A Jihad Watch reader attended the Georgetown University presentation on “Islamophobia” last week and kindly sent in this report. I wrote about this presentation here before it happened, saying that it would not be a true academic inquiry, amassing the facts and training the student to make an informed judgment, but an exercise in propaganda, attempting to manipulate attendees into holding certain opinions and skewing the presentation to ensure that those opinions would be the only ones anyone could come away with. This report shows that that was indeed what it was, with professors Daniel Varisco and John Esposito openly avowing that they have no interest in genuine academic discussion and inquiry, but merely in using their university positions as a forum for their propaganda.
One obvious indication of that is their refusal to debate me because they don’t want to give me a forum at Georgetown (or any other university). The fact is, they already gave me a forum at Georgetown by examining me as a subject in this presentation. But they want to remain in entire control of that forum, only telling the students what they want them to know about me and other supposed “Islamophobes” — while by contrast, I stand ready to debate them or any of the other pushers of the “Islamophobia” myth.
In other words, I am willing to stand before public challenges to my work, and risk being shown up and proven wrong. They aren’t. They are clearly afraid of me and my influence, or I wouldn’t have been mentioned at this little charade of an academic forum at all; but they’re so desperately insecure about their position that they don’t think it can stand up to challenge. Meanwhile, while they deride me as a propagandizing “Islamophobe,” I am willing to discuss, debate, explain, and defend my positions, which is what a real academic should do. They have the positions, the power, the prestige, and the paychecks, and I do not. But in the final analysis, their refusal to debate me or any “Islamophobe” is a clear and certain indication of who the real propagandists, and the real academics, really are.
A genuine seminar on “Islamophobia” would have someone like Varisco or Esposito and someone like me, and the discussion would be on the question of whether concern over jihad terror and Islamic supremacism is legitimate or whether it is just “Islamophobia,” and on when, if ever, legitimate concern over jihad becomes “hatred and bigotry.” It would examine whether “Islamophobia” is a genuine concern over the vilification and victimization of innocent Muslims, or a term used to intimidate people into thinking that resisting jihad terror is somehow wrong. That could be a genuinely illuminating discussion. I’m willing. Varisco and Esposito aren’t. And that tells you everything.
I attended the briefing: “Khutba vs. Khutzpa: Islamophobia on the Internet” by Dr. Daniel Varisco at the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) at Georgetown University on 2/26/2014. About two dozen people attended and sat around a conference table and side chairs. About a handful identified themselves as professors when Varisco asked. Varisco and John Esposito (GU Professor and Founding Director of the ACMCU) were at the head of the table.
Varisco began with “What is Islamophobia?” Esposito asked Varisco if he had seen the recent posting from Robert Spencer about a pill for Islamophobia. I had read this satirical piece, but it seemed as if no one else in the room had. Varisco looked as puzzled as everyone else. I don’t recall he said anything. Esposito shared details about it with everyone. He explained that the piece had him with CAIR announcing the discovery of a pill for Islamophobia. Esposito shook his head as if he couldn’t believe such craziness. I recall laughter around the table and someone (not sure who because people were walking past me — it could have been Esposito) saying, “If only it were that easy.”
Varisco based his definition of “Islamophobia” on the 1991 Runnymede Trust Report describing it as “unfounded hostility towards Muslims and therefore fear or dislike.” He mentioned that he finds fascinating a 2008 book by Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg that looks at political cartoons and stereotypes. Apparently they conveyed the idea that Islamophobia is what he called “a social anxiety.”
He said “Islamophobia is not new, nor has it been without critics.” He referenced Saracens (John Toland, 2002), ” a very sore plague,” and the Venerable Bede, who died in 735 CE. He had a slide citing Dante’s Inferno Canto 28 (1314), with a picture of Mohammed gutted in the Inferno. He mentioned a film that he wants to see, L’Inferno, a 1911 Italian silent film by Giuseppe di Liguro. He included a picture of a 2010 video game called Dante’s Inferno and commented that Mohammed had been removed from the game.
