| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
The dhimmi Saudi shill John Esposito, whose word still reigns supreme in the White House, and who has praised the suicide-terror-endorsing Sheikh Qaradawi as a "reformist," has now fallen so low as to echo paranoid conspiracy theories about Daniel Pipes being behind the printing of the Danish cartoons.
He also recommends that Muslims promote themselves more aggressively in the West. And I'm sure that he will be ready to help with that promotion.
"Lack of Arab, Muslim lobby in West blamed on authoritarian regimes," from the Khaleej Times, with thanks to Olivia:
“How many Muslim countries have vibrant, aggressive exchange programmes?” he asked. Esposito noted that in contrast to this, the Jews have fared better by bringing together scholars, intellectuals, journalists etc for dialogue, not only in the US, but also in Israel.“Arab and Muslim governments have not promoted that as aggressively as they should. If anything, they wind up looking as if they used their money to promote their brand of Islam, which is often exclusivist vis-a-vis other brands of Islam in America and Europe, and also vis-a-vis Christians and Jews,” he pointed out. There are exceptions to this though, he added. He noted that Waleed Bin Talal has started two American study programmes at AUC Cairo and AUB in Lebanon, where Arabs can learn about America.
“He is giving $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown University in order to promote relations between the Muslim world and the West. How many Arabs and Muslims have done it? Some have done it, but not in a concerted way. They never have, even though the wealth is there,” he said.
Why don't you just shout, "Show me the money!!!," John?
Responding to a KT question on the onus of solutions to all problems being shifted to the Muslims, Esposito said that there are those who can interpret it that way. “And clearly, I say elements in the European media, and European and American society do feel that way,” he said. He noted that when there are Western intellectuals like Salman Rushdie and others like him who tend to talk in a way that they shift the onus, “not to say that both sides are a part of the problem and that both should be part of the solution. I would say that the western media and western secular fundamentalists are part of the problem... the cartoon issue was an unwarranted level of provocation and it doesn’t take much to know what is happening there,” he said.
An "unwarranted level of provocation." Just get rid of that freedom of speech thing and nobody will get hurt.
“First of all, it’s a very small and not that consequential newspaper, but it is generally a right wing anti-immigrant newspaper, and clearly what the European Press was saying reflected a growing anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim attitude in sectors of Europe,” he said. He surmised that this attitude is behind the reasoning that if someone wanted to live in the West or be a part of that society, they better put up with the values. “Well, a part of our society means being this: ‘You can be a Muslim, but you have to be a Norwegian first or a Dane first, and being a Dane means that you have to accept this kind of ‘cartooning’, and I think that’s provocative. In fact, the editor of the newspaper said that is what he wanted to do,” he said.He added that he had heard from many reputable sources in Washington that when the editor of the Danish newspaper (that published the cartoons) came to Washington last time, he met with Daniel Pipes and spent a fair amount of time. ‘Esposito’ [sic] described Pipes as an agent provocateur. According to him, a lot of what was involved in the cartoon situation was basically secular fundamentalist Europeans who are anti-immigrant and as an extension of that, clearly anti-Islam.
“And yet, they are hypocrites because the German newspaper that published those cartoons would never publish cartoons that dealt with the Jews of the Holocaust; that would be unacceptable,” he explained.
He added that Europe has what it calls hate speech legislation, “and what this means is that in parts of Europe, you cannot do this ridiculing of Christianity and Judaism, but you can do it with Islam,” he said.
Oh come now, Professor. In this article you will find a Christian in Britain lamenting the daily ridicule to which his religion is subjected. Only one group is seeking protected status, to be placed beyond criticism. And it isn't Jews or Christians.
Posted by Robert at March 8, 2006 6:21 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
What Esposito did in trying to link Daniel Pipes to the cartoons is reprehensible, and possibly criminal. The Islamists have been calling for the murder of anyone responsible for the cartoons. Esposito has just placed Pipes directly in their crosshairs.
