John R. Houk, Blog Editor
June 23, 2023
Well…Here we go on sharing censored/unpublished posts from
my Blogger archive of the old SlantRight Blog (https://slantedright.blogspot.com/)
which had its last original post on October 2009.
I have posted five parts so far. I took a bit of a break from
updating/sharing Blogger unpublished posts based on the ridiculous claim that
posts from over a decade ago suddenly violated community guidelines. The pause
in sharing was because I was annoyed Blogger slapped a “CONTENT WARNING” on PART
FIVE on the SlantRight 2.0 version. Due to that Blogger
warning as of this typing, there have only been 8-views of the post. My sense
is the warning is due to some of the old photos of the demon-prophet Mo in
political cartoon format that Muslim devotees undoubtedly would demand my head
according to their revered writings. Amazingly parts 1-4 have evaded Blogger
scrutiny: ONE,
TWO,
THREE
& FOUR.
True Islamic Ideology Hidden from Non-Muslims
In anticipation of Blogger scrutiny, I have posted each part
on my mirror blog that has an updated name - The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right
(CPCR). Parts 1- 5 mirrored on CPCR: ONE
[Name change from NCCR to CPCR touched on], TWO,
THREE,
FOUR
& FIVE.
PART FIVE ended with the Blogger unpublished post number 21.
As a refresher, these updates are in the order that Blogger
unpublished/censored a post, not the original date a post was made.
+++
22. The Esposito School
July 2008
Unpublished link: http://slantedright.blogspot.com/2008/07/esposito-school.html
Not Posted to NCCR/CPCR
Photo: John Esposito - younger days
It is unbelievable that there are non-Mohammedans in the
West that justify Islamism and revise history to delude the public via the
trusted moniker of “Academics.”
You have got to read how this
moron John Esposito [Updated link] is the Goebbels [Update
link – Psywarrior still
has good info] propagandist for the moneyed Mohammedan Middle East
influenced by Wahhabism.
JRH [defunct SlantRight link removed] 7/4/08 [The old SlantRight
domain cross posted Political Islam’s link on John Esposito. Since I did
not mirror the post on NCCR/CPCR, I’ll share below for posterity]
**
The Esposito School
By Bill Warner
Jul 1 2008
Chief of the Dhimmis
Sun Tsu speaks of two kinds of enemies in The Art of
War. There is the “far enemy” and the “near enemy”. Islam defines itself to
be the far enemy of all kafirs (unbelievers).
The near enemy is the dhimmi. A
dhimmi is a kafir who serves Islam. In the beginning of the jihad against our
kafir civilization, most of the actual work of attacking our civilization is
being done by the near enemy, the dhimmi.
When the State department starts controlling the language of
memos and forbids the use of the word “jihad”,
that is an action by non-Muslims, dhimmis. It was not a Muslim who issued the directive.
The dhimmi is the puppet of Islam. It is not that Islam is so strong, but that
kafirs are so weak and ignorant that they become dhimmis.
There is a hierarchy of dhimmis. At the top of the
dhimmi-chain are names such as Bernard Lewis, a Jewish scholar of Islam, and
Karen Armstrong, a biographer of Mohammed. But none can top John Esposito in
dhimmitude.
In this newsletter we are fortunate to have Dr. David Bukay
give us a detailed analysis of Esposito’s betrayal of kafir culture. [We are
also unfortunate in that the superscripts that go with the endnotes did not
move into the HTML editor. If you want the specific references, contact me and
I will send you the Word version that has the superscripts and endnotes.]
The Esposito School: Islamic Apologists in Action, or Who
is the “Near Enemy”?
David Bukay – School of Political Science
The University of Haifa, Israel
John Esposito is one of the foremost apologists of radical
Islam in the academia. The term apologist means denying or even justifying events
and activities, while blaming others. It is characterized by whitewashing
reality and omitting facts unintentionally (selective perception and cognitive
biases) or intentionally (for political or economic or other objectives).
According to Esposito’s own words, The Prince Alwaleed Center for
Muslim-Christian Understanding is concerned with Islam and the West and Islam
in the West, addressing stereotypes of Islam and Muslims. However, we shall
prove to him and his school that, in fact, stereotypes, misconceptions and
perhaps deceptions are theirs.