He showed a slide of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary (1797), and he pointed out that payments of trust to the Barbary state were 20% of the United States Government’s annual revenues in 1800. He mentioned Royall Tyler and The Algerine Captive (1797), which deals with the issue of the Barbary Pirates through a character in the book.
The next section was on social anxiety in our country regarding Muslims and “purported Muslims.” He mentioned that the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was called “The Ontario Mohamet.” He had a slide of a section of the Supreme Court Building frieze from 1930s which shows Mohammed with a Quran and a sword “as a lawgiver,” next to Charlemagne and others.
Then followed a section entitled “Surfing the Islamophobic Turf,” a slide of websites:
– Answering Islam: a Christian – Muslim dialogue (he pointed out there is no dialogue).
– Clarion Project
– Jack Chick – www.chick.com (He said that Chick hates Communists, Catholics, and Muslims, and views all these as satanic. Varisco added he grew up in a Fundamentalist Baptist house and his church had “Chick tracts.” He had a copy of The Prophet, which he passed around. It is a cartoon book that claims that Islam is a Catholic plot. He mentioned other Chick comics by Alberto Rivera that focus on secret books in the Vatican, and he showed samples that blamed some Vatican secrets on the KGB. The comic book has information on the back about how to get Jesus into your heart. He mentioned you can get an App in iTunes for a Chick Tract Pack.
– Frontpagemag (Obsession movie)
– Jihad Watch. He had a Robert Spencer quotation: “Islam itself is an incomplete, misleading, and often downright false revelation…” He included the Jihad Watch site posting about this talk today and Robert Spencer’s statement that he would be happy to debate Varisco and is available to do so. He said, “I have no desire to debate Robert Spencer.” Both he and Esposito added, “When you see who his friends are, you’ll know what we’re up against.” They both nodded in agreement about that.Then followed “Fallacy Watch,” a random collection of slides from the presentation.
One depicted a flier from George Washington University’s Young Americans Foundation, saying, “Hate Muslims? So do we!” I was not sure what his point was about this, as I was not familiar with it. In looking this up later, I saw that it was a fake, fabricated by foes of the YAF to discredit it. Varisco did not point out during his presentation that it was a fake, but used it to show misconceptions that people have about Muslims.
Varisco said that another fallacy was that Arab = Muslim. He included a picture of Eurabia: Land of Dhimmitude by Bat Ye’or. He also mentioned his own Tabsir blog, which he runs. He had a slide of a comment that “Islam is evil and immoral at its core,” and another about Mohammed as a pedophile and cruel to women, from Bibleprobe.com/muhammed. He had a photo of a half-buried woman with stones around her. Regarding this stoning photo, Varisco commented: “I’m not saying these things don’t happen, but the use of them and disinformation is a concern…”
He showed something from www.joelstrup.com depicting Muslims as antichrist, mentioning Psalm 83 and Revelation 9:17. He went on to display sample pictures from 1843 which said that Muslims are the 5th and 6th trumpets of Revelation. He also depicted as Islamophobic the idea that jihad against non-Muslims is a central belief, and downplayed concerns that Muslims want to take over the world. Among voices countering this, he mentioned Americans against Islamophobia, Professor Juan Cole, Omid Safi’s “What Would Mohammed Do?,” and more.
Then he moved on to explain how to combat Islamophobia:
– Emphasize contemporary diversity of Muslim views.
– Create sites that respectfully counter existing Islamophobic sites.
– “Recognize no religion is pure.”
– Study diversity.
– “Study Islam with a small ‘i’.”Q & A:
1. There was a question regarding popular culture. Esposito mentioned that Islamophobic websites score high on the Alexa website, which shows how many hits a website gets. Esposito said that he is soon going to launch a five-year program investigating Islamophobia. With it, he said that he would bring forth “alternative narratives to impact social media,” in order to reach a significant number of Americans.
2. A student asked: “Speaking as the only black person in this room, if Islamophobia is not a race issue, how is it a dangerous thing to have an opinion?” He mentioned that his father is from Somalia and he knows about “extremist Islam.” Varisco said, “No religion is pure,” and responded with something to the effect that Somalia was not allowed to rule itself, and began speaking about the Arab Spring and the history of dictators in many Muslim countries. Muslims fighting Muslims is an “environment where hate has taken over.” He said that pluralism is a problem when “what you’re saying is dangerous.” His example: burning the Quran.
