From Georgetown University’s The Hoya, with thanks to Nicolei, who comments:
“Wahhabi Islam is to Islam as Pat Robinson is to Christianity globally,” he said. “It is exclusionist. It basically says, “˜I”m right and you”re wrong. I”m with God, and you”re with Satan.–
Esposito claimed that it is not this interpretation of Islam that is dangerous in and of itself, but rather how easily this version lends itself to militancy.
Has Pat Robertson called for the killing of non-Christians?
How is militancy not the correct interpretation of
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”.- Sura Al-Tawba 9:29.
Is there an equivalent in Christian texts?
Good questions, but I suspect that Esposito, like some other “experts” on Islam, does not allow them to be asked of him.
Here is the Hoya piece:
Esposito also emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the moderate Islamic belief system and the interpretation of Wahhabi Islam.
“Wahhabi Islam is to Islam as Pat Robinson is to Christianity globally,” he said. “It is exclusionist. It basically says, “˜I”m right and you”re wrong. I”m with God, and you”re with Satan.–
Esposito claimed that it is not this interpretation of Islam that is dangerous in and of itself, but rather how easily this version lends itself to militancy.
“The danger is that the militant comes to believe that they have a mandate from God,” he said.
Esposito also talked about the increasing importance of religious understanding in U.S. foreign policy.
“After 9/11, our question was, “˜Why do they hate us?– he said. “What we don’t realize is that people on the other side say the same thing, and not just the extremist Muslims.”
He described an e-mail he received from a Muslim friend living in the Middle East on Sept. 12, 2001. In it, she voiced her concern that Sept. 11, 2001, would be used as an excuse to redraw the map of the Middle East and Muslim world.
“They admire America in the Muslim world, but they don’t want America deciding what goes on,” Esposito said.
He outlined how the major flaw in the strategy of the war on terror was the U.S.”s miscalculation of this Middle Eastern mindset.
“We thought that we would be treated as liberators and we miscalculated that it would be a cakewalk,” Esposito said. “We miscalculated the extent to which religious groups were strong factors on the ground. And we were not ready to provide the infrastructure needed.”
In this light, Esposito described how many countries, especially Europe, are now seeing America as a global threat. The Europeans are much closer to the effects of our action in the Middle East than the U.S. is, and thus feel they have much more at stake, he said.
Esposito concluded by emphasizing the importance of avoiding a religious crusade, or even the perception of one, in the Middle East.
“We have to be concerned with theologies of hate that exist in our society, not just theologies of hate overseas,” he said. “And we have to be concerned with how our war on global terrorism is perceived by the rest of the world.”
I wish Esposito would bring forth one shred of evidence that anyone who believes in what he identifies as one of the “theologies of hate” in our society is advocating the killing or subjugation of unbelievers, and thus would be legimately equivalent to the many Muslim hate preachers in mosques worldwide.