It is typical that John O. Voll, claims in his article found
in Center’s homepage: “The Impossibility of the Clash of Civilizations in a
Globalized World,” that someone who speaks about sounds is like a person who
does not read the news. Yet, it is typical to the Esposito School to accuse
others of not reading the news, while all evidence shows that they themselves
do not watch TV to see the horrors of Islamic fanaticism; they do not read
newspapers to understand Islamic terrorism; and they do not listen to the radio
to experience Islamic “tolerance.” The world is filled with clashes and
significant conflicts, Voll says, but he ignores the fact that at least 70
percent of them are by and among the Arabs and Muslims.
A vivid example of the blindness of the Esposito School can
be found in Natana Delong-Bas, who teaches at Boston College. Her best and
perhaps not surprising declarations are found in an interview with the London
al-Sharq al-Awsat, where she declared, Wahhabism is not extremism, and the
Muslim Brotherhood and Sayyid Qutb have nothing to do with jihadism. She
further stated that there may be a Western conspiracy against the Arab and
Islamic world, and said that she knows of no evidence that Osama bin Laden was
behind the 9/11 attacks. Her response to criticism of her declarations was that
she was misquoted: she does not deny that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, but
only that he had no role in the logistics or the planning of the attacks
themselves.
It is not surprising that her doctoral dissertation, Wahhabi
Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, a total defense of
Wahhabism, has been highly recommended by the Saudi Embassy in Washington,
D.C., since her book was partially funded by Saudi sources. In her book she
claims that Wahhabism is not a radical movement, and Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab
was the one who was the most correct in faith, the easiest to reconcile with
the teachings of the Qur’an and hadith, and the most capable in matters of interpretation.
Jihad as holy war was not the primary purpose of the Wahhabi movement, and Ibn
Abd al-Wahhab did not promote martyrdom or call for jihad. By no means had he
promoted violence against those who did not follow his teachings.
But history tells us clearly that the Wahhabis conquered the
Arabian Peninsula by Jihad wars, eliminating others. Delong-Bas says that Ibn
Abd al-Wahhab believed in the need for ijtihad (innovation). But academic
research concludes that Wahhabism is the most puritan sect in contemporary
Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence. According to Delong-Bas, women were not presented
as inferior human beings in Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s writings, which are evidence of
his high respect for women and how they were granted absolute rights. But
Wahhabism is perhaps the most extreme and intolerant religious ideology
concerning the inferiority of women. The book does not introduce or analyze
Wahhabi teachings and practices but rather, defends them. In fact, it is not a
critical account of Wahhabism at all, but a response to Western criticism
mounted in the post-9/11 era. Above all, the controversial teachings and
practices of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab have been glossed over throughout the book.
Along the same line, one finds Noah Feldman, a Jewish law
professor at Harvard University, whose book, After Jihad: America and
the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, explores the prospects for democracy in
the Islamic world, using the same arguments as Esposito’s School. Even after
the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Feldman argues that the age of violent jihad is
past, and Islamism is evolving in new, more peaceful and democratic directions;
The Islamists are the best hope for democracy. They never got a chance to
govern, although they are committed democrats and that Islam and democracy are
deeply compatible. The experiment of Islamic democracy deserves to be run.
Islamic democrats are the best hope for the future of the Muslim world-and they
deserve our admiration and our support. Islamist parties in power mean much
improvement over the situation today. The Islamists are not inevitably or
unalterably opposed to the United States, which by allying itself with
autocratic regimes in the Middle East is not only mistaken by choosing the
wrong rulers but by betraying its own values too. No comment is the best
comment to these vanities, just because reality shows the almost totally
opposite.
Perhaps the best way to properly evaluate and estimate John
Esposito’s attitudes and views is to quote his assertions from his book, What
Everybody Needs to Know about Islam; which represents one of the best
propaganda sources of how to show a sweet, synthetic and detached view of the
reality of Islam.
As to the question “is Islam intolerant to other religions?”
