In response to someone's relaying criticism levelled at him by Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch several months ago, John Esposito did not bother to respond. Or rather, his response consisted of an attack on the "scholarly" background of Robert Spencer -- no Ph.D. in Islamic or Middle Eastern studies, and the enclosure of what in Esposito's worldview constitutes an unanswerably impressive curriculum vitae that supposedly means game, set, match, without any need to actually adduce evidence of any kind about anything: "I attach my bio info" was the elegant phrase which was intended to answer all critics.
That won't do.
Esposito allows himself to believe that mere credentialism -- defense by inflated C.V. -- will be enough to protect him from detailed criticism. With the credulous, admiring Dinesh D'Souzas of this world, who live by such things (and carefully put down every article, every lecture in their own comically ever-expanding C.V.’s), that may indeed work. For intelligent people who are well-versed in the tragicomic and deceptive aspects of curricula vitae, and are skeptical of those suffering from elephantiasis, such a defense will elicit only contempt.
And Esposito certainly didn't act as if he thought his “credentials” would be enough to protect him when he hurriedly went back and interpolated the word "Jihad" into post-9/11/2001 editions of his books, even though he continued to mislead readers about the standard, accepted, main meaning of that word (for Muslims, not for non-Muslim apologists such as...John Esposito).
Esposito is a "scholarly" colleague of, defender of, friend of, Azzam Tamimi, a Hamas supporter, whose quality of mind and thought can be gauged from this YouTube entry.
He calls another “Palestinian” Muslim fanatic, Al Farooqi (stabbed to death, along with his wife, by one of his own disciples), his “ustadh” or teacher.
Esposito has been on the Arab gravy-train ever since he convinced a Lebanese contractor -- an islamochristian who, had he survived, might not have quite as happy with Esposito as he might have been a decade or two ago -- to fund his “Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.” There is in reality no “understanding” -- or rather, in a nice reversal, it’s an understanding that passeth peace, and serves in effect, whatever its stated principles, as a long-running fount of apologetics for war, the war of Jihad, conducted not only or even, nowadays, mainly by qitaal (combat) but also by many other means, including “pen, speech.”
And the propagandistic nonsense put out by the “pen, speech” -- in articles including one with the piquant title that was published, in timely or untimely fashion depending on your point of view, in September 2001 -- of John Esposito has the effect of keeping Infidels in a state of unwariness, distraction, and confusion. He’s an updated Lord Haw-Haw, but at least the traitor William Joyce had to go all the way to Berlin to broadcast his propaganda on behalf of the enemy. Esposito can conduct his own operation -- the Prince Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, right in the heart of Washington, D.C., just a mile or two from the Capitol and the White House. And he can continue to do this at a Jesuit institution, though one can be sure that the view of Esposito held by two well-educated clerics, Professor James V. Schall, S.J. and Pope Benedict XVI, is not one whit less critical than that to be found at this or similar websites.
What is to be done about the scandal of John Esposito and his exploitation of the Georgetown connection? Perhaps alumni contemplating gifts to Georgetown will have second thoughts, if made aware of the scandalous Saudi-funded operation run by John Esposito. They might make known that they will not be making such gifts after all, until such time as Georgetown severs ties with Esposito and his Center. They might make their gifts contingent on the university severing those ties, and removing the deceptive glitter of reflected glory that Esposito glories in and exploits whenever he refers to his “Georgetown Center” or, alternatively, his “Center at Georgetown," the one now being paid for by Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal, he of the facial tic and the check ostentatiously handed to Rudolph Giuliani.
Let him have his Saudi-funded operation. But let it be free-standing, without any further disgrace to Georgetown. Let the ghosts of Snouck Hurgronje and Joseph Schacht be properly propitiated at long last, for those highly intelligent ghosts -- oh, have you seen their c.v.s, by the way? -- see through Esposito. Place a paragraph by Snouck Hurgronje or Schacht on one side of the balance, and the collected works, coffee-table picture-books and all, of John Esposito on the other side, and see which side kicks the beam. Surely Snouck Hurgronje and Schacht are not pleased with the way John Esposito has been allowed to flourish and to exploit every kind of trust and naivete that the Western world and even the supposedly keen-minded Jesuits have displayed in his regard for so long.
yes, I want to see this action by alumni donors, too. Maybe this will catch on.
Next step (slightly off topic, but): boycotting British academics who are members of their association that conducts boycott of Israeli academe.
