John Esposito Blames the Christians

Based on what little I've read of his work, I'm not the least bit surprised.

How about:

e. All of the above

I once had a brief email correspondence with "Dr" Esposito. He fed me the worn-out line that Islamic terrorism was no different than the violence of Christians like Timothy McVie and Jews like Baruch Goldstein. When I responded in a perfectly respectful way that these were exceptional cases, in no way correlative to the widespread and systematic use of violence by radical Islamists, he stopped answering my emails.

He is as intellectually dishonest an apologist as I've ever come across.

In his book 'The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality,' Esposito reveals the extent to which he talks out of both sides of his mouth when he writes about the Rushdie affair.

One the one hand, he insists that (paraphrasing) 'we must not judge the entire Muslim world based on the reaction of a few extremists in Iran.'

In the very next paragraph, he castigates Rushdie for not having the sense to know that he was injuring the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims and should have expected such a backlash.

Esposito's scholarship is riddled with these kinds of blatant inconsistencies.

Yes let's blame the west for the lunacy of the middle east who come to us with such a warped ideology that they may torture an unsuspecting teacher because her students named a teddy bear Mohammed.

Only an ignorant fool would buy into this after all that has been seen and heard since 9-11. Unfortunatly however there is a plentiful army of appeasing dhimmis in the west who refuse to take just a little time and read, and see were the source of Islamic violence comes from--

Folks if you are visiting this site for the first time, you have possibly taken a great step forward in understanding what the western world is confronting today.

Please stop in at your Barnes and Nobel and pick up a copy THE KORAN by N.J.Dawood

The Muslim apologist John Esposito has everything to lose (friends, influence, tenure, lecture fees, Saudi benefactors, publishers) and NOTHING TO GAIN by telling the truth.

Truth doesn't matter to Esposito. Why should it?

"...love of one's neighbor"
From VOA article

Where is this found in the Koran?

Dr. Tripp, under whom I'm currently studying, has had some rather unkind thing to say about poor Mr. Esposito here--and rightfully so. Rest assured that not everyone buys this man's BS hook, line, and sinker.

I think it's long past time for a certain christian leader, named Pope Benedict XVI to invoke the Jesuits' 4th vow of obedience to the Papacy and put a stop to, or at least begin to bridle, the dhimmi's and cultural relativists like Esposito at Georgetown and many of their other Universities.

Ynkedoodl2 says:

Truth doesn't matter to Esposito. Why should it?

The penalty for lying must be raised.

I read that letter from the Christians who don't represent me or any Christians I know and it didn't bow down enough, in fact if I remember right it asked the Muslims to love the way Christians love their fellow man. And that ain't in the Koran.
I guess that wouldn't work.

Esposito deserves nothing less than to be drawn and quartered.

irish_infidel:

I agree with you and with many that the leash for Catholic Universities in America has gotten far too long and needs to be dealt with. I also believe that Pope Benedict is currently in the process of doing that. The one thing we need to remember is that the Catholic Church is the most conservative (in the traditional sense) institution in the world. They tend to move slowly and want to be completely sure before taking a course of action.

But I don't doubt that Pope Benedict is a bit more proactive on this than Pope John Paul.

That being said, I think it's obvious that John Esposito is like most of the "scholars" in academia today. They are of the poorest sort never seen before in the history of the university system and it's unfortunate that we are sending our youth directly into the lairs of these beasts hoping that they are armed with enough common sense and confidence and intelligence to resist the claims and poor arguments of these false idols.

Mackie,

Why that particular Koran by N.J.Dawood? I ask because I want to get one but am not sure which one to get. There is another one recommended called THE SIMPLE KORAN but once again I just don't know which one to get.

Thanks

Personally, I prefer the Maulana Muhammad Ali translation of the Kur'an--although he's an Ahmadi and therefore not a Muslim in the eyes of most Muslims. A shame--it's a good translation, as far as translations go.

Had.Enough -

According to Robert Spencer himself, who reads Arabic, the N Dawood translation (Penguin) is the most accurate English version, but Muslims don't like it because the translator was not a Muslim. So you can't use it to argue with Muslims.

Robert discusses some of the other English translations and their relative merits - I'm not sure whether he does that under the 'Books' heading or under the 'Robert Spencer' heading, at the top of this website.

Under the heading 'Qur'an Blog' you will find a link to Robert's 'blogging' of the Qur'an, with explanations of some of the standard Muslim readings of various key passages. If you have not yet read the Quran, when you do, read it in tandem with Robert's blog.

