| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
An illuminating article at FrontPage about archdhimmi John Esposito.
The Cosmos Club in Washington, DC was frequently referred to during World War II days as “the most significant concentration of Washington's public policy intellectuals -- unless it was at Union Station when the night train from Boston arrived.” The Club prides itself as providing an atmosphere conducive to the free exchange of ideas. So, when I was invited to attend a program there after the cocktail hour on October 24th, I accepted with pleasure. The program was labeled: “Struggle for the Mind of Islam”.The principal speaker was Professor John Esposito, advertised in the program as professor of religion, international affairs, and Islamic studies at Georgetown University, and author of the post 9/11 book Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam. I was particularly interested to hear Dr. Esposito as he had been the president of the Middle Eastern Studies Association (MESA), a group which claims to number some 2600 academics worldwide, that is reputed to have a significant pro-Arab tilt as detailed in Martin Kramer’s excellent analysis in his book Ivory Towers on Sand. He was accompanied by Dr. Azizali Mohammed, previously director of external relations of the International Monetary Fund, and Dr. Zachary Abuza, associate professor of political science and international relations at Simmons College.
Professor Esposito is an excellent speaker. But I had some real doubts about the substance of his talk.
When questions were permitted, one club member noted that in one of Professor Esposito’s books written prior to 9/11 entitled Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality Dr. Esposito had concluded that the threat of Islamic terrorism was a myth and not reality. But in his post 9/11 book Unholy War, and in his presentation that night, Esposito conceded that Islamic terrorism really exists but identified the cause as American foreign policy. At one point, for example, Dr. Esposito characterized American foreign policy as approving the rape and murder of Arabs in Palestine by Israelis and then, to make it OK, offering a little foreign aid to build houses for those who survived.Others, who had warned of Islamic terrorism prior to 9/11, but had been marginalized by MESA, have stated one cause of terrorism as funding of maddrassahs and mosques by the Saudis where Islamism is preached. You can find many examples of such preachings on the internet translated by MEMRI.
When Professor Esposito responded to the question, he denied his post-9/11 views had changed; he flatly denied that in his earlier book he had concluded Islamic terrorism was a myth. He claimed that he had in fact found such a threat in radical Islam and suggested that the questioner should reread the pre-9/11 book.
But the questioner was not alone in believing that Dr. Esposito had changed his tune; Dr. Esposito stated during his talk that he had been giving the same answers for many years. Patrick Clawson, Deputy Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in reviewing Unholy War in Commentary, remarked that in his pre-9/11 book Esposito “argued that Islamic fundamentalist groups did not present a menace.” Esposito had written “Many Islamic movements have turned from revolution to reform, and have “joined the rising chorus of voices calling for political liberalization”. As a result, Dr. Esposito had concluded “while they are a challenge to the outdated assumptions of the established order and to autocratic regimes, they do not necessarily threaten American Interests.”
During the Q & A session, Edward Kane, Chairman of the club’s International Affairs Committee interrupted the first questioner, who had referred to Dr. Esposito’s two books, and pressed him to “get to the question.” He was looking fixedly at the questioner as if his question were inappropriate. Kane, who served as the CIA deputy station chief in Iraq from 1963 to 1965, was one of the former Ambassadors and other high level American employees who urged in 2004, in a well publicized letter to George Bush, that the US tilt its policy more toward the Arabs.
After being pressed, the questioner stated his question concisely: “If one were to apply Occam’s Razor, would it not be likely that the proximate cause of Islamic terrorism was the funding from Saudi Arabian petrodollars of madrassahs and mosques world wide that are used to spread the pernicious doctrine of Islamism?” Dr. Esposito was quick to deny that also. Esposito’s response was, no, that if you ask a man on the street in these countries they will say that they object to American foreign policy aiding Israel and supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East.
The member raising the question was not permitted to respond to Esposito. Professor Abuza supported his fellow academic by claiming that only a few of the madrassahs in the area he was familiar with were dominated by radical Islamists. In contrast, some who have investigated the situation here claim that 80% of the mosques and madrassahs in the US were either built by Saudi money or taken over with it.
At least three of Dr. Esposito’s arguments on behalf of the Muslims struck me as odd:
Esposito equated the violence of terrorism and murder of innocent civilians as resistance of the same kind that we Americans used during our Revolutionary War.