(pp. 70-73) Esposito claims that theologically and historically, Islam has a
long record of tolerance. Muslims did not try to impose their religion on
others or force them to convert. All that remains is to tell this story to the
original peoples of the Middle East and North Africa, mainly Christians, who
were Arabized and Islamized by force; to the peoples of the Balkans and Eastern
Europe who were exterminated, depressed and humiliated; and to the tens of
millions of Africans who became slaves, tortured and deported from their lands.
In our generation, Esposito should tell this to the
Armenians, the Christians of Iraq (Assyrians), the Christians of Lebanon, the
Christians of Palestine, and especially the peoples of Southern Sudan who
suffer a policy of extermination and genocide. These indeed prove Islamic
tolerance.
Esposito ends his “refreshing” analysis by claiming that the
Constitution of Medina accepted the co-existence of Muslims, Jews and
Christians. Muhammad granted freedom of religious thought and practice to the
Jews and Christians, setting a precedent for peaceful and cooperative
interreligious relations. By that, Esposito probably refers to the Jewish
tribes in Arabia, who during Muhammad’s lifetime, were deported and massacred;
their children were taken as slaves, their women as concubines, and their
property was expropriated. Today, Esposito narrated, Muslims mainstream and
extremist, conservative and progressive, struggle to balance the affirmation of
the truths of their faith with the cultivation of a pluralism and tolerance
rooted in mutual respect and understanding. Indeed, we can witness these highly
esteemed words in today’s Saudi-Arabia, Iran and Sudan; three Islamic regimes,
and the Muslim behavior in the West.
As to the question “why do Muslims persecute Christians in
Muslim countries”? (pp. 76-79), perhaps Esposito has forgotten his words on
Islamic tolerance before, where he states: Muslim-Christian relations have
deteriorated over time under the influence of conflicts and grievances, from
the Crusades and European colonialism to contemporary politics. Indigenous
Christians were favored by and benefited from the colonial rule. The product of
European missionaries that converted local Muslims� the creation of the state
of Israel has contributed to the deterioration of relations and Christian
fundamentalists like Robertson, Graham and Falwell have been the source of
intolerance, persecution, violence and terrorism.
It is very easy – Christians are to blame for all Islamic
behavior. Had they continued to be massacred, enslaved and converted to Islam,
like in Egypt and in Spain (in the Seventh-Eighth centuries), and the Balkans
during the Ottoman Rule, as only few examples, harmony would have continue to
exist in the Muslim-Christian relationship. Indeed, one should wonder, what do
the Christian expect? To create the State of Israel and not to be exterminated
by Muslims? To live on Islamic lands and not to be massacred? And, when asking
Esposito about the genocide in The Sudan, his reaction is that there is no problem,
actually the majority of the South is animist and the struggle has been
political and economic as much as religious. They are not Christians, and this
sums up the whole issue.
As to the question: whether Jews and Christians have always
been enemies of Islam (pp. 79-86), Esposito refreshes our memory: the Jews of
Medina had political ties to the Qureish tribe of Mecca, so they resisted
Muhammad’s overtures. The Jewish population was granted the right to internal
religious and cultural autonomy in exchange for their political loyalty and
allegiance to the Muslims. The Jews backed Muhammad’s Meccan rivals, judged as
traitors for the support of his enemies, many were attacked and killed.
Again, the historical facts are different compared to
Esposito’s analysis; Muhammad massacred the Jews of Arabia immediately after
his military successes. As for the Jews of Haybar, they were massacred and
persecuted and their fertile lands were taken after the Hudaybiah agreement
with the Meccans, without any “provocations.” The Palestinians today sing:
“Haybar, Haybar ya-Yahud, sayf Muhammad sa-ya`ud” (Haybar Haybar, ho Jews, the
sword of Muhammad will be back), but is it possible that Esposito has not
studied this chapter in Islamic history?