3. Question/comment: “It’s a weak argument that Islamophobia goes way back.” Esposito explained the connection between Islamophobia and the right wing, specifically evangelicals. Varisco explained that “tribe is an issue. In Yemen, tribe is civil society. Tribal systems have been affected.”
4. Question/comment re: In Afghanistan you have tribes vs. Pakistan. All is funded by Saudis and Qatar. Varisco agreed that we should ask who is funding whom.
5. Question re: Why not debates? Varisco discounted the idea of debates, implying they have little or no value. His example was a recent debate on evolution between Bill Nye and Ken Ham (a skilled debater). The answer from both Varisco and Esposito was that it would give Robert Spencer legitimacy to debate him at Georgetown. Varisco said: “I would never give a person like that a forum. There is little value to debating Islamophobic speakers in academic settings, since it gives them a forum.”
PRCS says
“I would never give a person like that a forum. There is little value to debating Islamophobic speakers in academic settings, since it gives them a forum.”
So much for that “diversity” thing, eh.
Defcon 4 says
As is typical w/islam0nazis (and really any totalitarian fascist) they want their debate to consist of an echo chamber.
islamisdeath says
“since it gives them a forum.”
And no one who disagrees with me should have a right to express or share their opinion because what if they show me up for the asshat I am? Nope cant do it!
WVinMN says
Honestly, outside of STEM disciplines, most academics amount to nothing more than pseudo-intellectual con men that manage to BS their way into 6-figure gigs. These guys are frauds, and the last thing they’re going to do is put their collective stupidity on public display.
Roger says
Robert spencer described very well what is the islam. And more I am inviting you to watch a little movie on you tube call fitna.
duh_swami says
So no one knows the truth of Islam but them, everyone else is not only wrong but a scoundrel as well. Both Daniel and John are Mahoundians because they cannot hold those ideas and talk to those people unless they believe Allah is God. If they believe Allah is God, they must of necessity believe the Quran is the holy words of Allah, all of it, not some of it. If they can’t or wont debate these beliefs, they are not worth debating anyway. Let them then preach to the choir. No one will challenge them. Just make sure the door is locked so Spencer can’t barge in.
Angemon says
So no one knows the truth of Islam but them, everyone else is not only wrong but a scoundrel as well
That’s an argument i invariably get from muslims and muslim apologists. “Oh, to really know and understand the true beauty of islam you need to learn it from a imam/sheik/muslim, not from greasy, racist, islamophobic bigots like Spencer, Geller, Shoebat ” (it ranks second in stupidity after the classic “oh, you need to read the quran in its original arabic language to truly understand it”). Whenever that argument pops up i always reply “by that logic to really understand the true beauty of nazism i need to learn it from a nazi in 1930 Germany. By that logic to really understand the true beauty of communism i need to learn it from a soviet communist in 1950 Russia or a chinese maoist in 1950 China”.
eib says
Beauty? Truth?
The people who equated these things were ancient Western philosophers, not Muslims.
Never let the Ummah forget that.
There is no beauty in Islam.
There is no salvation in Islam.
Why? Because Islam is profane, there is nothing of God in it.
Defcon 4 says
Daniel Pearl learned all he needed to know about islam w/o learning Arabic or studying at the feet of a learned imam.
revg says
Wow, so the American jizya to the Barbary pirates was pretty huge! I guess that proves we should give the muslims more money today?
I must be missing something. I see it proving that today is more of the same. Extortion from islam is not a new concept. It is part and parcel of their religion.
Silly how they only take blurbs and excerpts of the few “good” things historically claimed of islam, Muhammad, et al, and neglect the reams of historical material to the contrary.
In my mind’s eye, when members of a religious sect commit atrocities in the name of their religion, and those atrocities are actually in accordance with the religion itself, the religion is the source of the problem. It may be true that not all adherents of that religion will be so devout, however the capability for those marginal adherents to become more devout always exists. In the least, by maintaining their allegiance to that religion, they show tacit support for those actions.