How bizarre. I couldn’t help but think that we were just across Massachusetts Avenue from the headquarters of the General Society of the Cincinnati. Had he declaimed there that there was no difference between the American revolutionaries at Bunker Hill and the Islamist terrorists murdering school children at Beslan and Ma'alot, or blowing up civilian buses, he might have been lynched.
Second, he said jihad is always defensive, in defense of Muslim land, and so on. A person with his background should have known that Islamists divide the world into the Dar al Islam, the domain of Islam, and the Dar al Harb, the domain of war. He surely should know that radical Islamists such as Sheik Abdullah Azzam say there is a collective obligation to extend the domain of the Dar al Islam until shar'ia law is supreme over the entire world.
Third, he argued that since the Israelis admit they are using reasonable violence, they are no different than the Islamic terrorists who believe their violence is reasonable. But "terrorism" is "the use of unlawful force and violence to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted" such as bombing a civilian bus, or murdering schoolchildren. It seems to me that, contrary to Professor Esposito, there is a significant difference between the Arab use of unlawful force and violence and the Israeli use of reasonable force which is lawful when used in self-defense.
It came to me finally that the program was dedicated more to the struggle for the American mind than the mind of Islam. Another person at the program evidently thought so too and asked why the club could not have a more balanced program. He suggested inviting Dr. Daniel Pipes.
The Chairman, however, insisted that the program was balanced; it had a “geographical balance” as each of the participants discussed a different Muslim area. If this means swallowing Professor Esposito's misrepresentations of jihad, or terrorism, and American foreign policy, then the Cosmos Club has a very different notion of balance than those of us who care passionately about the threats facing America.
Posted by Robert at November 8, 2005 4:34 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
It's as if these professors of Mideast Studies end up experiencing a kind of Stockholm Syndrome. They can no longer see the big picture. These are highly educated, multiple degreed intellectuals and yet every tragedy and unflushed toilet anywhere in the mideast leads back to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Muslims are given a complete pass in the accountability department and as ususal Israel is held to a higher standard then any other nation.
WTF! What's the use of pursuing a higher education when you have to sit through the kind of BS that's taught as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
John Esposito is an Islamophile and incapable of teaching a balanced curriculim. Why don't I just email CAIR and see who they recommend...
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 8, 2005 5:21 PM
The struggle for the American mind....
Robert-
I often think of this, after all I have been working on this every day for the past 4 years. I would like to think I have reached some people; you CERTAINLY have.
But I also take comfort that among the great masses of complacent undecided - they will eventually realize that defending America is in their own self-interest. Lets hope they don't have to learn that again at too high a cost.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at November 8, 2005 5:27 PM
One can only gasp at Esposito's irrationality. One wonders how he can maintain his academic reputation.
But, on to something else that Esposito and many others will not let go as the prime explanans of all our troubles: the problem of Israel.
The myth of the centuries old 'Jewish Problem' is like in kind to the 'problem of Israel'.
Why is Israel a problem? A developed, democratic country, high levels of education, technology, progressive legal system (no death penalty, even for Islamic mass murderers.) Israel has fought wars of self defense to escape annihilation. Elected Israel governments, and the Israeli people overall, have consistently been willing to give up conquered terrority to find peace and stable relations with extremely hostile Arab governments, in spite of the serious security problems that exist. Israel, the nation and people, seem to just want to get on with enjoying life. Well, good for them.
What is wrong with supporting Israel?
'The Jews' are not a problem. European anti-Semitism and fascist political movements that exploited that anti-Semitism were the real problems before World War II, and European history generally. And things are in a similar state today. Israel is not 'the problem', the problem is Islamic ideology that will not tolerate the existence of an Infidel, Jewish state in the hear of Dar al Islam. The problem is the relentless effort to destroy Israel. And, unfortunately, like fascists movements in the 20th century, Islamic jihadism and the Islamic political goals, like Islamic hegemony, the restoration of the Caliphate, and establishing Sharia law, endanger more than just 'the Jews' and 'Israel' today.
at November 8, 2005 5:32 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002162.php
A Passionate Western Apologist for Islam
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.2/esposito.html
Practice and Theory
A response to “Islam and the Challenge of Democracy”
John L. Esposito
http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz120301.shtml
Exposing Esposito
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18231
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 31, 2005
In his just-released, absorbing, and excellent book, Understanding Jihad (University of California Press), David Cook of Rice University dismisses the low-grade debate that has raged since 9/11 over the nature of jihad – whether it is a form of offensive warfare or (more pleasantly) a type of moral self-improvement.