He continues: other Jews became Dhimmis and thrived under
the protection of Islam. {However} the establishment of the State of Israel was
a turning point in relations between Muslims and Jews, and severely strained
their relations in Muslim countries. As for the Christians, the Muslim
conquerors proved to be far more tolerant than Imperial Christianity had been,
granting religious freedoms to the indigenous Christian Churches. Pluralism is
the essence of Islam as revealed in the Qur’an and practiced by Muhammad and
the early caliphs, rather than a purely Western invention or ideology. How
nice, now one can understand why the Christians are a rare species and under
extinction in the Middle East. The irony is that Esposito brings John of
Damascus who held a position of prominence in the royal court, as proof of the
integration of Christians, but John of Damascus had written perhaps the most
devastating book of the massacre of Christians under Islam as a first-hand
witness.
Esposito then clings to the Golden Age in Spain from 756 to
approximately 1000 as a period of interfaith harmony. The only problem is that
this was a myth invented by the Jews in the 19th century, as Bernard Lewis and
others have proved. Even the great Jewish exegete, physician and philosopher,
Maimonides, described Islam as the worst enemy of Judaism, and he had to escape
from Spain taking refuge in Morocco and Egypt.
Yet, the best of Esposito, is his declaration that, The
Ottoman Empire is a prime example of the positive treatment of religious
minorities in a Muslim-majority context. It seems there were two Ottoman
Empires: The original Ottoman Empire was the worst in treating minorities in
the Balkans and Eastern Europe; kidnapping millions of children and converting
them to Islam (Devshirme system) bringing millions of slaves and concubines
from Eastern Europe, mainly Ukraine and Hungary; massacring Christians, like
the Armenian holocaust, to mention only a salient example. The Balkan Wars in
the 20th century and the deep hatred and the reciprocal massacres are due to
the Ottoman Empire past policies and behavior. But perhaps there was another
Ottoman Empire according to Esposito, coming directly from the lands of the
fairytales.
Esposito is at his best when analyzing “violence and
terrorism” (pp. 117-138). Jihad is struggling against the evil in oneself and
to be virtuous and moral. It also includes the right, indeed the obligation, to
defend Islam and the community from aggression. Western governments are
propping up oppressive regimes and exploiting the region’s human and natural
resources, robbing Muslims of their culture and to live in a more just society.
This is the reason for the use of Jihad. The Qur’an does not advocate or
condone terrorism. Muslims are merciful and just. Islam does permit Muslims
only to defend themselves and their families, religion and community from
aggression. To prove this, Esposito brings verses from the Qur’an (22:39-40;
48:17; 9:91; 2:192; 47:4; 8:61; 4:90).
There is only one tiny problem with this: all the verses
Esposito has quoted have different meanings and objectives. Qur’an 22:39-40 was
revealed in year 624, and it gave the believers permission to fight against
their enemies for the first time. It opened the second stage of Muhammad’s
career of defensive fighting against his Quraysh enemy. But this verse was
abrogated by 9:5, at Muhammad’s third stage, the age of Messianism, the era of
total fight against all the idolaters started after year 626. Qur’an 48:17 and
9:91 give permission to those among the believers not to go to war, since
Muhammad promised those who fight to enter the gardens of Eden. These verses
have nothing to do with peace with the unbelievers. Qur’an 2:192 is connected
to 2:190-191, that give permission to those who fight the believers (2:190 –
conditional), and fight all the unbelievers whenever they are found (2:191 –
unconditional). Then 2:192 states that if the unbelievers desist (meaning,
accept Islam or submit to Islam) then Allah is forgiving and kind. As for
Qur’an 47:4, one can only be amazed by Esposito’s distorted misuse, by
declaring that it deals with how to treat prisoners. It is one of the most
horrible verses in the Qur’an. It says: “when you clash with the unbelievers
smite their necks until you overpower them, then (the rest who submit) hold them
in bondage. Then either free them graciously or, after taking a ransom, until
war shall come to an end (there will be no more unbelievers, or they will
submit to Islamic rule). Qur’an 8:61 is again mistakenly quoted, for it is
tightly connected to verses 8:59-60 which deal with the infidels and the
command is to strike terror in the enemies of Allah and fight them ceaselessly.