That's nothing Esposito - you should have seen the 'deconstructionist darling' Paul De Man's credentials on paper, his degrees, honorariums, publications, memberships in learned societies... didn't mean squat since he turned out to have hidden his past as a VERY active Nazi collaborator in Belgium.
all his credchails show is he regurgitated what his left wing profs wanted to read in oder to get his phd
Usually, and I mean usually, people that go out of their way to put every credential behind their name are insecure and believe they need the support of academia. The smartest and most self assured people I have met have been in large part, self taught or unconcerned about letters that follow names. Their book cases have books of all types and not JUST what they want to believe. I'd like to compare John Esposito's book case with that of Robert's.
Once as a young student I attended a lecture by Edward Teller concerning the need to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. It may come as a surprise to some here that there were in the audience a number of opponents to Dr. Teller's stance. When the discussion portion of the presentation was reached, the discussion became quite lively indeed. Dr. Teller debated very effectively with members of the audience and never once waved his CV in anyone's face. The presence of the audience itself attested to his credentials. And I must say, he never talked down to anyone. He answered all questions and challenges sincerely and soberly.
He did say something towards the end of the evening that has stuck in my mind, something that possibly has been said before but was made memorable by Teller's graceful performance: The densest substance known to humanity is the aggregate gray matter of academia. I don't think these words were intended as a compliment.
Hi again, Spencerian Sheeple. My name is Tonya Greipenweiner, and I majored in Middle Eastern Histrionics with a sub-major in Arab Hubris Studies. So I think I am better qualified to comment on this situation than any of you, try as you might. The problem with Robert Spencer and the verbally challenged Hugh Fitzsimmons and his docile minion followers of the semplisme model of prepostmodern dedeconstructualized textification is this, and why you people can't see this, I will never understand:
You all lack the gravitas of penubrian analysis to internalize the teachings of so great a man as John Esposito, who, with the generous funding of more humane and non racist cultures of toleration, has imparted his visionary wisdom and that of his benefactors so well that you can all be dismissed as just so many empty headed blow up dolls in a post coital paradigm. Really, I feel sorry for you all, but clearly, there isn't anyone on these fora who can actually conceptualize critically the absurdist views that I hold so dearly.
"Once as a young student I attended a lecture by Edward Teller"
-- from a posting above
And once, though I am at least half-a-century younger than the famous physicist, I had to deliver a lecture as Edward Teller. Strange, but true.
I once heard that Esposito doesn't read or speak Arabic. Could anybody confirm whether this is the case? If it is true, it is truly an immense scandal!
Jewel,
Darn funny post. Wish I was half as clever as you. Thanks, it made my day!
The best approach is to go to influential alumni and get them riled up. They are not controlled like the faculty. Eposito is a joke, every time Muslims misbehave, it's because we provoked them.
I was watching some other half wit on CSPAN books. He was some liberal type who wrote a book about the so called peace process in Israel. According to him, the problem was AIPAC and Likud and in the fifteen minutes he babbled at the podium he mentioned Hamas and Hezbollah only in relation to his pet concept that Israel somehow created them. The whole problem to that sack of garbage was people in Israel and the US who didn't worship at the altar of Arafat and dhimmitude.
Actually,
I once got into an email exchange with Esposito. We both kept it pretty civil and he did take some time to form a decent reply. I can be a hothead and spew if I don't watch out. It had something to do with "US forces in Iraq were causing anti-Semitism". An Iraqi murdered one of our soldiers because the allah-bot thought he was a Jew. I said that the murderous anti-Semitism on display had nothing to do with our forces, it was there long before. If the allah-bot had murdered our soldier cause he simply didn't want Americans in his country, I could understand. But according to Esposito, the murder had nothing to do with Muslim anti-Semitism, which is only some sort of response to our sins if it did exist at all.
Esposito's arbitrary standard is not confined to Robert; he similarly dismisses the scholarship of Bat Yeor simply because she has no Phd. It's as if for Esposito, no truth can ever be arrived at without one...unless of course the "truth" is a validation of Islam.
In point of fact, Esposito's methodology of elevating credential over content is but a cheap form of evasion...and moral cowardice.
Jewel Atkins,
Terrific post (and web site).
Jewel - you go, girl.
In the meantime, a learned fool is still a fool. Mr. Esposito can claim as many letters after his name as he wants to, but he still can't read the Qur'an and comprehend it's meaning to the global jihad.
