Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam

Rating:
Summary: insidious
Review: . . . and I use the word in its strictest sense: "more harmful than is apparent."

The only reason Esposito has been able to rise to the heights of his profession is basically because his audience consists either of Muslims who approve of all the congratulatory things he says about Islam, or Americans who simply don't know one way or the other -- and naturally would like to believe his drivel about "the peaceful religion."

Notice that his audiences never consist of those (non-Muslims) who haved lived and traveled in the Middle East, who speak and read Arabic, who have read the Koran, or who have dealt with Muslims and Arabs for years. Such people invariably revile Esposito and would promptly laugh him off stage.

Still, it's interesting how someone can study a subject academically for all his life and never really see it . . .

For a useful analysis of Islam without rose-colored glasses: Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones, Thomas Friedman, Victor Davis Hanson, Serge Trifkovic, Bat Ye'or, Daniel Pipes -- even Bernard Lewis, if you must.

Rating:
Summary: Very Understanding
Review: Esposito sure has a nice way of glossing over the truth. The heart of the matter is missed and the fundamental force behind the Islamic faith is left in the corner of the closet somewhere. Since he shared his ideas, and we do have 1st Amendment rights, here are mine - the Islamic faith and the teachings of the Koran are to drive the believer of these misconceptions with a goal of world domination - religiously and if necessary, violently. How blatant and how clear the Koran is. How necessary for us to realize that to stop the core of this terrorism is to stop the spread of this "religious system", or dare I/we say - militant system? It's also time to put an end to political correctness.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent primer
Review: Esposito, certainly one of the foremost scholars today who deals knowledgeably with the interrelationship of Islam and Christianity, has produced this short but extremely readable and relevant book detailing in succint form what he believes to be the issues that are the basis for the struggle between radical Islam and America. I highly recommend this book for people who come to the issue with little prior knowledge about the issues shaping the problem, or anyone who wants to have a better understanding of the topic, regardless of the amount of knowledge they bring to the table. This book just may whet your appetite for more reading on the subject!

Rating:
Summary: Very Understanding
Review: He tells it like it is. No B.S.

Muslim extremists follow Wahabism, not Islam. Both Muslim Extremists(or wahabists) and anti-islamic authors try to reinterpret the Quran(usually by taking verses out of context) to justify the killing of innocent civilians.

The Quran still remains unchanged. Fact is, the Quran encrouages believers to promote justice by any means necessary. Cause without justice, one can't have peace. It is a realistic book.

Anti-Islamic authors tend to show what some brutal Muslim leaders have committed and then try to relate it to Islam and make it seem as if these leaders are doing what Islam instructs. They want to prove that Islam is Muslims! It is NOT! Not one book exists that shows me a verse from the Quran that tells Muslims to spread Islam by force! Not surprising, cause it doesn't exist.

Yes, there are more than 1.2 billion Muslims around the world, but how many follow the Quran? Sadly, not as much as one might think(espicially in the arab world)

Very recommended book.

Rating:
Summary: Missing a few points
Review: I picked this title hoping to increase my understanding of how these groups justify terror in pursuit of their goals. Esposito is an expert (per his bio), but after reading the book, I'm concerned. The conclusion I got from the book is that mainstream Islam is now the violent, death-to-the-infidel that myself and most others fear. The author does some justice to Islam's history, skipping though, some very important events. The battle of Tours and the later seiges of Vienna, where Moslem expansion into central Europe ended, are skipped. I have to think that if a people's memory is that long, that these defeats play some part in the character of the culture. Esposito fails to mention them. Also, his reformers of the last part of the book are mostly without voice outside of a very small area. I'm glad there are a few peaceful men (notice no Muslim women are mentioned anywhere) but, historically every major cultural change has been accompanied by years of violence. The freeing of the French people, and the American Civil war come to mind. The dictators and tyrants who currently rule the mid-east know this and are very wary of having their subject peoples direct their frustration inward. They would all probabaly be replaced if attention was directed to the true source of the citizens troubles. Esposito mentions this, but doesn't elaborate. I wish he had. Fine background into Islamic belief, but fails to truly describe why thousands danced in the streets of Levant on 11 Sept '02.