To be wary of members of a religious group with tenets that advocate your conversion, submission, or death is not a phobia, it is good sense.
duh_swami says
I wonder if John and Daniel actually believe that an incoherent angel named Gabriel had a 22 year affair with a semi psychotic Arab, and told him all this stuff was from Allah? How about it John, do you believe that? Daniel? Why didn’t Allah just appear to the Arab himself? After all he did appear to Moses as a burning bush, but sends a stand in for Mohammad. Why was that? And why the drunk and incoherent angel Gabriel? Mercury is the ‘messenger of the gods’, and he is a god, which is higher on the food chain than angel. This is all very confusing John, can you explain it? Inquiring minds want to know.
pongidae rex says
The great issue of our time, the one that will baffle future historians, is not the invasion and slow but relentless overthrow of the West by Islam. Islam is simply rushing in where it senses weakness, as it always has and always will.
The great issue is what internal dynamic is driving the cultural and genetic suicide of Western civilization. Every mathematical projection of demographic trends in the USA and Europe shows the European descended population that founded these societies becoming a minority. In the USA this will happen in the lifetime of young people now alive. In Europe it will take a little bit longer but will be complete by the end of the century. And yet, Western civilization persists in a historically unprecedented social engineering project based upon massive immigration that will have the outcome of a government sponsored genocide against the native population.
No civilization in the history of the world has meekly submitted to its own invasion and cultural annihilation, yet that is exactly what we are witnessing today. It is unprecedented in human history.
Why? That is the question.
Why?
Michael Copeland says
Petro-dollars?
Christopher says
It is a good question. Partly I believe the answer was the Holocaust. The balance between genetic-driven survival and ideal-driven compassion was thrown totally out of whack by his stupidly harsh actions towards the Jews, so now white people basically have swung way too far to the idealistic-compassionate approach to life.
Not that compassion is bad, but when it is so extreme that you show compassion to those who wish to destroy you, well then it is a problem. An enemy exists to be defeated, not welcomed.
That’s the main reason I can think of…
mortimer says
PROPAGANDA is the systematic attempt to manipulate and direct behavior through controlled, one-sided messages to further the desired intent of the propagandist.
The DESIRED INTENT of Esposito is to make non-Islamic thoughts impossible to please his Saudi paymasters. It’s time for Georgetown University to stand up for academic integrity.
This whole matter is mercenary…a sell-out to a foreign government with an agenda against Americans.
Defcon 4 says
I find myself wondering when the US congress is going to try and outlaw all criticism of the death cult called islam and its holey, psychopathic prophet.
islamisdeath says
imam obama has de facto already tried by signing the UN resolution stating that no one in any country can say anything negative about “religion” the only religion that wants that sort of law is of course satanic islam.
mortimer says
Esposito is a man on a mission for a foreign government…in other words, he is a fifth columnist and propagandist for Saudi Arabia which pays for his department to exist.
Esposito is a paid hit man. Who is his target? Anyone who disagrees with the doctrine of warfare against the disbelievers…the orthodox Islamic ‘essential doctrine’ taught in Saudi schools. But is THAT the job of an academic, to promote a foreign government’s ideology? No. An academic’s job is to do rigorous research and be SELF-CRITICAL. Esposito is no more than a mouthpiece for the Saudi dictators. He knows that, but we know he knows it. Has he no shame? Apparently, he doesn’t. Academic integrity and intellectual honesty is for others, but not for him.
Robert Spencer is one of the best informed on the subject of jihad and a most effective communicator, but there are many others who understand jihad and the numbers are growing. In other words, the genie of counterjihad is out of the bottle, many books on jihad, Islamic conquest and the Islamic slave trade are published, many written by Muslims. The genie of counterjihad cannot be stuffed back in the bottle. The Saudis are delusional if they think that, but we know that. They are unfortunately drawing attention to their intellectual dishonesty about Islam. They think money can control academe. To a small measure…temporarily…it can, but ultimately, their strategy will backfire and cause Esposito’s propaganda factory to stink.