Bear in mind that knowledge of the contents of the Quran and of the standard (Muslim) interpretations will be most useful for arguing with your fellow Infidels.

Many at this site have reported that no matter which translation you use, or what authoritative Muslim theologian (cited in Muslim texts for Muslims) you may also cross-refer, if you try to argue with Muslims you will almost always be told that the translation you have used is wrong or that the text is taken out of context or that that particular theologian is not respected.

You see, Islam is Gnostic in its attitudes. The Uninitiated are deemed to be Un-illuminated. We Disbelievers haven't had that special experience of being Muslim so we can't (according to them) understand the true meaning of the texts - even though the plain outward meaning of, say, the Ninth Surah, as comprehensible by anyone with common sense, is plainly congruent with the observable historic and contemporary behaviour of a great many Muslims all over the world.

FYI:
http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/2007/09/michael-savage-radical-islam.html

And here is the results of someone speaking the truth:
"OFFICEMAX DROPS MICHAEL SAVAGE ADS OVER ANTI-ISLAM BIAS (WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/15/2007) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced that OfficeMax, a leading office products retailer, has joined a growing list of companies that have stopped advertising on Michael Savage's nationally-syndicated radio program because of the host's anti-Muslim views."

Please Call OfficeMax As Soon As Possible
www.actforamerica

@GuardianofPeaceandJustice

Based on my recent experience as a recent graduate of a Catholic Jesuit institution I have to say that the leash is now almost non-existent. Most of the Jesuits I know and had as teachers were great but unfortunately those with a leftist agenda in the laity, with the help of some extreme liberation theologians, have been able to turn many Catholic colleges into hotbeds for promoting pacifism and cultural relativism under the guise of academic freedom and Catholic social teachings.

I completely agree with you about the Churches tendancy to move on important issues with all the urgency of a glacier melting as well as that Benedict XVI is doing all he can to reverse this situation. John Paul IIs papacy was a pastoral one primarily focused on traveling, world youth days, and meeting the people; the corruptions taking place at Catholic universities just wasn't on his radar. Benedict XVI however is an intellectual whose main interest is in writing about philosophy and theology inorder to combat what he calls "the cult of relativism" so there is certainly hope. It may take some time but he will change the way of thinking of many in the Church. I've been reading his book "Jesus of Nazareth" where he corrects many of the popular distortions of Jesus, it is absolutely brilliant.

"According to Robert Spencer himself, who reads Arabic"

Does he?

RE: Michael Savage

“MICHAEL SAVAGE: So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I am.

MICHAEL SAVAGE: Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis.

OK, do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Get me another one, put another sodomite on. No more calls out of-- let's go to the next scene. I don't care about these bums. They mean nothing to me. They're all sausages. Next scene; onto the next scene on the Savage Nation."

""According to Robert Spencer himself, who reads Arabic"

Does he?"

(not an attempt at sarcasm--seriously, does he speak Arabic? He's been kind of vague about it, but maybe I missed a post)

I openly and formally accuse Mr. Esposito of consciously being an Islamic terrorism enabler. I am sure he knows that is what he is and what he has been doing with his life in recent years.

I will welcome the opportunity to tell him that myself. If someone can get that message to him personally I would thank them for doing so.

Esposito's are some of the few serious books on modern Islam that make it into University libraries in North America. Consider how that affects the formally educated class as they gather knowledge and form opinions about Islam as undergrads.

It might be worth doing a full review of the books on Islam that are available at universities, see how biased it actually is. This might not require as much as it seems it would, because you can generally search libraries' holdings online through their websites.

RoobartSbunsar:

Here you go.

It even mentions your name!

"I'm concerned about the Christian leadership, and it's how the Christian leadership"

The phrase Christian leadership has no practical meaning in the West. In Muslim countries, there is a nationally supported clergy (perhaps clergy isn't the best word). In the West, at least in the US, there is no religious leadership defined by statute. The Muzzy world has reacted to statements by Pope Benedict but they probably don't realize that the bulk of the population of the US doesn't pay any attention to him.

Posted by: Audacity at November 28, 2007 8:20 PM

Thank you Audacity, that was priceless.

It appears our "old" friend "Roobart" aka "GetBornAgain" under the rightfully, previously banned moniker can't catch a break here.

Please, let's keep it that way.

Robert,

SUPERB post. When Ed decides to take on the scholarly interpreatations of the Islamic texts of the four mainstream schools of Islamic jurispredence and begin to attack the message as opposed to the messenger, then maybe we can talk.

Maybe.