Cook dismisses as “pathetic and laughable” John Esposito’s contention that jihad refers to “the effort to lead a good life.” Throughout history and at present, Cook definitively establishes, the term primarily means “warfare with spiritual significance.”
at November 8, 2005 5:54 PM
I would not pay a sou or a denier to see JE descant... If the invite meant that the food was free, I might go, however..
Posted by: jsla at November 8, 2005 7:04 PM
BTW -- the links in your posts above are splendid, Fjordman...
Sadly, "The refusal of the American academy to squarely face the terrorist threat to the United States — either before or since September 11 — will redound to its everlasting shame" hasn't come true yet, but "everlasting" is a long time, and in this I AM CERTAIN that Stanley Kurts is correct!
We must expose the cancer in the West, specifically the staggering amounts of money which are transfered from the Saudis, the Bahrainis, the Qattaris, etc to former US Presidents and US Ambassadors in the forms of gifts, honoraria, and endowments for their pet institutions, as well as the torrent of cash flowing into the disinformation centers known as the Middle Eastern Studies Departments across academia. These bought and payed for lackeys of the Islamic fascsist have inflicted greivous damage on America through their negligence, and raw greed.
Esposito, Juan Cole, President Clinton, George Bush Senior -- Ambassadors Akins, Peck, West, et al... These persons have engaged in activities commensurate with TREASON...
Posted by: jsla at November 8, 2005 7:15 PM
John Esposito is another one of those people with no back bone, getting on the Petro/dollar band wagon as he knows which side of the bread is buttered. His pro-Islam stance is nothing but prejudice and to some extent ignornace of what Islam really represent. He cannot accept a progressive, democratic country such as Israel in the midst of Dar Al Islam; he is paying lip service to his masters for the crumbs that fall from the Islamic tables.
Let me assure him, there are more people on this earth who support Israel than who are agaisnt it. Its a oasis of freedom, equality, progress and all that any democratic country aspires right in the middle of the most horrible Islamic countries.
Esposito does not see it that way; but the way his masters in Saudi Arabia & Islamists sees it. Its a shame that people who have an education cannot see the forest from the trees. Israel is not the problem but the Islam is the biggest problem in the world today.
"The truly blind are the people who have eyes; but cannot see"
at November 8, 2005 7:15 PM
During the years before Sep11, Esposito had a good run as a much quoted white expert on Islam. In those days the Malaysians (till they understood the agenda) ran apologetic programs coming out of the US. The moderator(s) were always going on about Esposito said this, or Esposito said that. Something of a Nim Chimpsky for that crowd. It appears that some Catholics are taking on the role recently vacated by the Jews as apologists for jihadi Islam.
at November 8, 2005 7:18 PM
Comment by Jeffreyimm:
"Lets hope they don't have to learn that again at too high a cost."
I think that even a multi-thousand killing of Americans would not do anything to change the minds of the far left and not much for the moderate left. They would continue to blame anything and everything American for our loss.
I think it will be up to a relatively small portion of these United States to try and save all of our necks from the knife or the oxbow.
And our own countrymen will fight to try and stop us. I hope we have the strengh and the conviction to do what must be done.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
at November 8, 2005 10:14 PM
I'm not accustomed to responding to commands from rude martinets such as "Elaborate or shut up." but in the interest of improving this site I will respond.
The facts speak for themselves... You continuously bait and engage posters who are dedicated to undermining and degrading this site. Your witless interminable interchanges with them are bad enough -- but often you can be seen baiting them to enter threads which they have not yet dirtied, or challenging them to spew more nonsense into threads they have abandoned. This is EXACTLY what happened in the specific thread I criticised. You're spreading the fleas you've collected by wallowing in a trash heap you've helped to create...
Posted by: jsla at November 9, 2005 11:51 AM
Your argument, such as it is, is pretty weak.
There must be more to it. I will review your posts here to get a better idea of who you are & why I have offended you.
In the meantime,
...if refuting the arguments & engaging with those who come here to denigrtae this site isn't your style, thats fine.
It is mine.
As I am still allowed to post here, spread the word & be challenging, I guess I have broken no rules.
If I have please feel free to contact the webmaster & have me chastised & / or banned.
