One good thing about Esposito--I can use whom he likes and dislikes as a guide for which Islamic expert I'll listen to.

Posted by: Always On Watch at April 28, 2008 8:21 AM

What a pair to draw to...The hallmark of a great con man is to be able to con other great con men.

From article: so it's worth repeating some things D'Souza almost certainly doesn't know about this "respected" American "authority" on Islam.

What in the world is 'an Islamic authority'? Is that the same as scholar? I may be an 'authority', by virtue of reading Islamic stuff on a daily basis for years now, but I'm certainly not a scholar. RS is a scholar. Esposito is either blind in one eye and can't see out of the other, or he is a liar. A propagandist. A paid Islamic hack. He can see the dangers of Islam as pointed out in theory and practice, but has sold his soul to the devil. There are certain kuffars who indulge themselves in the glories of Islam, so often and to such an extent, I wonder why they just don't convert. If Islam is so wonderful, what's holding them back??
And 'He' advises government. I would bet that He and Hesham Islam know each other well...birds of a feather...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 28, 2008 8:54 AM

An article about D. D'S. previously posted at JW:

"Dinesh D'Souza's arrogance, in presuming to write about matters that he could not possibly have studied, arrogance about the most important matters, disqualifies him from ever again being taken seriously about anything.

His dreamy belief that Islamic terrorism dates back to 1979 and the Ayatollah Khomeini returning from Neauphle-le-chateau to Teheran, ignores, as Robert Spencer mentions here, the entire history of terrorism directed against Israel, Israel as a state, and even before it was a state, against the Jews who lived in what was, historically, the Land of Israel. D'Souza ignores the terrorism used against the French in Algeria. (Incidentally, apparently Bush is reading Alistair Horne, who got so much wrong in his history of that conflict, because Henry Kissinger, ever the Islam-avoider, recommended his book to Bush as a guide to the situation in Iraq. Yet a moment's thought would show ten ways in which the situations are different. Horne's book refuses to recognize the centrality of Islam in the Algerian war against the Infidels, who included not only the French, but also all kinds of other non-Muslims -- Spanish, Italians, Jews -- who had been living for a long time in Algeria and whose only crime was to not be Muslim.)

But more than that, D’Souza ignores the 1350 years of Jihad-conquest, or apparently thinks that because the military means involved did not include bombs on airplanes, those conquests were not Jihad and certainly not terrorism. No, there were no bombs on airplanes during those 1300 years of Jihad-conquest. Nor were there I.E.D.s blowing up Humvees when the Muslims conquered the Middle East and North Africa, or when the Seljuk Turks conquered most of Anatolia and the Ottoman Turks finished the rest of the conquering, nor when Sassanian Persia, or Hindu India, were conquered.

But "striking terror" in the hearts of the enemy was always Muslim war policy, and was practiced even without the particular technologies or techniques used today. Apparently Dinesh D'Souza thinks that that is all that "terrorism" is: not a method, but the precise technologies that go back just a few decades. He might as well suggest that the Muslims have never used propaganda, either, because they lacked, in the old days, audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, and the Internet. That is his level. That is what we are being asked to take seriously.

And then there are the texts. The most obvious apologetics are based on the notion that "everyone does it." All the texts, we are told, are more or less the same. Are they? Are the texts of Judaism and Christianity just as bloodthirsty, just as likely to whip up hatreds and violence, as are the Qur'an and Hadith? We all know that in some of those texts terrible things are written about the ancient Israelites and the Canaanites. But do Jews, have Jews, been going to temple and had rabbis whipping them up so that as they leave those temples they grab non-Jews yelling "kill the Cananites"? Has that been a feature of Judaism for the past hundred years? Thousand years? Two thousand years? It is nonsense to compare the texts of either of the prior two monotheisms with those of Islam. Dinesh D'Souza has not read Arthur Jeffery, Sir William Muir, Willem Noldeke. He has not read Snouck Hurgronje or St. Clair Tisdall or Joseph Schacht or Antoine Fattal. He has not read K. S. Lal, or any of the other Indian historians who might provide him with figures on how many Hindu victims -- 60-70 million of them -- were murdered by Muslims, and the murdering only stopped, as did the forced conversions, when it was realized that if every Hindu disappeared, then so too would those who could pay the Jizyah.