Indeed, this is the Islamic tolerance. Only then comes 8:61: if they are
inclined to peace (after submitting to Islam), make peace with them. Qur’an
4:90 is connected and conditional to 4:89, which commands the Muslims to “seize
the unbelievers wherever they are and do away with them.” Only then comes 4:90:
“accept those who take refugee or those who weary of fighting you or their people,
come over to you.
It is for you in the West to evaluate how Esposito distorts
the verses to suit his political views. But Esposito’s propaganda industry
reaches to the highest level when he deals with Qur’an 9:5 and 9:29, the
vicious and murderers’ verses. He declares, in fact however, the full intent of
“When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters whenever you find them”
is missed or distorted when quoted in isolation. For it is followed and
qualified by: “but if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligation and
pay the Zakat, then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind”
(9:5). The same is true for another quoted verse (9:29), which is often cited
without the line that follows: “until they pay the tax with willing submission,
and feel themselves subdued.”
Indeed, as nice as it sounds, so is the reality horrible.
The true definition of 9:5 is, they have the conditional option: either to
convert to Islam (“but if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligation
and pay the Zakat, then let them go their way”) or be slayed. The clause thus
becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must
convert to Islam or be slain. In 9:29, (to pay the tax with willing submission,
and feel themselves subdued), means submission to Islamic rule, losing
independence, and paying the tax with humiliation. Can we assume that Esposito
believes this is peaceful and tolerant Islam? Can we assume that perhaps he
does not know all this?
If Esposito does not know the Qur’an commandments to the
believers, here is the up-to-date list: fighting is prescribed upon the
believers (2:216). It is jihad in the cause of Allah (2:244 and many other
verses) against the powers of Satan (4:76), the unbelievers and the hypocrites
(9:5; 9:73; 66:9), and the People of the Book (9:29). The order for the
believers is to smite their necks (47:4; 8:12) and to strike terror in their
hearts (3:151; 8:60), including the People of the Book (59:2) for the hereafter
world (4:74). For this the Jihadi believers will earn paradise (3:195: 9:72:
13:22-23; 47:4-6), and their reward will be black-eyed virgins (44:51-54;
52:17-20; 56:22-24), and the utmost tiding is that they are not dead, but
alive, staying and living beside Allah (2:154; 3:169-171). The Islamic
“tolerance” is also practiced by Hadiths, attributed to Muhammad: “Whosoever
disputes a single verse of the Qur’an, strike off his head” (Sunan Ibn Majah)
“The Prophet said, whosoever changes his religion, kill him” (Sahih al-Bukhari)
and “There is no community from which you cannot bring me Muslims from them,
and the best I like is, that you kill the men and bring me the women and
children” (al-Tirmidhi).
Regarding the question “why do they hate us?” which so
disturbs the West, Esposito’s answer is very clear and concise: the
establishment and the support of the State of Israel. America’s record of
overwhelming support of Israel – witnessed in its level of aid to Israel, the
US voting record in the United Nations, and official statements by the administration
and the State Department – have proved to be a powerful lightning rod for
Muslim anger over injustice. You see, it is so simple: remove Israel from the
Middle East and there will be no Islamic anger and hatred to the West, and
peace will prevail upon the whole area. Moreover, if Israel disappears, all the
malaise found in the Middle East would have been prevented: The Islamic
revolution in Iran; its nuclear program; its hatred of the Big Satan (US) the
authoritarian regimes and the despotic patrimonial leaders; the inter-Arab
rivalries; the conflicts and wars between and among the Arabs; the millions of
Arabs and Muslims being killed by Arabs and Muslims; the Shiite-Sunni
historical rift that threatens to erupt to an apocalypse; the emergence of al-Qaeda
and all Islamic barbaric atrocities around the world. All these and many others
would have not come to the world if only the State of Israel was denied. Is
this what you mean, Professor Esposito?
A concise summary of Esposito’s views concerning his
book, Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam, can be found in his
interview with Joanne Myers, on May 7, 2002:
In his own words, he tried in his book to contextualize and ask: Where does
extremism come from; where does this notion of engaging in a holy war à la
Osama bin Laden come from; how widespread is it; what are the possibilities
with regard to the future; and to what extent is this an unholy war rather than
a holy war; to what extent is this a hijacking of Islam?