Best regards
Albion
at November 9, 2005 12:19 PM
As a member of the Cosmos Club since 1984, I was disappointed but not surprised to learn of Esposito's lecture there. Esposito's mentor for his doctorate was none other than the late Ismail al-Faruqi, whom I knew before the still-unsolved murder of the man and his wife. Holding a chair at Temple University, al-Faruqi was one of the most radical of the Muslim thinkers active in America, yet he was held in high esteem by many of the interfaith trialogue types who didn't have a clue concerning what he was about. Esposito is dangerous because of the high regard in which he is held both by unknowing foreign policy types and equally unknowing academics.
Posted by: Historian at November 9, 2005 12:21 PM
"...if refuting the arguments & engaging with those who come here to denigrtae this site isn't your style, thats fine."
That is a misstatement of what you do -- When you are seen, as you were in this post, encouraging a habitual denigrator to put up more posts, practically pleading him to reingage in your silly non-debate, YOU were actually encouraging him to continue denigrating this site, and that makes you no better than he.
Posted by: jsla at November 9, 2005 1:03 PM
jsla
All well & good. In your opinion.
I am English. I am used to speaking my mind in the style & manner of my choosing.
I like confrontational dialogue - note the word dialogue, - in the heat of the exchanges is when you are most likely to get some semblence of truth out of an adversary - in my opinion & experience.
Nothing you have said has given me pause for thought with regards to the manner in which I conduct myself here.
I do not advocate violence against anyone, I am not a racist or a blind bigot - I am an English Democrat.
Please review the rules & report me for the ones I have broken.
Apologies for rattling your cage. Reviewing your posts, I am inclined to be in agreeance with most of them, to a greater or lesser degree.
Onward.
Best regards
Albion
at November 9, 2005 1:34 PM
JSLA:
Your statement that Eposito, Cole, Clinton and Bush Sr. have been engaged in activities commensurate with treason is puzzling in its incompleteness.
What about certain personages presently at large in the circles of power?
Posted by: Chatillon at November 9, 2005 4:41 PM
I'm not aware of payments to the likes of Rice, or Bush Jr. Cheney is a different kettle of fish but I severly dislike the Halliburton canard -- this is so often used as the anti-Bush allegation to denigrate the Iraq invasion -- and I find it preposterous on the face of the matter... I was sticking to names which I know for a fact have received huge largesse directly from the named Islamic Fascists... I should have added Jimmy Carter to the list of Presidents... There are many more, including many more Ambassadors, Senators, Congressmen, high ranking Cabinet members, and high ranking Bureaucratic officials, Army, Intelligence -- Sadly and ominously the list goes on and on and on...
Just yesterday, if you saw the Senate Hearings on Saudi Terrorism and Wahhabi hatred propaganda, a certain Tony Cordesman, prominent consultant to ABC News, consultant to the Military and Government on "Middle Eastern Affairs" exposed himself as a bought and paid for mouth piece of the Wahhabi Lobby in Washington -- This man's performance appeared to me to be traitorous in his willingness to conceal, explain away, and obfuscate Saudi complicity in the promulgation of hatred and fascism....
I wonder what kind of paychecks these lies and disinformation enable these vermin to demand from the Saudis -- How much does a performance by someone like Cordesman yeild for a day of lies and deception?
Invoice looks like this:
Preparation for Senate testimony: $50,000
Accommodations for 5 days at 5 star hotel in DC: 7,500
Plane fare: 5,000
Meals: 2,000
1 Hour in front of the Senate concocting every conceivable denial that the Saudi Regime and Islam has anything to do with terrorism:
200,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Grand total: $264,500.00
payable to my Swiss Bank Account # blah blah blah
Posted by: jsla at November 9, 2005 5:31 PM
re Jiminy Cricket, prez of the USA when Khomeini took over Iran, he received big money for his Carter Center in Atlanta from the Bank For Credit and Commerce International, mainly owned by Abu Dhabi interests [as I recall], including the Shaykh.