And his airy allusion to the possibilities of "selective quotation" suggests that he thinks that that is all that is worrisome in Islam, when the Qur'an is riddled with Jihad verses, and when the softer suras are essentially cancelled and superseded by the harsher more violent verses. Has Dinesh D'Souza heard about "naskh" or abrogation? And has he taken it seriously? Or has he relied on one of those smiling, plausible Muslim informants who assures him that this doctrine is not used, that it is a figment of the islamophobic imagination -- something concocted in the fervid brain, say, of Ibn Warraq, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, those crazed interpreters of Islam who know so little, while Dinesh D'Souza knows so very much?

What does Dinesh D'Souza make of the contents of the khutbas, sermons, that are delivered in Bangladesh, after which the Muslims streaming out of the mosque feel inspired enough to beat to death passing Hindus? For that matter, what does he make of the murder of the most peaceful, programmatically peaceful, Buddhists of southern Thailand by Muslims? What does he think of the strange outward flow of non-Muslims, observable everywhere that Muslims now rule where they once did not -- as in the lands that were once part of the Raj and are now known as Pakistan and Bangladesh, where the Hindu percentage of the population is now 10% of what it was in 1947 in Pakistan, and a quarter of what it was in Bangladesh in 1947, and yet, at the same time, the Muslim proportion of India's population has gone steadily up? And what does he think about the steady diminution in the numbers of Christians in Arab lands? And never mind the disappearance of a million Jews who, experiencing pogroms in Cairo and Tripoli and Baghdad, were not about to remain to enjoy the famed "tolerance" of Islam?

Dinesh D'Souza has fallen for that nonsense about "family values" in Islam. He is apparently so offended by the obvious decadence of the Western world that he likes the idea of fine, upstanding people who don't use tattoos or practice body-piercing, and whose children must listen to their parents -- as long as those parents are Muslim. If you convert to Islam, however, you need not have any respect for your non-Muslim parents who have been Left Behind. In the world of Dinesh D'Souza, a humorless and self-preening little world, some kinds of "morality" are accepted -- presumably the official Muslim hatred for homosexuality appeals to straight-laced Dinesh D'Souza -- but others are not.

What does Dinesh D'Souza find "moral" in polygamy, or in the contemptible treatment of women, not least in their inability to make a rape charge stick, or in the unequal punishments for women and men accused of sexual misconduct? How does he like lapidation as a form of execution? And the four male witnesses rule in cases of rape? What kind of "family values" are these? And what about being able to divorce -- for the man -- merely by saying "I divorce you" three times? Does that impress Dinesh D'Souza as an advance on Western ways? Can't one deplore many of the things that go on in the West without embracing or defending Islam?

What does Dinesh D'Souza think of Qutb? He remembers Qutb, doesn't he -- the man who came to America in the late 1940s for two years, the man who was disgusted by those church socials, and above all that hideous and dangerous square-dancing -- "Swing your ladies and dosido, and don't step on your partner's toe"? Does he not realize that it was this, and not Internet pornography or Howard Stern's surpassing vulgarity, that offended and offends Muslims?

The humorlessness ("There is no humor in Islam," said the Ayatollah Khomeini) and joylessness of Islam manifests the phoniness of its "morality," a morality that is phony because it is merely the outward face of hidden decadence. Does Dinesh D'Souze not know that Saudi Arabia, where "morality" on the street is a function of the mutawwa, the Saudi version of religious enforcers for which there are analogues in other Muslim countries with rigorously faith-based legal systems, the real behavior of any Saudi who can get away with it is far more decadent than anything that could be dreamed up by the most decadent Westerners? Has he no idea how Saudis and other rich Arabs behave in the capitals of the West? Does he not know what they all do behind their palace walls in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E.? What does he think goes on? And aside from the sexual behavior, what does he make of the camel-racing in which four and five year old boys, Pakistanis for the most part, are tied to the camels, and frequently are severely wounded or killed, and are treated as expendable beings, as are so many non-Arabs all over those horrific countries?

And what does he think is the Muslim attitude toward devout, pious, Orthodox Jews, family values and all -- whether in Antwerp, or Jerusalem, or Williamsburg? Does he think that Muslims are so pleased by the "family values" of these people that they find a natural affinity with them, wish them well, do not wish them harm? Is that what it says in the Qur'an: respect and honor Jews and Christians until such time as they begin to exhibit the features of modern, early 21st century, corrupted Western man, and only then? If so, why are the canonical texts full of inculcated hatred, even murderous hatred, of Jews and Christians who were as devout, as self-effacing, as pious, as full of family values, as a hundred Leagues of Decency together could not possibly observe?