I doubt Esposito will ever live it down.
eib says
John Esposito should be persona non grata in every Western academic context.
He is a Muslim zealot who has yet to do the honest thing and submit to the Ummah and their false prophet.
He has no business calling himself a Westerner, none calling himself a Christian, and whatever claims he makes to these things should be treated with open contempt.
john spielman says
John Esposito is NOTHING BUT AN ACADEMIC WHORE!
voegelinian says
That would be difficult to pull off, since most academic departments throughout not only North America but the entire West are Islamophiliac.
One indication of many one could adduce of just how broadly and deeply this irrationality runs in academe, is that a subculture in academe which is decidedly conservative — namely, the professors and grad students who labor in honor of their mentor, the great German-American (and strongly anti-Communist) philosopher Eric Voegelin. These otherwise conservative intellectuals who are politically INcorrect about almost every sociopolitical issue under the sun, suddenly parrot the usual PC MC drivel when it comes to Islam.
I have analyzed this in a few essays on my blog:
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2013/01/voegelinians-and-islam.html
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2012/10/voegelinians-and-islam-part-2.html
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2013/02/more-on-voegelinians-and-islam.html
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2013/02/yet-more-on-voegelinians.html
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2013/02/more-voegelinian-pneumopathology.html
eib says
Then we can honestly say that fear is a stronger force than reason in Western intellectual endeavor today.
Where there is fear, there can be no useful scholarship in ANY discipline.
We stand frozen-still.
voegelinian says
To eib:
Fear is not the sole motivator here. Intelligent Westerners like those conservative and erudite academics who admire their mentor Eric Voegelin are not merely parroting PC MC about Islam out of fear; they actually seem to believe they are exemplifying and carrying on good Western virtues by refusing to condemn Islam and by refusing to condemn all Muslims who promote and/or enable Islam. This is no small misunderstanding on their part; nor can it be explained by us by recourse to the Esdrujula Elves.
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-esdrujula-explanation.html
mortimer says
The Council on Kafir-Islamic Relations(KCIR)?
The Kafir Defense League(KDL)?
The National Association for the Advancement of Kafir People(NAAKP)?
The United Nations Kafir Fund(UNIKAF)?
STOP KAFIROPHOBIA!
mortimer says
Kafirophobia is the phenomenon of a prejudice against or demonization of non-Muslims which manifests itself in general negative attitudes, violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping (and particularly being vilified in the media).
shrugger says
Someone will want to confirm. I’m fairly certain that by 1803 the Barbary extortion (Jizya) was in excess of 20% GDP and not 20% of Gov’t revenue. This led Jefferson to do what he did, the USMC’s iconic Theme song and ultimately 200 years of the Med being piracy free.
voegelinian says
And Muslims were not only extorting Americans through piracy and abductions of the crews (the ones they did not slaughter) and their enslavement and holding for ransom, but also had been doing the same to Europeans for years, even decades — yea, for centuries. Jefferson’s main efforts in this regard involved the crucial cooperation of several European states including Great Britain, which unfortunately took him several years to get on board in his shuttle diplomacy back and forth across the Atlantic (no jet planes and cell phones back then — not even steamships, trains and automobiles, for God’s sake).
Tradewinds says
John Esposito is spawn of satan. He’s the angel of death. He is demon excrement.
The devil’s disciple and his co-hort Varisco are insane persons and should be committed.
Michael Copeland says
Varisco described Islamophobia as “unfounded hostility towards Muslims”. The muslim Barbary pirates, obeying their book, attacked and plundered American shipping, and took Americans captive as slaves, subsequently demanding extortion money to refrain from continuing. Jefferson founded the Marines in response, who counter-attacked the Barbary shipping, capturing and destroying ships, going inland and liberating captives.
Was that hostility towards Muslims “unfounded”?
islamisdeath says
I would be hostile to anyone I thought wanted to slaughter me and my entire family whether they were islamic or not. Would that make me multiphobic?