Savage is one more vulgarian, and he's easy for CAIR to attack. He doesn't know how to present things so that they will appeal to others than those who like the sort of thing he does, and he's apparently not interested, or not capable, of changing.

Nonetheless, raise bloody hell with OfficeMax, and make sure you not only threaten to take your business elsewhere, forever, but do so. Make sure you follow through.

Here is Steven Emerson's piece for The Investigative Project:

Worst Approach to Counter-terrorism Yet
by Steven Emerson

IPT News
September 18, 2007

On Wednesday, October 3rd, the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security is hosting its "5th Annual Counter-Terrorism Conference" titled, "Radicalization: Global Trend, Local Concern?" The conference is part of the agency's "First Responder Training" and speakers and experts are brought in to instruct department employees on various topics related to security and counter-terrorism.

In a decision that defies reason, slated to speak on a panel called "To What Extent is Radicalization a Concern in the U.S.?," is none other than Georgetown University's John Esposito, a man who has never met a radical Muslim he didn't like.

At a banquet held by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Dallas in August of this year, Esposito stated:

I've got to tell you, you know, I mean, Sami Al-Arian's a very good friend of mine. I remember that when his kids told me that he was supporting a Republican I just said, ‘Tell your dad, as a lifelong Democrat, even though I don't always vote Democrat, he's ‘gonna regret voting for a Republican. And you know, God help Sami Al-Arian in terms of this administration and any others who have to live through this.

Esposito finished his speech, telling the crowd, "One of the most impressive people I have met under fire is Sami Al-Arian." Incidentally, the banquet was in large part held to support the defendants in the current trial against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief in Development (HLF), in which the closing arguments are underway. The charity stands accused of diverting over $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas. And Esposito told the audience that his appearance at the banquet was intended to "show solidarity not only with the Holy Land Fund, but also with CAIR," and started his speech by saying, "let me begin by saying that CAIR is a phenomenal organization."

At the banquet, CAIR Chairman Parvez Ahmed unleashed the following corker, in a typical effort to conflate his organization and his favored causes as representative of all American Muslims:

It is not the Holy Land Foundation that is under fire, but it is the entire American Muslim community is under fire.

CAIR is, of course, an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial, and if nothing else, the HLF trial has officially and publicly exposed CAIR's numerous links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

But back to Esposito: His good friend Sami pled guilty in 2006 to a "conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Designated Terrorist."

A notorious firebrand when speaking to perceived supporters, Esposito's buddy told a crowd of Muslim supporters both "Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn their allies until death" and "The Koran is our constitution… Jihad is our path … Victory to Islam… Death to Israel… Revolution… revolution till the victory" at meetings held in support of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Esposito knows this, as these videos were entered into evidence into Sami's trial. Yet as recently as last month he still refers to Sami, in front of a crowd of American Muslims at a conference held by a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas-front group, as his "very good friend."

Additionally, Esposito has praised Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi as a "reformer," interested in the relationship between Islam and "democracy, pluralism and human rights." The very same Qaradawi who has sanctioned suicide bombings against American troops in Iraq, calling those who die fighting U.S. forces "martyrs," and civilians in Israel, referring to such terrorist acts as "just" and a "divine destiny."

In a perfect world, such praise and associations would be as damaging as they are damning, yet Esposito has profited tremendously from such views, endorsements and friends. In December 2005, Saudi "philanthropist" Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal donated $20 million to Georgetown University to "teach about the Islamic world to the United States." According to the Washington Post, this is what the Prince got for his money:

The Georgetown center, part of the university's School of Foreign Service, will be renamed the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. The $20 million will endow three faculty chairs, expand programs and academic outreach, provide scholarships for students and expand library facilities, Alwaleed said.

Center director John L. Esposito said in an interview that "a significant part of the money will be used to beef up the think tank part of what the center does."

Famously, money from Alwaleed Bin Talal comes with strings attached, not that Esposito would be bothered by such preconditions. After 9/11, then-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani turned down a check for $10 million from the prince, after Alwaleed Bin Talal issued a press release stating that America had to "re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause." Despite the prince's "generous" gift to Georgetown, his money is probably better spent elsewhere, as anyone who knows anything about Esposito would understand he hardly has to be bribed to parrot the radical Islamist/Saudi worldview.

And for those who insist that voicing skepticism and concern about the influx of Saudi money on institutions of higher learning is nothing more than "Islamophobia," not every one is fooled, including various leaders of the Australian Muslim community, as reported yesterday in The Australian, "Muslims attack $1m Saudi gift to uni":

UP to $1 million will be pumped by Saudi Arabia into an Australian university, sparking fears the money will skew its research and create sympathy for an extremist Muslim ideology espoused by al-Qai'da.