Dinesh D'Souza is in some ways akin to Pat Buchanan. Buchanan's antisemitism prevents him from supporting Israel or understanding that the Lesser Jihad against Israel is no different in kind from the Jihad now being pursued against non-Muslims in Western Europe and elsewhere. In Dinesh D'Souza's case, he seems to have become such a Moralist of the cheapest, most narrow and obvious League-of-Decency kind, that seeing Muslim girls, for example, modestly dressed, has led him to forget all the rest of Islam: the Islam that divides the world between Believer and Infidel.

Part of the sinister missionary work being undertaken by the members of Hizb al Tahrir is devoted to converting prisoners, especially those who are black or Hispanic. They appeal to them by claiming that Islam is all about "social justice." It isn't. It is in the Muslim countries where whoever seizes or inherits power manages to steal much of the country's wealth: think of Mubarak in Egypt. Think of the Hashemites in Jordan (not much wealth, so the CIA has been supplementing, or at least used to, the call-girl bills of the ruler). Think of the al-Saud princes, tens of thousands of them, helping themselves to trillions of dollars of money that rightly belongs to every person in "Saudi" Arabia. And the same is true in Kuwait, in the U.A.E., in Qatar. And in Algeria, and Syria, and Morocco and Pakistan. This business of "social justice" is nonsense, a misunderstanding of the fact that people can attend the same mosque, and prostrate themselves next to someone much richer or much poorer. But that has no effect on political power or the sharing or proper distribution of the national wealth.

Dinesh D'Souza is, on the right, the equivalent of Richard Reid or Jose Padilla or any black radical who converts to Islam or joins the Nation of Islam (which is not strictly orthodox Islam), thinking that this will hasten the day of "social justice."

In Dinesh D'Souza's case, he sees Islam, the true and good and conservative family-values Islam, as the natural ally of all those who are offended by Western decadence. You don't like body-piercing or cocaine sniffing or non-stop sex at some bathhouse? Well, Dinesh D'Souza apparently believes that help is on the way-- help in the form of the inoffensive Qur'an, the innocent Hadith, the mild-mannered "peacemaker" (Karen Armstrong's epithet) Muhammad as described in the Sira.

Dinesh D'Souza -- brother under the skin to Richard Reid. To Jose Padilla. To Mahdi Bray. They joined an imaginary Islam of "social justice." And Dinesh D'Souza defends an imaginary Islam of "family values."

The first two are behind bars (Padilla is awaiting trial). Dinesh D'Souza, however, is published by Doubleday and National Review, and is not being denounced by his colleagues, or sent to permanent Coventry.

When the day of reckoning comes, when those who wrote truthfully and intelligently about Islam, liberal or conservative, are validated in every way, and the assorted "liberals" and "conservatives" who told nonsense and lies about Islam are exposed, then all kinds of things will happen. Many will, or should, lose their Important Positions.

He's a fool, but not a fool to be taken in isolation. His foolishness is that of the self-assured know-nothing, the Podsnap of this New Age, who does not know, and does not wish to know, about all kinds of things, for if he did know, they would Offend Him. Like Podsnap, Dinesh D'Souza has the habit of putting all disagreeables about Islam out of sight, out of mind.

With this book, he should lose any residual respect any one of sense might once have harbored for him. He has lost the right to an audience. He should no longer be given a hearing at National Review or, for that matter, anywhere else that wishes to be taken seriously.

This book is beyond the pale. Beyond all pales.

[Posted by Hugh at January 18, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2008 9:05 AM

John Esposito has, instead of distancing himself from, and denouncing, Azzam Tammimi, has stoutly continued to express his admiration for his "scholarly" collaborator. And John Esposito is that well-known Western hireling (now supported by Saudi money, but he got his original financial start with an Arab contractor, an islamochristian, who lived in Lebanon -- and to whose son he dedicates one of his books) -- that's John Esposito, whom Dinesh D'Souza, still discovering the great big wide wonderful world of Islam,has decided is a great "authority on Islam."