Jewel's post is amusing, especially for those of us who are in a post-coital paradigm.
how does Esposito have the unforgivable temerity to forget that Muhammad did not have a PhD?? Does that lack lower the value of Muhammad's unsurpassed witness and message???? In fact, how can esposito teach about Islam correctly, given that he is not an imam or a mullah and that he does have a Western PhD?? Is esposito trying to diminish the value of the Messanger's Message
[to wit, ...fight the unbelievers until they are brought low and pay tribute...]?? Is esposito putting himself above the noble Qureishi?
how about abu bakr and Ibn Taymiyya?? Did they have PhDs? Tariq ramadan does have a PhD of course. The next time I see him I will try to remember to properly genuflect.
More importantly, Eliyahu is this question. Why haven't John Esposito and Karen Armstrong written the following book:
"Why I am not a Muslim"....you would think, since Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina have both laid it out, why then, haven't they? It isn't a glib question, either. Why haven't they either become Muslims, or explained to those of us they are trying to flimflam, why they are not Muslims? I would like to see someone with some big hairy cods in the press ask this question.
Perhaps both are considered more useful to the Jihad as the craven dhimmis they are.
They are both worthy of derision and mockery, let's continue to do that, then.
Cool Jewel...
A swell education and lots of degree's, does not guarantee a decent human being...
I am edurbated. (Self-educated, or self-edificated, take your pick.) This site and others like it are first and second reads of the day for me. Because of sites that go into great depth, and damn the critics, I get a good grasp of facts, and lots of big important sounding new words, too. Which is pretty good, for a recipient of an honorary high school diploma!
Esposito's stance makes a lot of sense.
If only PhDs in Middle Eastern Studies are eligible to debate you, and your friends control who can obtain such a PhD, and they do not grant such degrees to those to violate the Party Line, then you don't have to be bothered with tolerating people who disagree with you
PhD = Party Hardy Dude.
"And once, though I am at least half-a-century younger than the famous physicist, I had to deliver a lecture as Edward Teller. Strange, but true."
I am sure it was in "tribute" to the great man..learning to love the bomb , SDI and all. Or were you over your communist stage by then or is my reading between the lines astray?
John Esposito and Karen Armstrong have publically and repeatedly made it clear they regard Muhammed's claim to supersessive prophethood as legitimate and the Qur'an as God-given, authoritative Holy Writ. They're Muslims in all but name.
Islam teaches first degree murder (en masse when this is applied in jihad warfare as we see at the moment in Sudan, southern Thailand and elsewhere). Over the centuries more than 270 MILLION persos have been murdered by jihadizing Muslims around the globe.
Esposito, Armstrong and others make big buckS from Muslim establishments spewing out a phony Islam that never hurts anyone. By knowingly covering up Islam's homicidal leanings such people are ACCESSORIES TO MURDER AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
People cannot protect themselves against Islam's homicidal intentions if they do not know about them. Esposito, Armstrong and their ilk are dangerous.
Hugh,
I also studied with Esposito's "ustadh" Dr. Faruqi and have referenced him in several blog entries at staringattheview.blogspot.com.
The interesting thing is that people like Esposito and Karen Armstrong respect these hard-liners because that's what we do in the West: respect people. They don't realize that the hard-liners really despise them as kafirs. The final line below could just as easily have been: "I wonder what he would say about John Esposito."
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Malicious or Ignorant?
Last night on "The Message" TV I watched the PBS 2002 documentary Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. It was very slick (not one of my favorite words, but one that fits). Many others have reviewed it critically so I won't do that, but one thing caught my attention. Karen Armstrong described the angel Gabriel squeezing Muhammad in the cave as he prepared to give him Allah's message with such passion one would think she had been there herself personally sharing the experience.
As far as I know, Karen Armstrong is not a Muslim. That's what has me confused. Muslims believe Allah gave those words to Muhammad. That's what makes one a Muslim. Infidels (non-Muslims) do not. If Allah was not talking to Muhammad, Muhammad either imagined it or made it up. So Karen either believes Allah was speaking to Muhammad (in which case by definition she would be a Muslim- or muslimah since she is female), or she doesn't believe it and is an infidel like the rest of us. Am I missing something?
My former Islamics professor Sayyed Hossein Nasr also featured prominently in the documentary. He obviously is still as devoted to the Prophet as he was at Temple University almost 30 years ago. I can appreciate that; he's a believer. What I don't understand are people who idolize the prophet but who are unbelievers, from the Muslim point of view.
My other Islamics professor at Temple, the late Dr. Ismail Al-Faruqi who was never one to mince around with words, used to put it this way, "To persuade someone of the truth of Islam, you present them with evidence. If they refuse to believe, you give them more evidence. If they still refuse, you conclude they are either ignorant or malicious." I wonder what he would say about Karen Armstrong.