthermore is a member of the presidential-appointed U.S. Institute of Peace.

When speaking of Daniel Pipes, it is pertinent to state that he is a fervent Zionist. It is quite true that Mr. Pipes is a controversial figure for his intense views regarding Middle East policy. Not only has Mr. Sbaihat misled readers in understanding Pipes’ works, websites and aims, but more importantly he uses an individual, whom many consider radical, to represent the views of an entire people. Just as it is never right to judge the Muslim people on the actions of fundamentalists, it is not right to judge those who are pro-Israel on the words of Daniel Pipes.

Mr. Sbaihat sadly states, “It is much easier to drop bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq and stand by doing nothing as Israel slaughters the Palestinian population.” It is at this point where his contradictions and biases become revoltingly apparent.

It is repulsive to read Mr. Sbaihat’s words at this point. He lectures on the sad state of the Iraqi people, how they live in fear while dreaming of a safe and secure life. He could not be more valid in this point; however, the Israeli people receive no such sympathy, but rather are displayed as aggressive slaughterers of innocent people. A reader may not be able to discover a more deliberate anti-Israel depiction than that presented by Mr. Sbaihat.

Fayyad’s editorial quickly turns from a positively intentioned article about the advancement of acceptance to a finger-pointing, anti-Israel blame game with grave and dangerous accusations being thrown in the face a people who want nothing more than peace, just like the Iraqis and Afghani citizens toward whom he feels such sympathy.

I am distraught that Mr. Sbaihat felt his attack on others would help solve the issue at hand. His childish use of finger-pointing and mishandling of information is a topic that could not go unaddressed.

I respect the premise of his argument that anti-Muslim sentiment must be reduced by positive interaction and teaching by moderate and educated Muslims. Had he developed an appropriate article on this premise, I would have applauded his efforts. I am, however, sad to see that he quickly fell into the trap of hypocrisy and misinformation to lead his readers to hatred as opposed to progression. Mr. Sbaihat opens his article alarmed by anti-Muslim stereotypes, but sadly it seems he’s unable to dismiss his own stereotypes in a disdainful attempt to preach tolerance to others.

Jordan Stein ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in history.