Mere words do not do Azzam Tamimi, the Company Esposito Likes To Keep, sufficient justice. Here's Azzam Tamimi on YouTube, that captures his quintessence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh6q02J6dJk

Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2008 9:26 AM

Martin Kramer, Nov. 2, 2004:

"Almost two years ago, I identified Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian who heads the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London, as a Hamas extremist. I brought chapter-and-verse quotes from Tamimi's radical statements. I also expressed astonishment that Georgetown University's John Esposito sat on Tamimi's board and cooperated with Tamimi on book projects. Later I was even more astonished to learn that Tamimi had attended a Ramadan reception at the U.S. ambassador's residence in London.

On Tuesday Tamimi gave a television interview to Tim Sebastian (BBC HARDTalk), and this dialogue took place:
Sebastian: You advocate the suicide bombing. You said on an internet chat forum early in 2003: "For us Moslems martyrdom is not the end of things but the beginning of the most wonderful of things." If it's so wonderful to go and blow yourself up in a public place in Israel why don't you do it?

Tamimi: Martyrdom is not necessarily suicide bombings as you call them. Martyrdom is...

Sebastian: No, please answer my question. It was a serious question.

Tamimi: I'm trying to answer it...

Sebastian: Why don't you do it?

Tamimi: I'm trying to answer it because this is a concept. Unless it is explained, how can you answer it? Because martyrdom means giving, sacrificing yourself for a noble cause. Now these bombings, the human bombs...

Sebastian: Are you prepared to do this or not?

Tamimi: I am prepared, of course.

Sebastian: You would [go] and blow yourself up?

Tamimi: No. I'm trying to explain to you...

Sebastian: Ah—so it's okay. So that's just for the poor and the disillusioned to go and blow themselves up? You would not be prepared to do it...

Tamimi: Most of the...

Sebastian: ...you advocate other people to do it?

Tamimi: Unless you give me a chance to explain...

Sebastian: Please... Please...

Tamimi: Not a single person of those who bomb themselves, bomb themselves because they are desperate or poor. It doesn't happen because of this. They do it because they want to sacrifice themselves for a cause after all avenues have been closed before them. If the Palestinians today are given F16s and Apache helicopters ...

Sebastian: No—please come back to my question. Please come back to my question. Why if it is so glorious and honourable to do this, why don't you do it?

Tamimi: I would do it...

Sebastian: When?

Tamimi: If I have the opportunity I would do it...

Sebastian: When are you going to do it?

Tamimi: When? If I can go to Palestine and sacrifice myself I would do it. Why not?
I appeal to Professor Esposito, once more, to distance himself from this walking time bomb, by resigning from the board of Tamimi's institute. And now that Tamimi has declared his intent, I urge the State Department to reassure us that he will never again be permitted to set foot in the United States, as he did in 2002 (i.e., post-9/11). I don't want to be on a London-New York flight with Azzam Tamimi, and neither do you.

Update, August 16, 2006: Here is Azzam Tamimi in fine form, at a rally somewhere in Britain to mark the most recent "Jerusalem (Al-Quds) Day," introduced by Ayatollah Khomeini to the Muslim calendar. By the way, Professor Esposito is still on Tamimi's board."

Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2008 9:29 AM

A posting about Azzam Tamimi:

"Who is Azzam Tamimi? He runs some phony "Islamic Thought" group in London, supported by rich Arabs. He's a "Palestinian" Arab, not that that matters, and in an interview with Tim Sebastian, this supporter of Hamas -- this agent of Hamas --declared that he, Azzam Tamimi, would be happy to be a suicide bomber himself.

For years Azzam Tamimi has been offered up by the BBC as a Muslim voice, a voice of sweet reason. Perhaps they do not know his sinister leanings. More likely they do not care. Nor, one discovers, do others. He appeared yesterday, August 15, on NBC news, in a remarkably uninformative report on Muslims in London. Two years ago, Time Magazine saw fit to offer Azzam Tamimi a full page on which to offer taqiyya to the American audience, without identifying his Hamas connections.