I believe the amount was 10 billion $$, which was reported in LeMonde back in 1992. This BCCI bank was notorious for money-laundering, money transfers to terrorists, etc., until it was dissolved and/or went bankrupt. The top man at the bank was a Pakistani.
re Professor Ismail al-Faruqi, his way of thinking and career are significant. I believe that he served the British mandatory govt in the Palestine mandate as a district governor way back in the 1940s, when official British policy was overtly pro-Arab and everybody knew it [unlike today when the history of the period has been falsified]. His thinking I found bizarre but was no doubt orthodox Muslim. He taught comparative religion at Temple Univ, as mentioned above. Shortly after some 15 persons, mostly Jews, were hanged in Bagdad for allegedly spying for Israel, Faruqi gave a lecture at Temple. In response to a question from a Jewish listener about Islamic/Arab intolerance towards or oppression of Jews, he answered, We could have destroyed you in the time of Muhammad, but we didn't. This was meant to show how tolerant the Muslims were towards Jews. We could have destroyed you in the time of Muhammad. . . I still remember his words. It is also notable that he makes the connection --often denied nowadays by the "Left"-- between Islam then and 20th century Islam ["We"], as well as between the Jews then and the Jews of Faruqi's time. This was about 1969 or 1970.
How can any decent or rational person consider somebody like Carter to be or have been a proper mediator ["honest broker"] between Israel and the Arabs?
Posted by: Eliyahu at November 10, 2005 3:10 AM
You should hear J. B. Kelly on the subject of the terminally portentous Anthony Cordesman, so justly celebrated for the way he imparts the obvious with great solemnity. And, like Wolfowitz (they may be seemingly on opposite sides, but they are actually, in their respective self-assured ignorances, brothers under the skin), he hasn't a clue about Islam, about the nature and origins of the Jihad-impulse, or why Saudi Arabia and Iran, the twin beneficiaries of the Iraq war -- are the most malevolent of state-supported Jihad.
They are, Cordesman and Wolfowitz both, completely uncomprehending of the central role of Islam in fashioning the minds of its adherents. You will not find either one of them concerned about Da'wa or demographic conqeust of Western Europe. Essentially, they are both supposed "experts" on military matters -- weapons systems, order of battle, blah blah. Who cares? The least important part of the war of self-defense against the Jihad is that which involves tanks and planes and troops. That kind of conventional war -- the military kind -- is nothing, because it is not thorugh outright military conquest that the Arabs and Muslims can achieve their goals to divide, demoralize, Da'wa-ize, and demographically overwhelm, a Westen world that is lead by people who so far have shown themselves mesmerized by another model of war, by cheap and misleading slogans -- the "war on terrorism" being the stupidest and the most misleading, and who should all be replaced by others who have considered the problem of Islam at some length, and understand that the "wealth" weapon and the "pen, speech" (propaganda, Da'wa) weapon, and the "demographic" weapon, all need to be countered and neutralized, and this will require, in the first place, a much wider comprehenesion of what the goals of Jihad are, and of the instruments employed.
When the pompous "experts" at this or that "think-tank" cease to be treated with respect, cease to have their sound-bite quotes solicited either by a news network, which gives them legitimacy among the audience, when they cease to be given a free ride and are cross-examined for their every obvious or silly remark -- then Washington may be more like it once was, when World War II was being fought, with no doubts, and no confusion, and no quarter.
When the misallocation of men, materiel, and money in Iraq ends, when the army can recover and recruitment go up again, when the weapons systems cease to be desert-degraded at ten times their normal rate, when whatever happens in Iraq happens between Sunni and Shi'a (and the Kurds take the occasion, while the others are so engaged, to declare their independence which the Americans, if they are intelligent, will both support and make Turkey an offer about the whole matter that it can't refuse), and while Iraq then turns out to both represent and demonstrate to all the world, Infidels and Muslims alike, the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Islam, and also, one hopes, will be a theatre of permanent conflict that will continue to use up, not American this time, but Muslim arms, Muslim recruits, Muslim treasuries, Muslim attention -- and especially those of the two countries that have been the greatest unintended (by the Americans) beneficiaries of the removal of Saddam Hussein -- Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Hugh at November 10, 2005 11:27 AM
I will look him up.. -- J.B Kelly -- economics professor?
Posted by: jsla at November 10, 2005 5:46 PM
J. B. Kelly -- historian. Born in New Zealand, educated in England, now retired Professor of History, taught in both England and U.S. Author of "Britain and the Persian Gulf, 1795-1880"; "Eastern Arabian Frontiers," "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West." The last is about oil, the rise of OPEC, and appeasement of the Arabs. See also his article in Encounter, June 1979: "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies."
Google "J. B. Kelly" and "Jihad Watch" for more information.
Posted by: Hugh at November 10, 2005 7:21 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)