A phobia is an “unreasonable” fear of something. It is not unreasonable to fear, and therefore dislike, someone who belongs to a cult that is wreaking havoc across the globe and worships a mass murderer who left a manual behind stating they must slaughter everyone who doesn’t knuckle under.
Larry S. says
John Esposito strikes me as a highly disingenuous person, so he certainly does not want to go mano-to-mano with someone like Robert, who can cut through the obfuscation like a knife through mushy butter. Perhaps that’s not surprising giving the funding used to create the Prince Alwaleed Center.
Raymond Ibrahim quotes Esposito as follows, in his excellent article last year in the Middle East Quarterly (Ref. 1),
How come we keep on asking the same question, [about violence in Islam,] and don’t ask the same question about Christianity and Judaism? Jews and Christians have engaged in acts of violence. All of us have the transcendent and the dark side. … We have our own theology of hate. In mainstream Christianity and Judaism, we tend to be intolerant; we adhere to an exclusivist theology, of us versus them
I regard Ibrahim’s article as the best succint description I have seen of the idea that violence in the Hebrew Bible is either descriptive (in the sense of being a historical account) or bounded in time and place (as with the slaughter of the Canaanites), or both. In contrast, violence in the Koran and in Islamic tradition is prescriptive, and unbounded by time and place. Robert also has addressed this issue in at least one of his books, e.g. Religion of Peace?, I believe. I suspect this is a concept that John Esposito does not care to address in any serious manner (I’d welcome citations to the contrary). If he did, he’d have to confer a certain legitimacy to concepts espoused by Spencer and Ibrahim (oh, the horror).
Ref. 1: http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam
richard Sherman says
They both revere the SOCIOPATH MUHAMMAD WHO PERSONALLY DECAPITATED 900 UNARMED JEWS in 627…as well as anyone else who PERSONALLY decapitates 900 unarmed Jews…..or more…
Defcon 4 says
I don’t think muhammad personally decapitated anyone — he had others do it at his behest.
voegelinian says
“He [Esposito] had a slide of a section of the Supreme Court Building frieze from 1930s which shows Mohammed with a Quran and a sword “as a lawgiver,” next to Charlemagne and others.”
Mohammed is on the North Wall part of the circumambient frieze of the U.S. Supreme Court building interior, and stands sandwiched between Charlemagne and Justinian. He’s holding a sword and a Koran.
The official Supreme Court website has this description:
Muhammad (c. 570 – 632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.
Actually, that description is not quite accurate: Islamic Law’s main source is the hadiths (Mohammed’s sayings), not the Koran.
According to Wikipedia:
In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations asked for the image of Muhammad to be removed from the marble frieze of the façade. While appreciating the fact that Muhammad was included in the court’s pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discourages depictions of Muhammad in any artistic representation. CAIR also objected that the prophet was shown with a sword, reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors. Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected the request to sandblast Muhammad, saying the artwork “was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship”. The court later added a footnote to tourist materials, calling it “a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad”.
A close-up of the depiction:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/17802/how-mohammad-statue-ended-supreme-court
Defcon 4 says
What kind of IDIOT would “honor muhamMAD”? A mass murdering, Jew hating psychopath and child molester? Why not honor Hitler? Or Stalin?
voegelinian says
There are a lot of names on those Supreme Court frieze; only one was a genocidal monster and child-rapist, brigand, fanatic who had enemies beheaded and tortured (Mohammed). There is one other name on that frieze of dubious morality — the unhinged maniac who forced free and enlightened Europe to go to the trouble to form an political-military alliance just to stop his unhinged ambitions to conquer the world: Napoleon. Even Napoleon, however, pales in comparison to Mohammed.
PJG says
Varisco about Spencer: “I would never give a person like that a forum.”
He is saying the university as a forum is his to “give”. Presumably the university is cool with that.
Wellington says
Speaking from years of experience of teaching at the college level here in America, I can assert without reservation that much of what passes for liberal arts education is not education at all but propaganda, as evidenced by this article.
M&M says
I wonder why they did not include Jewphobia, Christainphobia, Hinduphobia…… in their model, hmm