Azzam Tamimi is also a sometime collaborator with John Esposito. Why, they are co-authors of a book. That doesn't surprise you, now, does it? While Esposito has not yet called him his "ustadh" or "teacher" he has, even when Azzam Tamimi's Hamas connections were noted, his defense of terrorism was noted, his declaration to Tim Sebastian who was interviewing him for British television that he, Azzam Tamimi, would be happy himself to be a suicide bomber, never repudiated his association with Tamimi. Just think -- John Esposito, now running a separate "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding" at Georgeotwn, the university run by the Jesuits, and bearing and therefore sullyiingt the Georgetown name (why can't Georgetown simply sever the tie? Don't want to give up whatever loot Esposito throws off to the university? Is that it? Any deep-pocked and deep-principled alumni of Georgetown care to tell that university what it thinks of having John Esposito, friend of Azzam Tamimi, continue to formally be linked to that university, and to use, and exploit, its name to further, by denying, by explaining away, by engaging in every sort of taqiyya himself, the Jihad against the entire non-Muslim world? John Esposito, former adviser on Islam, to the Clinton Administration, head of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding that began with money from a rich Lebanese contractor, and which has been supported by Saudi money in more recent years, is a friend and supporter of the man whose voice, half-strangled with hysteria and hate, you can hear merely by clicking on the link above.[The YouTube piece given in my second posting above]

This is what things have come to. Time Magazine. The BBC. The Georgetown Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. All open to the likes of Azzam Tamimi. But when Robert Spencer gets ready to appear on CNN, that appearance is canceled. Or cancelled. Both are unacceptable."

Posted by: Hugh at August 16, 2006 8:17 PM]

Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2008 9:57 AM

Esposito and Tamimi were co-authors of "Islam and Secularism in the Middle East." You can find it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Secularism-Middle-Azzam-Tamimi/dp/0814782612/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209391117&sr=8-1

Given that since writing that book, Tamimi has revealed himself to be not a "secularist" in any snse, but rather an Islam-drenched firm supporter of Hamas -- see the YouTube link given above -- one would think that Prof. Esposito might have second thoughts, might even have resigned from the board of Azzam Tamimi's "Islamic Thought" operation.

But lean, mean, jogging John Esposito never apologizes, and never explains. And he keeps on pocketing the Arab money, including the fresh infusion of $20 million to fund his center from Prince ibn Talal whatshisname, and making well-paid speeches to Arab (or Muslim-apologist) audiences, as always presented to the unwary as a disinterested "scholar of Islam." Imagine the outrage if a medical doctor wrote opinion pieces, or appeared on television shows, pooh-poohing any dangers from defective Chinese-manufactured heparin and then, it was revealed later, had for years been in the pay of the Chinese Society for the Promotion of Pharmaceutical Exports. Such a person would be forever scorned, would be publicly shunned.

But Esposito, the man who has always relied on money from rich Arabs, is no different. He's a man on the make, and on the take. Why should not his every appearance, in print, or his every appearance on the lecture circuit, be accompanied by a disclaimer from the newspaper, or the relevant college administration. Warning: this many has been receiving money from (list the sources) since 19??.

Then let others decide how many grains of salt they wish to take, with whatever Esposito is dishing out.

Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2008 10:05 AM

Is not a slap at D'Souza a slap at our Republican Party, at our President, at our very nation?

Posted by: MontyRockIV at April 28, 2008 10:38 AM

The Frick and Frack of the Taqiyya Set.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 28, 2008 10:48 AM

I would dare say that a s lap at D'Souza is a slap (and deserved) at those segments of the Republican Party, the White House and executive agencies such as DoD, DHS, State and DOJ/FBI, that have now deemed the use of the word "jihadist", etc as not proper, as inflaming our enemies (as if they need anymore inflaming). We have a war going on in two theatres: Iraq and Afghanistan. We have been continully attacked by Islamic Jihadists, etc (I say just call them Muslims ) since 1979 and over 4000 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan because we are fighting who? Please identify just who we are fighting. (Muslim) Religious extremists. But it's really not their fault because the decadent, Western secularists got them all riled up. If only we all can find some more of that good old time religion - all our problems would be solved.

Posted by: HOV Dummy at April 28, 2008 10:48 AM

"MontyRockIV":

I shouldn't answer trolls, I know.

A slap at the President? Sure, for he has worked from the same kind of analyses. Indeed, Karen Hughes invoked Esposito as an authority.

A slap at the Republican Party? Arguably. I have never asserted that the Republicans were anything but marginally less clueless about jihad than the Democrats.