His answers are clear and really horrifying. To the
question, what is the world situation concerning the threat of fanatical Islam?
Esposito’s answer is simple. Osama bin Laden was raised with the Wahabi
interpretation of Islam. Being very pro-Palestinian, his motivations include:
his concern about the Arab-Israeli conflict; -his opposition to the West coming
in, not only to the Holy lands of Islam; but he hates the involvement of the
United States because it has inherited England and France as a neo-colonial
power; and for its oil interests.
Not a word on Islam. Everything is so simple – Israel and
the US are to blame, and if only the US would withdraw from the Middle East and
Israel would perhaps disappear, there would not be a problem with radical Islam
in the West at large. However, Bin Ladin utters his totally different
objectives very clearly, in three stratified stages: a) to topple the Jahili
Arab and Islamic regimes and establish Islamic rule according to the Shari`ah;
b) to bring back the regions which once belonged to Dar al-Islam, from India to
Spain; Andalusia (Spain), being the diamond in the Islamic crown; c) to
commence the apocalypse of the clash of civilizations: Dar al-Islam against Dar
al-Harb.
In response to the question concerning Islamic terrorism by
Jihad around the world, Esposito’s answer is simple: Jihad means to be a good
Muslim. It means to strive, the effort that it takes to be virtuous, to be a
good believer. Jihad also means that in being a good Muslim you have the right
and, indeed, the obligation to defend Islam and yourself if you are under
siege, the struggle against an unjust government. This is a “just war.”
But Jihad has proven time and again clearly in the Qur’an
and Hadith: it is the holy war against the infidels. Jihad is rooted in the Islamic
religion and culture. It is pervasive, conclusive, and operative. Again
Esposito rushes to clarify: from the early days of Islam, you have always had a
minority of extremists that the mainstream body has rejected, extremists who
have used or hijacked their religion to justify their actions, just as in other
faiths. This is precisely what happened. So you have the globalization of jihad
within mainstream Islam as well as among the extremists.
Where does the Wahhabi ideology and threat come in? Again
Esposito is clear: it is an exclusivist worldview, but it does not mean that it
is violence. Wahhabi Islam, as a puritanical theology, is very conservative and
can be seen as extremist but not necessarily violent. The Saudis use their oil
money to promote Islam, to build mosques, to pay the salaries of preachers all
over the world, but it does not promote terrorism.
How and why is the US to blame? Esposito clarifies and
simplifies: What sets up a problem for us is that when we went in, the
Secretary of State said, “We are only going after Osama and Al-Qaeda; we are
not going to take Afghanistan down.” Then we developed a rationale for it. But
then we began to talk about “second frontiers,” and an “Axis of Evil.” We have
also gone into the southern Philippines. We have talked about going into
Indonesia. You want to see anti-Americanism? You will see it in spades. And it
is not just going to be there; it will be all over the world.
Another issue is that we must have a parity of rhetoric and
policy. We do not have that in the Arab-Israeli conflict. We do not have it on
the whole issue of the promotion of self-determination, democratization, and
human rights. In the Muslim world we have been very slow to promote
democratization and human rights. Muslim countries must get the message. They
must start opening up that system. Unless there is more political
participation, unless there is the development of a strong civil society, and
freedom of the press, you will see a perpetuation of the culture of
authoritarianism and violence.
If you have that kind of society, it will feed anti-Semitism
and extremist thought, because the society creates an extreme condition or
situation. The more repression that is used, the more they radicalize. This
would happen if you had only secular opposition, let alone religious
opposition. Esposito clearly states that the United States should not in
principle object to implementation of Islamic law or involvement of Islamic
activists in government. Of course, the result of accepting Esposito’s
misleading recommendations would be the example of Iran and the Sudan.
Anti-Americanism is very broad-based because of these issues
and it is rooted deeply in grievances of the Islamic opposition against their
government. They also blame us because we are seen as supporting their
government, as providing arms for their government. People within Egypt or
Saudi Arabia who want to bring down their governments blame us because we
provide massive support for it. If you look at most Arab governments now, most
Central Asian governments, post-9/11 they have become more oppressive.
