| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Thus far the conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza, who claims that American liberals provoked the 9/11 attacks by exporting decadent American pop culture into the Islamic world, has cited only one authority of Islam to buttress his peculiar and fact-free claims about the nature and magnitude of Islamic jihadism and Islamic supremacism: Bernard Lewis.
But now at last D'Souza is no longer an homo unius libri! In "What Muslims Really Think," he has found another authority who tells him what he wants to hear: the Saudi-funded dhimmi academic John Esposito, whom D'Souza says is "one of the most respected American authorities on Islam."
Does he know that his new hero Esposito has called his old hero, Lewis, "one of the Darth Vaders of the world"? Probably not.
Does he know that Esposito has spoken at a Council on American-Islamic Relations fundraiser in order to "show solidarity not only with the Holy Land Fund [that is, the Holy Land Foundation], but also with CAIR"? Does he know that the Holy Land Foundation is accused of funneling money to the jihad terror group Hamas, and that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case? Unlikely.
Does D'Souza know that Esposito has said of a man who is in prison for aiding the jihad terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad that "Sami Al-Arian's a very good friend of mine"? I doubt it.
Does D'Souza know that Esposito has co-edited a book with Azzam Tamimi? Palestinian political scientist Muhammad Muslih calls Tamimi "a Hamas member." Tamimi has said: "I admire the Taliban; they are courageous." About 9/11, he has said: "In the Arab and Muslim countries, everyone jumped for joy." He has said: "I support Hamas." I would be surprised if D'Souza knew any of this.
To be sure, Dinesh says he hasn't gotten too far into Esposito's book -- and before he does, he might be well advised to study this evisceration of it by Martin Kramer:
Professor John L. Esposito runs a slick operation at Georgetown with $20 million of funding from Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. The shared agenda of these two is to make us all feel guilty for having wondered, after 9/11, about Saudis, Muslims, and the contemporary teaching of Islam. Esposito now has a new book (with co-author Dalia Mogahed, who runs something called the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies), bearing the pretentious title Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think. It's based on gleanings from the Gallup World Poll.The core argument of the book is that only 7% of Muslims are "politically radicalized," and that "about 9 in 10 Muslims are moderate." On what does this factoid rest? The authors explain (pp. 69-70):
According to the Gallup Poll, 7% of respondents think that the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified and view the United States unfavorably.... the 7%, whom we'll call "the politically radicalized" because of their radical political orientation... are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups.So an essential precondition for being "politically radicalized" is to believe that 9/11 was "completely" justified. The pool of support is only 7%. Don't you feel relieved?
Yet a year and a half ago, Esposito and Mogahed used a different definition of "radical," in interpreting respondents' answers to Gallup's 9/11 question. In November 2006, they gave this definition:
Respondents who said 9/11 was unjustified (1 or 2 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is totally unjustified and 5 is completely justified) are classified as moderates. Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radicals.Wait a minute.... In 2006, then, these same authors defined "radicals" not only as Muslims who thought 9/11 was "completely justified" (5 on their scale), but those who thought it was largely justified (4 on their scale).
So for their new book, they've drastically narrowed their own definition of "radical," to get to that 7% figure. And they've also spread the impression in the media that the other 93% are "moderates." In 2006, their "moderates" included only Muslims who thought 9/11 was "totally" or largely unjustified (who answered 1 or 2 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is "totally unjustified"). But what about Muslims who answered with 3 or 4? Well, they weren't "moderates" by 2006 standards. The 3's were neither "moderates" nor "radicals," and the 4's were "radicals." But this year, they've all been upgraded to "moderate" class, because they didn't "completely justify" 9/11. Whether they largely justified it, or half-justified it, they're all "moderates" now.
I feel better already! Read it all.
Posted by Robert at April 25, 2008 12:21 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
There was a time when I respected Dinesh D'Souza but that time has passed-------long ago. He seems oblivious to what jihad, Sharia and so much other rot in Islam means for us all. I mean the guy is in major denial.
Posted by: Wellington![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 25, 2008 1:22 PM
I look forward to your latest book, Stealth Jihad, as an antidote to craven blindness and apology in every quarter, Mr. Darth Spencer.