A slap at the nation? This is the kind of question that shows you to be a troll.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 28, 2008 10:55 AM

D'Sousa continually writes with an arrogance that say's: "Hey look; I found the golden egg" !. His analogy driven dribble makes one want to cringe as he continues to race down a road in a narrow effort to catch that Goose that symbolically cannot get off the ground as it flails its wings in the air. D'Sousa writes as if he has found the anecdote to all that creates the polarization between the clash of civilizations, or ideologies while simply ignoring the tenants of Islamic theology at every turn. Yes, never mind those differences between the West and fundamental Islam as if to say they can assimilate into Western societies. Yes the one and only evil that perpetuates Islam's collective aggression and anger is what D'Sousa coins as "Liberal #2". What planet is he writing from out there. One might ask why Muslims are favoring Americas liberal candidates over those that display conservative values if this were the case. He is demonstrating time and time again what camp he is drawing himself into with pocket Islamic sympathizer Phil Esposito, and the Waahabist influenced John Zogby. D'sousa might have well said Muslims should really be targeting the Hate Ashbury District of San Francisco or any other bastion of his Liberal #2 camp of homosexuals,pornography,legalization of prostitution,abortion on demand, Gay marriages, Etc.
And in a few sentences that have no reflected critiques of what drives the conflicts between the two Ideologies, he simply proclaims "Now we are in a better position to understand Islamic attitudes regarding the West." Oh and we should dismiss our attitudes and understandings in favor of how Islam Perceives us.
Yep, that's it!

Posted by: Mackie at April 28, 2008 11:28 AM

Follow the money. Follow the money.

Posted by: Sounder at April 28, 2008 3:39 PM

Robert said

About 9/11, [Timimi] has said: "In the Arab and Muslim countries, everyone jumped for joy."

To be fair, that's not a criticism of Timimi. He's not saying "On 9/11, I jumped for joy" (he may have, but he didn't say that). It's a matter of historical fact that Arab and Muslim countries celebrated on 9/11.

Hugh quoted an interview by Tim Sebastian of Timimi:

Tamimi: Not a single person of those who bomb themselves, bomb themselves because they are desperate or poor. It doesn't happen because of this. They do it because they want to sacrifice themselves for a cause after all avenues have been closed before them.

I don't support Tamimi, and he may prevaricate until the cows come home, but at least in these two examples he seems to give honest and blunt answers.

Posted by: special_guest at April 28, 2008 5:25 PM

Tamimi: They do it because they want to sacrifice themselves for a cause after all avenues have been closed before them.

There is NOTHING HONEST in the above statement.

They might not have strapped explosives on their bodies but the 9/11 hijackers bombed themselves just as much as any Palestinian teenager. Speaking only of the US, what avenues were closed to any of the 9/11 bombers? They were welcomed into the US and allowed to go about their business free of government interference. Even if some people were suspicious of their activities, they couldn't be harassed or persecuted. They could be alive today, living and working in the US if they had chosen to do so. They chose another path but no avenue was closed to them.

Their only cause was self-glorification and a free pass into heaven. Anything that benefits the doer cannot be called a sacrifice. The same holds true for all jihadists everywhere. The world hasn't closed any avenues to any of them. They and their leaders have done this and they have the temerity to blame the West for their own failures. There is no truth in his statement.

Posted by: PMK at April 28, 2008 6:48 PM

In the fine print at Gallup they explain that not all areas were polled:

"Three exceptions exist: Areas that threaten the safety of interviewing staff are excluded, as are scarcely populated islands in some countries and areas that can be reached only by foot or by animal, with the exception of China.

In the context of the Middle East, where does that leave? And how can they justify that their pool is representitive of all Muslims?

Posted by: Mick_n_NYC at April 28, 2008 8:25 PM

D'Souza=D'S-graceful.

Nuff' said.

Posted by: awake at April 28, 2008 11:07 PM

The title of Esposito's and Tamimi's co-authored book is "Who Speaks for Islam--What a Billion Muslims Really Think", quite a presumptuous title. Anyone with the hubris to speak for a billion people lacks credibility but is certainly imbued with insufferable self-importance and delusions of divine prescience.

I know we aren't supposed to judge a book by it's cover but this title screams PROPAGANDA! Considering its authors, that assumption is confirmed.

Posted by: Susanp at April 29, 2008 12:49 AM