Post-9/11 they are looking for aid and support with no strings attached, and
they want us to look the other way when they deal with their opposition,
whether mainstream or extremist. We cannot give a green light.
Everything in Washington now gets framed in terms of terrorism. You have a
meeting on food, and you add the term “terrorism” to the title of any
conference. The danger is that if you frame not only the question but the way
you approach it in too heavy-handed and overt a way, you will have a problem.
So you see, according to Esposito, Islamic terrorism is not
a problem, and instead of dealing with the real issues, Washington bothers
itself with nonsense. But it is much worse: Esposito actually blames the US for
all the evils: a) the rise of Islamic radicalism in the West; b) acting
impartially and supporting Israeli existence in the Middle East; c) the lack of
self-determination, democratization, and human rights in the Middle East; d)
supporting Arab and Islamic regimes to oppress the radical Islamic democratic
opposition; and e) the worsening situation in the Arab and Islamic lands in the
aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
However, Esposito’s comments to his criticism appear in an
interview with Al-Ahram Weekly. He acknowledges that he is an “apologist for
Islam and soft on Muslims,” and that he is accused of having misinformed the US
administration about the true dangers of Islamist groups. He dismisses these
charges as “ideologically-inspired”. After 9/11, there were growing fears that
people would talk about the root causes and that they would focus on the
Arab-Israeli crisis and if they focused on it some Americans would want to
address this imbalanced approach. He believes that he represents an alternative
school of thought within American academia — what America is truly about, free
speech, open dialogue, and a multiplicity of views. Indeed, if we take the
Soviet Union analogy, these highly treasured values of “free speech, open
dialogue, and a multiplicity of views” come exactly under the title of Pravda.
Summary
According to Stanley Kurtz, there is reason to believe that
the academy’s multiculturalist and post-colonial blinders represent more than a
sad and silly waste of intellectual energy – more, even, than the spiritual
corruption of a generation of America’s youth. Moreover, there is reason to
believe that the reigning multiculturalist foolishness of the American academy
may be directly connected to the intelligence failure that led to September 11.
Of the scholars who dominate Middle Eastern Studies – most of them are deeply
hostile to American foreign policy and Israeli existence – having long
stigmatized and ostracized academicians who work with the American government
and they are ideologically biased against the US foreign policy.
The analogy to the 1930s is obvious. There is much evidence
that Chamberlain was encouraged in his appeasement policy by the academia of
Oxford and Cambridge, and the communication media headed by The Times of London
– both warmly supported the Munich Agreement. Today, the American government’s
branches are facing a misleading onslaught by these multiculturalist and
post-colonial blinders toward a policy of appeasement, and in fact
subordination to the forces of evil.
The problem is not the Esposito School as such, but the
views they proliferate under the cover of academic expertise; the spread of
multiculturalist and post-colonial vanities, intertwined with false moral
relativism, and the huge misquotations and the mere propaganda in their
publications.
More dangerous is the multiplication of new generations of
academia members with the same misconceptions and the march of stupidity. It is
one thing to be wrong in the classroom, but it can be far more dangerous when
such wrong-headed theories begin to affect policy. As long as the academia
continues to be the main source of spreading such ideas, it will continue to
deteriorate intellectually; it will stop being relevant to reality; and above
all it will continue to mislead political leaders and policies, and by doing
so, will contribute to national disasters. The worst danger is the growing
irrelevance of academia to the day-to-day life, to improving political values and
norms, rather than being a reliable source of knowledge to public opinion and
people at large.
[Blog Editor: At this point Bill Warner included a
bibliography of now either outdated links or “unsecure” links. I’ll let you do
the checking: https://www.politicalislam.com/the-esposito-school/]
Copyright © 2008,
CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com
Use this as you
will, just do not edit and give us credit.