Posted by: John C at April 25, 2008 1:31 PM
Fitzgerald: A Tribute to John Esposito
"John Esposito did not start out as anything more than a mild-mannered low-level academic; one suspects he had no strong feelings about Islam, and was not prompted by any of the mental pathologies -- antisemitism, hatred of America -- that can produce the apologist for Islam. But as one crook of the Gilded Age, of the kind of Tammany Hall variety, said in his own defense, Esposito has "seen his opportunities, and he took 'em."
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.
Esposito has come a long way, the mediocre producer of nondescript texts and prettified couleur-locale "studies" of Islam, those coffee-table concoctions in which the pictures first overwhelm the reader -- those blue mosques, those Iznik tiles, those colorfully turbaned Turks -- and prevent any sober recognition of just how empty or misleading so many of the texts offered in these anthologies, or by Esposito himself, really are. All those pretty pictures make the reader swoon and overlook the fact that he has learned nothing about the actual contents of Qur'an, hadith, and sira.
No one of sense -- no one -- takes John Esposito seriously anymore. Esposito's loaded title The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? pointed the way to his vacuous conclusion -- of course it is a "myth" and not a "reality." That was the book in which he mentioned the word "Jihad" exactly twice. He has tried to do a little better since, but now it is all about blaming one particular group of Muslims, the "Wahhabis."
Of course it was not a "Wahhabi" Muslim who murdered Theo van Gogh. It was not "Wahhabis" who have been killing Christians and Confucians in Indonesia, by the hundreds of thousands, over the past few decades, and destroying, in 2003 alone, more than 3,000 churches. It is not "Wahhabi" Muslims in Bangladesh who have been murdering Hindus -- 3 million since the 1971 war against West Pakistan. It is not "Wahhabis" who conducted, in Col. Ojukwu's words, the "Jihad" against the Christian Ibos in southern Nigeria who felt compelled to declare the independence of Biafra. It was not "Wahhabis" who have been making war on black Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, or now insufficiently "Arab" Muslims in Darfur. It was not "Wahhabis" but that severe and learned theologian of Shi'a Islam, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who set up the murderous, fanatical Islamic Republic of Iran -- about which, if you can stand it, you can find a great deal from many Iranian exiles, at www.faithfreedom.org.
Nobody needs Esposito’s writings. 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, Georges Henri Bousquet, Snouck Hurgronje -- they are all about to be reprinted, at least in relevant part. Of course, I don't think for a minute that Esposito, or any of his crew, are familiar with any of these great scholars, and dozens more. I doubt they've even read them. They seem actually to believe that the only person to have written about dhimmitude 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.
But what may be most interesting is the reply Esposito gave at a Muslim website some months ago, in which he noted that after 9/11 he -- John Esposito -- was "pleasantly surprised" to see that there had been no diminution in the number of "reverts"(or converts) to Islam.
Now we all know how keenly interested Muslims are in the rate of conversion, how important Da'wa is, how much an instrument of conquest it is believed to be -- for one is swelling the ranks of the recruits into the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers, who owe their loyalty to that Community alone, never to the Infidel nation-state. We recall, do we not, that the very first thing Osama bin Laden inquired about on that first tape filmed after 9/11, and which pleased him mightily to discover, was the rate of conversion of Infidels. He was told, and gave a smile when he heard the news, that "people in Holland were converting at an even faster pace" than before.
Now here is John Esposito, now of Georgetown, formerly of Holy Cross. One might expect that he would be a student of Islam, but not an enthusiast, not someone delighted to receive news of the swelling of Muslim ranks. But this is what he said at this website:
"I was pleasantly surprised" to discover that the numbers of conversions [to Islam] have not gone down, but increased."
"Surprised" -- sure.
But "pleasantly" surprised? Why? Why would a certain John Esposito of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (or whatever it is called) be "pleasantly surprised" that there had been no diminishment, because of 9/11, in the number of converts to Islam?
In other words, why did John Esposito express precisely the same reaction as -- Osama bin Laden?
Were I the president of Georgetown, or an alumnus, or a parent, or a Congressman, or a journalist who had been told to "interview John Esposito," that is the question that I would first wish to have answered.