Muslim leaders and academics have attacked Queensland's Griffith University for accepting an initial $100,000 grant from the Saudi embassy, which they accused of having given cash in the past to educational institutions to improve the perception of Wahhabism - a hardline interpretation of Islam.

The Australian understands the Griffith Islamic Research Unit will in coming years receive up to $1 million from Saudi Arabia, which has injected more than $120 million into Australia's Islamic community since the 1970s for mosques, schools, scholarships and clerical salaries.

A former member of John Howard's Muslim reference board, Mustapha Kara-Ali, accused the Saudis of using their financial power to transform the landscape of Australia's Islamic community and silence criticism of Wahhabism. "They want to silence criticism of the Wahhabi establishment and its link to global terrorism and national security issues," he said.

Esposito does not share Kara-Ali's fears and wholeheartedly embraced his Saudi gift horse. But the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security should know better. During his August 2007 CAIR speech, Esposito stated, "The reality of it is there is no major significant threat in the mosques in America," and no one should expect anything other than his continued downplaying of the threat posed to the U.S. by radical Islam and its adherents. Inviting the self-described "good friend" of a convicted terrorist operative, a man who praises as a "reformer" the pro-suicide bombing spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood, a bought and paid for spokesman for the Wahhabist, Saudi worldview, to discuss the issues and problems associated with Islamic radicalization in the U.S. is very likely the most counter productive and wrongheaded approach yet devised by a government agency dedicated to protecting the United States.

"It appears our "old" friend "Roobart" aka "GetBornAgain" under the rightfully, previously banned moniker can't catch a break here."--posed by awake

...man, you are just OBSESSED with me, aren't you?

...man, you are just OBSESSED with me, aren't you?

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 29, 2007 6:51 AM

No, not at all. You are a mere nuisance. Your own words continually undermine yourself here. The entire community professes as such quite often. I just want everyone to know what you are all about.

That's all. Carry on.

dumbledorsarmy,

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I really just want to educate myself and others about what is in the Koran. I get into converstations with people and it would help to have it handy.

Here is a previous posting about Esposito from two months ago:

"Possibly the scandal of Esposito can be brought to the attention of the Vatican. Possibly the Vatican can persuade the administration at Georgetown to sever all ties with the "Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding." Esposito would still have his Saudi money and his lecture fees. He would still be lean, mean, jogging about, the man who seldom even puts in an appearance any more at the office. But at least the Georgetown prestige would no longer rub, wrongly, off onto him. He would simply be alone, with his "Center."

Surely someone on the Georgetown faculty, or in the Catholic hierarchy, or among powerful lay Catholics, can get the ball rolling on this.

As to the shoddiness of his scholarship -- well, forget about it. Margoliouth and Schacht have recently been reprinted. Antoine Fattal's book on the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam never went out of print. K. S. Lal is easily obtained. Tritton, Arthur Jeffery, Armand Abel, Charles-Emmanuel Bousquet, Snouck Hurgronje -- they are all about to be reprinted, at least in relevant part. Of course, don't think for a minute that Esposito, or any of his crew, are familiar with any of these great scholars, and dozens more. They've probably never read them. They seem actually to believe that the only person to have written about dhimmitude (though her work is profound, she recognizes that it also makes use of the previous work of dozens of other scholars) is Bat Ye'or, whom they like to airily dismiss as "polemical" so that they will not have to confront her meticulous, scrupulous, and irrefutable scholarship.

If ever that silly bumpersticker "Question Authority" was appropriate, it is in relation to the likes of Esposito, and Michael Sells, and tutti quanti. Whether on the take, or simply ill-informed, or lazy, or stupid, or some combination, they are guides to nothing and to nowhere. But their books could be given as incentives to those who sign up for Al-Jazeera on cable -- the perfect coffee-table accompaniment to so many of its programs.

Here is what I put up January 10, 2005:

That the Administration at Georgetown, that the Georgetown alumni, have not yet realized what damage an institutional connection between Esposito's "Center" and Georgetown is doing to the image, and name, of the latter, is a pity. When the Administration, and other faculty, perhaps prompted by expressions of alumni displeasure, do come to their senses, one hopes that all institutional ties between Georgetown and Esposito's Center, which benefits so much from the legitimacy conferred by the name "Georgetown," will be severed.
Perhaps a good place to begin is for the President and Trustees and alumni of Georgetown to educate themselves by reading, and assimilating, the articles on Islam by a real scholar at Georgetown -- Professor James V. Schall, S. J.