++++++++++++++++
23. Educate Yourself on the Perils of Islam...
November 2008
Unpublished link: http://slantedright.blogspot.com/2008/11/educate-yourself-on-perils-of-islam.html
NCCR/CPCR Link: https://oneway2day.com/2008/11/30/educate-yourself-on-the-perils-of-islam/
Photo: Sharia Law Threatens America - UAC Photo
Educate Yourself on the Perils of Islam, Shariah Law and
Shariah Finance
Thank God there are a number of organizations and
individuals (utilizing websites) that are brave enough to face the money of
Islamist billionaires, dhimwitted Islamic support of many of the Slanted Left
as well as pro-Arab RINO’s in the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of
the USA.
As I wrote that last sentence I feel the need to list some
of these brave websites in no particular non-exhaustive order. I am certain
there are more and thank God for those I cannot remember or I am unaware of.
[Updating the links where possible, some websites from 2008 may have ceased to
exist]
· Dhimmi
Watch [Jihad Watch ended Dhimmi Watch]
·
CAIR Watch [Still
exists but hasn’t been updated since April 2008 and is now listed as “Not
secure”]
· American
Congress for Truth [Has ceased under that name and original link redirects to ACT for America]
· Investigative Project on
Terrorism
· Muslims
Against Sharia [Original “Not secure” link comes up “Forbidden” in my browser.
I ran into a website (still “Not secure”) called ReformIslam.net. I have no
doubt displeasing to the Muslim devout.]
· Shariah Finance Watch
[Link updated but may experience a Cloudflare security check to accept your
connection. In my case, sometimes connected and sometimes not. If or when
connects, the last page update was 5/19/20.]
· Islamist Watch
[Original “Not secure” link redirects to Middle
East Forum managed Islamist Watch which appears last updated
in 2021]
· GlobalSecurity.org [Global
Security has evolved to Left of Center, so glean info with that in mind.]
· Middle East Forum [ABOUT PAGE]
· Middle East Media Research Institute
[These days better known as MEMRI. ABOUT
PAGE]
· Gates of Vienna [Link updated
BUT original link goes to somewhat archived older “Not secure” Gates
of Vienna posts which ended posting on 1/19/13]
· Islam 101 [A project
of Jihad Watch]
Thank God this is not even close to the amount of bloggers
and educators of Islam that can be accessed on the Net. I could even include
myself though I am less an expert than a disseminator of the information that
is out there. There is a little irony in that many of these websites do not see
eye to eye. Some are ex-Muslims (atheists and Christians), some are actually
Muslims who seek the reform of the violent nature of Islam, some are
secularists and some are simply defenders of Western Principles and/or the
American Way. They all have one thing in common: exposing the radical nature of
Islam that Westerners are kept in the dark about.
There is one anti-Islamist organization that is bold enough
to place a bill board in one of the biggest hotbeds of radical Islamic support
in America – United America Committee (UAC) [Apparently
the UAC has ceased operations. HOWEVER, I know the UAC was led by Thomas Trento
who appears to be doing Counterjihad/Pro-Israel operations at The United West. Here’s
TUW ABOUT PAGE].
The UAC has placed a bill board in the Detroit metropolitan area (which
includes the notorious Dearborn(istan)
[Updated link to SlantRight Blogger archive site 7/24/07] which
proclaims:
“SHARIA LAW THREATENS AMERICA”
WorldNetDaily has
the UAC story [Updated Link] which includes examples of how
Federal, State and local governments are actually considering the practices of
radical Islam into our society.
JRH [Defunct SlantRight link
removed] 11/28/08
[Since the SlantRight domain was terminated, at
the now
updated CPCR post is the updated WND link to 11/28/08 post. Since the
story is about UAC Counterjihad activism, I suspect many if not all WND source
links are dead.]
+++++++++++++
Blog Editor: WOW! Remarkably, two Blogger unpublished
posts turns out to be a lengthy update. This is the end of PART SIX with SEVEN
sometime in the future.
JRH 6/23/23
Thank you to those who have stepped up! I need Readers
willing to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100. PLEASE YOUR generosity is
appreciated. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:
YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT via buying women’s menstrual health, healthy collagen,
vitamin supplements/products, coffee from my wife’s Online store: My
Store (please use referral discount code 3917004): https://modere.co/3f9x6xy
Big Tech Censorship is
pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