Posted by: Howard, Fine & Howard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 8, 2006 9:06 AM
Go Here:
Pipes">http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/166#J">Pipes says . . .
to see what Pipes himself says about the conspiricy theory put about by Esposito and others.
at March 8, 2006 9:37 AM
Something went wrong there, sorry
Posted by: FallingProphet at March 8, 2006 9:40 AM
“How many Muslim countries have vibrant, aggressive exchange programmes?” he asked.I beg to differ with Dr. Esposito on this one. There are thousands of Westerners working in the Middle East as part of a massive cultural exchange program that has successfully spanned several decades now. The Westerners are exchanging some of their culture for lorry loads of Arab money. Posted by: Hulegu Khan
at March 8, 2006 10:06 AM
"vibrant" and "Islam" go together like "lovely" and "guillotine". The religion of the oxymoron marches on.
Esposito wants the West to demonstrate one more kind of "submission", nothing more.
People will try to avoid the confrontation until their level of pain reaches critical mass.
We're nearer with every Iranian move toward the Mahdi-intoxicated grab into the core of the atom.
And with every Saudi-funded program at Western schools for "understanding Islam" [read: disguising Islam's true intentions in order to sucker the naive long enough to gain unstoppable power].
The main hope is that the puritannical thrust of Islam will finally seem as absurd as every other plunge into body-control and thought-control which has always failed in the past.
The human spirit is rooted in a billion years of evolution away from un-freedom.
Islam is opposing the entire thrust of the DNA:
Liberation, Illumination, Bliss.
Grovelling, darkness and fear are poor subtitutes.
Islam's answers are: joyless. Mindless. Loveless.
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
And will fail once enough people rouse from their wishful-thinking religion-of-peace dream-state and openly fight this cult of the anhedonic with all the animal cunning that has swept every other despotic delusion off the earth.
Let the Fifth Column sing their little taqqiya tunes.
The melody sucks. The lyrics are plagiarized. And the singers have tin ears.
The louder they croon, the more will wake.
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 8, 2006 10:22 AM
We really need someone like this telling muslims to promote more aggressively.
The word treasonous springs to mind
Posted by: marilyn at March 8, 2006 10:36 AM
I must give some credit to this Esposito critter. I was at some (faculty?) website of his two weeks ago and he didn't censor the unfavorable comments. And most of the comments were unfavorable about his stance on the Mo' 'toons.
Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2006 10:37 AM
Sorry about that post above. It's Juan Cole, not Esposito, who has comments on his uncensored blog http://www.juancole.com/
Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2006 10:56 AM
dennisw
Tks for giving me an idea. I've just sent the old Prof an e-mail inviting him over for a debate. If he shows up, please let him in.
john.esposito@islam-democracy.org
Posted by: FallingProphet at March 8, 2006 11:17 AM
Some newspeak watch:
"Secular fundamentalists", this incredibly idiotic phrase, is borrowed from another "Mr. B.", the one who murdered Theo van Gogh: he used it in the threatening hate letter that he left behind on the body of his victim.
Who exactly is a "secular fundamentalist"? Someone who believes that freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize religious authorities and dogmas? Someone who thinks that religion and state should be separated? Someone who opposes the Sharia and protects the Western secular constitutions as the basis of all valid law? Someone who believes that freedom of religion, as indicated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is also freedom from religion and freedom to change religions?
Obviously, "secular fundamentalism" is another stupid monster of a phrase that belongs, along with that other imbecile catchphrase "Islamophobia", to the newspeak vocabulary of Muslims and their apologists, whose only purpose is to create false moral symmetry between jihadists and their critics and to label and ridicule anyone who dares to protest against the imposition of Sharia in the West.
Posted by: rahel at March 8, 2006 11:28 AM
Does anyone in the State dept, Defense dept or the White House ever bother to read this site and the many others that document the traitors working within our government, the dhimmi agents of Islam confusing or misleading our politicians and strategists? Or is jihadwatch.org and dhimmiwatch.org blocked? No one is allowed to access them? Too inflammatory, 'too rightwing' - is that the justification for not asking Spencer, Bostom, Ye'or, Trifkovic and many others to come and advise our government? Has Grover Norquist and Karen Armstrong so poisoned our leaders minds with insults for their detractors that they not dare look at these alternative voices regarding Islam? I wish I understood how the 'scholar' game worked in the White House? This government is desperate for scholars who are not pusillanimous dhimmis plotting our destruction, and they don't even know it.
Posted by: John Sobieski at March 8, 2006 12:43 PM
Esposito is definitely a third rate intellect, relying on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's logic to put forward an argument. Can he not discern that there is a difference between commenting on the connection between Islam and/or the Qu'ran and those who perpetrate acts of terror in the name of and in accordance with and laws that constrain bigots from denying a well-established historic fact for the sole purpose of fomenting hatred and animosity toward an identifiable group?
Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 8, 2006 12:50 PM
H,F & H:
If Espo's claims are defamatory (I haven't analyzed them), he may end up being sorry for having made them. I know Pipes has written with amusement in regard to claims made that he was the instigator and Fleming Rose's mentor in the affair. I also recall that not long ago, Pipes successfully forced others to publicly recant (some Islamist organization, I believe) aspersions cast in Pipes's direction and I'm sure he'd take particularly great delight in making Espo eat his words.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 8, 2006 12:54 PM
FallingProphet
John Esposito won't come here for a debate. We have learned too much at Mr. Spencer's website and will throw back the unsavory parts of the Koran and Hadith. The ones the Espositos, Coles and Armstrongs won't refer to and/or lie about their context and validity.
The Muslims and their Western fellow travelers are playing the great game of hide the truth about Muhammad. As Hugh would say, this is impossible in the internet age where the truth of Islam is out there waiting to be accessed. That Muhammad is a false prophet thus is not a prophet, that the Koran is not the "holy Koran"
Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2006 2:25 PM
Espo is so low on the evolutionary scale he doesn't even qualify to be a dhimmi or a useful idiot. He's a flat-out traitor who betrays his country and his civilization for money.
Prince Weedy should have delivered his $20 million pay-off to Espo in lots of silver -- divided into thirty pieces each.
Posted by: Suzan at March 8, 2006 2:45 PM
"“Well, a part of our society means being this: ‘You can be a Muslim, but you have to be a Norwegian first or a Dane first, and being a Dane means that you have to accept this kind of ‘cartooning’"
Too right - well put John. You should have just left it at that.
Why is this principle so hard for Johnny to understand? If I go and live in Saudi Arabia, I'll have to wear a veil and can't drive. Oh wait, I'd be stoned for living in sin with my partner. I don't like that idea much, so I won't go there. Simple, and works both ways: if you don't like secularism and freedom of speech don't come to the west!
Posted by: Lili at March 8, 2006 4:44 PM
“How many Muslim countries have vibrant, aggressive exchange programmes?” he asked. Esposito noted that in contrast to this, the Jews have fared better by bringing together scholars, intellectuals, journalists etc for dialogue, not only in the US, but also in Israel."
Exchange? And vibrant, no less? (Well, he did get 'aggressive' right) Wouldn't the proposed "dialog-exchange" necessitate credible Muslim scholars, intellectuals, journalists "etc." ? From what stagnant pool does the confused Professor suggest fishing for Muslim volunteers?
The Jews sure as hell have fared better - and for clear and obvious reasons - beginning with willingness, supported by ethical culture and supplied by any number of qualified intellects. Professor Esposito's failure to mention this is full bore dishonest.
Posted by: Daisytoo at March 8, 2006 5:49 PM
Pipes as "agent provocatuer" - Yikes - In my opinion Mr. Pipes is nearly an agent abetting Islam's incursion into the West. He only offers a vain and hopeless hope to the infidels of the world:
He is ever beating the drum about "moderate" muslims -- holding out such as if such exist, or exist in sufficient numbers to ever have an effect on the bloody tide of Islamizm. They do not. They never did. They never will.
(Finally I have found the term! Mr. Fiztgerald can descant on the wonders of the letter "k" -- for me it's Z all the way...)
ISLAMIZM. perfect.
Posted by: jsla at March 9, 2006 12:58 AM
Or maybe not. It seems to make the desired association between Islamizm and Nazism... anyone else agree? On second thought, it it too contrived?
Posted by: jsla at March 9, 2006 1:26 AM
jsla, um, call me stupid but I didn't get it until you pointed it out.
BUT, nice try - we do need a new, clear label that demonstrates that this 'religion' (when practised according to koran and hadiths) is nothing but a huge, politically subversive and dangerous cult.
A name that signals to politicians: we consider this religion and its fundamental texts to promote violence, to be anti-democratic and anti human rights.
Posted by: Lili at March 9, 2006 2:07 AM
jsla,
You've persuaded me .. elegant .. simple ... true .. ISLAMIZM.
Posted by: Daisytoo at March 9, 2006 11:28 AM
(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.)