He's got a good thing going. $20 million for his "Georgetown" Center, which means a lot more for lean, mean, jogging John Esposito, and John Voll, and Yvonne Haddad.. And of course John Esposito is hardly alone in having earned, on some future gravestone, that epitaph which so many in the Western world over the past thirty years have earned, in Washington and London and Paris, in their own ways, as they did nothing to prevent Muslim immigration, nothing serious to limit OPEC revenues, and thought only of how to obtain some of those revenues for themselves, their friends, their relatives, their companies:
Shilling for Islam, undoing the West,
Radix malorum cupiditas est.
[Posted by Hugh at March 8, 2006]
at April 25, 2008 1:37 PM
Darth Spencer -- !!! ROFL!
This is a great comedy page. It is good to mix in some laughs and sophisticated humor when we need to band together against such a deadly threat. A stealthy one too.
Seriously, no irony intended. I had to google to see the Darth Spencer image that somebody put together. What a riot!
A trivial comment, not meant to be argumentative, whilst I have your attention -- I too have been known to say that in the Arab and Muslim world, they jumped for joy about 9/11. Danced in the streets and handed out candy in celebration as well. It's a fact. And nobody better accuse me of being sympathetic to jihadis or I'll slap a fatwa on them so fast their head will spin!
Darth Spencer. Heh. I can't quit chuckling about it.
Posted by: Goob at April 25, 2008 1:50 PM
Thanks for the repost, Hugh, on Esposito. He's such a brown-noser. My only question about him is does he really believe all the anodyne nonsense he spouts about Islam? If he does, he's indeed clueless. If he doesn't, then he is deceitful. Either way there is no reason to respect the man. Besides, his kind do so much harm precisely because they obfuscate the truth about Islam.
Posted by: Wellington at April 25, 2008 1:51 PM
Maybe D'Souza is just trying to hop on the Saudi gravy-train before it leaves the station?
Posted by: awake at April 25, 2008 2:21 PM
Maybe D'Souza is just trying to hop on the Saudi gravy-train before it leaves the station?
* You bet!
Whoring for the caliphate, that's what they're doing...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 25, 2008 2:25 PM
Yes, Goob, we all need a good laugh once in a while. We must all keep in mind the eternal dictum of the Great Imam himself, that "There is no humor in Islam." Makes rigid idiocy and numbing outrages all the more so ripping hilarious.
Posted by: John C at April 25, 2008 2:27 PM
There is nothing more certain to cause your own defeat than believing your enemy holds higher ground than you.
Posted by: Sounder at April 25, 2008 3:12 PM
D'Souza micrognathically chews his way through this or that drivelly nonsense to bolster his own drivelly nonsense, and then trumpets it obliviously and proudly and stupidly to the wide waiting world. I can't stand to hear what he'll spout next. Does that make me a D'Souzaphonophobe?
Posted by: jsla at April 25, 2008 4:36 PM
Respondents who said 9/11 was unjustified (1 or 2 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is totally unjustified and 5 is completely justified) are classified as moderates.
By definition, any Muslim must consider an act "unjustified" only if it is harmful to the ummah (Muslim community). Any act that only harms the non-Muslims is, according to the Koran and Sunnah, utterly justified. Those Muslims who believe that 9/11, 7/7, 10/12, 3/11, etc. are "unjustified" are more likely just responding that the timing was off and that such attacks should be more carefully planned with regard to time and place.
The world is at war and only the aggressors seem to know it.
Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at April 25, 2008 5:08 PM
D'Souza Rules!!!!!
Not really, but I figured someone had to defend him. How come D'Souza has no trolls that defend him? Everyone else has a troll, why not D'Souza?
If there are any big fans of D'Souza, and who support his plan to heal the great divide between Muslims and Christians by throwing all the immoral westerners into that divide...let us know why he is right. Tell me why I should give my second Nationals ticket to the Grand Mufti of Egypt, and not to the hot semi-liberal girl next door who is a big Nationals fan.
at April 25, 2008 5:16 PM
re D'Souza and "What Muslims Really Think"...
For a real example of what Muslims really think, check out the latest poll results from Pakistan on how many favor killing the Danish cartoonists:
http://www.jamatdawah.org/poll_results.php?poll_id=12
at April 25, 2008 5:24 PM
What can you expect from a guy who has said he's glad that his ancestors were forcefully converted to Christianity by the Portugese during the Goan Inquisition?
Serious identity issues if you ask me.
Blue
Posted by: Blue at April 25, 2008 5:34 PM
Re. Antoine Fattal.