Professor Schall is neither an Arab hireling, nor an apologist for Islam, nor a sycophantic supporter of Muslim causes, nor a recipient of Arab Muslim support, and lionizing. For James V. Schall, S. J. answers to a Higher Authority, and has no truck with an Arab tycoon in Beirut, a Hamas-supporter in London, or a gaggle of Saudi princelings, all daggers-and-dishdashas, with their sneers of cold command, performing some celebratory dance in Riyadh and Jeddah.

I hope that James V. Schall, S.J. is thinking about this, and that John Allen is thinking about this, and Sandro Magister, and others who can get, somehow, to the upper regions of the Vatican, to call attention to this agent of Islam -- for what else should we call him? -- who is battening on the Georgetown name.

In World War II, anyone who had the kind of connections and "friends" among Nazis or Nazi sympathizers that Esposito does among the supporters of terrorist groups would have lost his job.

John Esposito, however, has not been stripped of his Saudi-supplied wealth; nor has he lost his job. No, instead he has been invited by the Department of Homeland Security to address one of the meetings it has organized in New Jersey. One's worst suspicions about the DHS, and about who is doing what in our government, appear to be justified. Those suspicions not allayed by reports from within the Pentagon about Muslim officers and aides swaggering about, or Pentagon officials who continue to be taken for "briefings" on Islam with John Esposito. We will have to find those who are just as alarmed, but are capable -- in Congress or the Executive branch -- of doing something about it. The Saudi lobby is very powerful; there is nothing else like it."

[Posted by Hugh at September 30, 2007]

irish_infidel

Both myself and my girlfriend have experience with the primary Catholic institution of higher learning in America at the graduate levels and I concur with your impressions. The stories that we could tell you from the inside would shock many people -- and it's happening at a Catholic institution. The fact of the matter is that many of the Professors and teaching assistants simply don't agree with many of the Church's positions and feel it is their "academic duty" to be "intellectually honest" in their POV. All the while, the students are the victims.

I don't blame the Church for this, though I believe their oversight should be more present. The administrators of these universities and the department chairs have a lot of responsibility for this as well.

I also agree with regarding the differences between Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I loved JPII tremendously (being someone of Polish descent) and I know that many of the attributes that he possessed were what the Church needed at that time. But I have great respect for the intellectual giant that is BXVI (who I also love because of my German descent). He is, quite simply, one of the most brilliant men on the planet today. His encyclical "Deus Caritas Est" is something EVERYONE should read -- it might dispel a few popular myths held by non-Catholics.

I have great faith in BXVI and his leadership for the Church regarding all the great issues of the day -- including the Islamic threat.

JerryM -

You may feel as though the majority of Christians don'e listen to what the Pope says and does, but I can assure you that the Muslim world respects the Pope as one, if not the major, leader of the West.

I know that fact can really piss off a lot of atheists and protestants, but it's a fact given the worldview of a muslim. And as the debates continue between Islam and the West, the muslims will weight heavily the comments and actions of the Pope.

"No, not at all. You are a mere nuisance. Your own words continually undermine yourself here. The entire community professes as such quite often. I just want everyone to know what you are all about.

That's all. Carry on."

Not obsessed--yet you mention me in every single post. You can't seem to stop thinking about me. Well, I suppose I should find this flattering--so many thanks.

@GuardianofPeaceandJustice

I agree completely. I don't think those outside of Catholic institutions of higher learning, especially the parents of students that spend tens of thousands of dollars to give their children a Catholic education, have any idea of what is actually occuring on campuses nowdays. I don't have enough time to tell of all the moral relativism I heard, bashing of Western Civilization, the bashing of the Church and its doctrine by professors, bashing of priests (my favorite comment that I will share was from a lesbian professor who said she was initially frightened to come teach at our college because the Jesuits would want to lynch her in the quad), the promotion of abortion and euthanasia by professors, and promotion of pacifism (including opposition to WWII) I experienced at the University of the Berrigan Brothers in Upstate NY.

Perhaps some of the greater oversight of colleges by the Church is beginning to take place right down the road from your grad school.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/oct/07101105.html

Hugh sez:

Savage is one more vulgarian, and he's easy for CAIR to attack. He doesn't know how to present things so that they will appeal to others than those who like the sort of thing he does, and he's apparently not interested, or not capable, of changing.

Hmm. May be. But he is our vulgarian. And we need all the help we can get.