How does one go about obtaining a copy of his magisterial tome? Is it available from the ubiquitous 'amazon', or must one buy it from the source, in Beirut?
You see, I have an aunt-by-marriage in the diplomatic corps, who speaks and reads fluent French.
I won't go into details, but if I had a copy of M. Fattal's book, I could send it to her for her professional library; I believe it would be of great use to her in her current position.
(I would, of course, pre-read it - I can read French, with an effort, and a good dictionary at my elbow).
Oh for someone to a. translate Fattal into English and b. post said translation online for the edification - and to the horror - of Anglophone Infidels everywhere.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 25, 2008 5:45 PM
Tell me why I should give my second Nationals ticket to the Grand Mufti of Egypt, and not to the hot semi-liberal girl next door who is a big Nationals fan.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 25, 2008 5:16 PM
Actually, you should not even entertain the thought.
Posted by: awake at April 25, 2008 5:57 PM
D'Sousa is not a "conservative writer". He is a rapid-writing con.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at April 25, 2008 6:05 PM
Sadly, Mr. Spencer, this attitude of D'Souza's is one I find in several of my fellow Catholics who somehow feel that the (in their terms now) "faithfulness" of Muslim men and "modesty" of Muslim women are just what our hedonistic society needs. They totally misread the world of dar al Islam thinking that it is somehow the big dose of castor oil the West needs to swallow to combat secularism and relativism. Nonsense. To avoid what they see as the excesses of the frying pan of Western decadence they fling themselves into the Islamic fire.
One of the things that impresses me about Pope Benedict 16 is that he does not buy into ecumania nor embrace a false dilemna of either Islam or hedonism. He seems to realize that we Western traditionalists and conservative Christians are fighting a battle on two fronts: relativism AND Islam both deadly challenges to our JudeoChristian patrimony.
Posted by: bevc at April 25, 2008 6:05 PM
I was BLOWN away when I heard Laura Ingraham admit to "dating" him. That brings her down about 20 notches in my view...
Posted by: Drewbenstein at April 25, 2008 6:15 PM
Pity Esposito and D'Souza.
Concerning Islam, their neurons are neither firing nor connecting.
Posted by: darcy
at April 25, 2008 6:40 PM
"Actually, you should not even entertain the thought."
Posted by: awake
True, I got carried away (which happens alot).
The full quote from D'Souza...
"Yes, I would rather go to a baseball game or have a drink with Michael Moore than with the grand mufti of Egypt. But when it comes to core beliefs, I’d have to confess that I’m closer to the dignified fellow in the long robe and prayer beads than to the slovenly fellow with the baseball cap.”.
So I guess he would take the hot semi-liberal girl next door as well (I hope he would, because he said he would take Moore). Afterall baseball is not the sport for "core beliefs" in the World of D'Souza. I see this as a slight against the great game of Baseball. Why not? Is the Grand Mufti of Egypt too moral for baseball?
Anyway D'Souza is in obsessed with western women and their morals. People like Ingraham kept dumping him and he could not understand why...until that is he found Islam.
Now that he has found John Esposito, get ready for endless months of Esposito like quotes from D'Souza. He at last found a man he can take with him to a baseball game, and still agree on those critical core values!
Peace in our time and history has ended!
at April 25, 2008 7:08 PM
>>But when it comes to core beliefs, I’d have to confess that I’m closer to the dignified fellow in the long robe and prayer beads than to the slovenly fellow with the baseball cap.”. --D'Souza
Tell me, how is a Barbarian who's beliefs are barbaric, "dignified?"
Physical appearances aside, D'Souza, your Islamic imam and Michael Moore are One and the Same. How deceived you are!
P.S. Both Mao and Stalin, physically speaking, appeared "dignified."
at April 25, 2008 7:28 PM
In the only email correspondence I ever had with Mr Esposito, he attempted to equate Al Qaeda with Timothy McKvie and Baruch Goldstein...i.e., the "there are extremists in every faith" canard.
When I responded by pointing out how un-analogous the exceptional acts of terrorism committed by lone individuals like McKvie and Goldstein was with the systematic use of terrorism perpetrated by tens of thousands of Muslims around the globe in the name of Allah, I never heard from him again.
He's very deep.
Posted by: Cornelius at April 25, 2008 7:30 PM
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Posted by: John C at April 26, 2008 11:21 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)