Rating:
Summary: One of the Few Impartial Voices Explaining Islam
Review: John Esposito is a professor of religion and International Affairs at Georgetown, born and raised a Catholic, and one of the founders of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown. He's also a consultant to the State Department, which means he's politically knowledgeable. His books are not only level-headed and impartial, they're knowledgeable -- he has a Ph.D. in Islamic studies, which is more than the authors of most of the sensationalist books on Islam on the market at the moment. He really has no agenda except (as obvious) to promote understanding between religions.

Given that, it's refreshing to read this book. It gives the background of why people like bin Laden exist (he doesn't excuse them -- he just tells us why they exist), gives the Islamic doctrine of jihad (which, despite people who throw the term around indiscriminately, means a defensive war under certain limited conditions), and tries to explain how the doctrine of jihad is being misused. People who refer to the "real meaning of jihad" as what happened on 9/11 are simply displaying ignorance and a resistance to becoming informed.

Dealing with 9/11 means dealing with the complex morass of issues that provoked it. Esposito helps us understand some of those issues. He also provides a glossary in the back for Arabic terms that the media has no trouble using as if they know what they mean (such as shari'a).

The media distorts Islam so out of proportion that any attempt to correct inaccuracies is denounced as "whitewashing." Esposito does not whitewash. He tries to explain and promote understanding. He is not pro-Islam. In fact, he's not pro-anybody. He states facts and he doesn't explain everything in terms of good-guy/bad-guy, white/black, good/evil. Although that is bound to make some people uncomfortable, the world is not black and white.

I highly recommend this book if you want to stop being manipulated by the media and to make a sincere attempt at understanding some of the turmoil in the world today.

Rating:
Summary: Very well written, but belongs in the fiction section
Review: John L. Esposito casts himself in the role of King Canute in his latest book, apparently attempting to single handedly hold back the tides of Islamophobia which he perceives to be sweeping the West in general and post 9/11 America in particular. Esposito takes an opposing view to that expressed by the likes of Alan Dershowitz that we should waste no time agonising over motivation, cause and background to Islamic terror attacks. Esposito feels it is important to understand the background to the conflict and the way the people involved think. I agree. It's an excellent aim. And far from just politically correct - to understand the enemy (and Esposito points out the Muslims in general are not the enemy) aids, is even essential to, the fight. To understand is not to excuse. Nor is it to forgive.

Unfortunately, at times Esposito blurs the lines a bit and by the end of the book I felt this had eaten into his credibility quite a bit. He seems to have bought into the whole Post-colonialist reading of history and that isn't the least of it. One of Esposito's central ideas is to demonstrate that Islam and the West are not incompatible and that there is no "Clash of Civilisations". Again, I agree that there is no clash of civilisations. However, Esposito spends much of his time talking about how Muslims and Christians can live side by side - far less time talking about how Muslims and secularists can cheerfully live side by side. Which is a worry. He also perhaps goes a little far in sticking up for the idea of Western standards of Human Rights as being unnecessary and patronising in an Islamic World context. A little bit of cultural relativism goes a long way, but at times Esposito ends up sounding like a left wing version of the numerous big business defenders of "Asian Values" in places like Malaysia. Worst of all is his defence of the work done by people like Hamas and Hezbollah in the realms of education and "public service". Esposito seems to dislike the tendency of Western governments to limit funding to these groups and apparently is of the view that a clear and genuine seperation exists between the abovementioned groups terrorist activities and their charitable works - this is a dangerous point of view that can at best be put down to willful naivety.

So a good book in concept then, but heavily flawed in execution. Esposito's coverage of the various thinkers behind militant Islam is useful and he obviously has a passion for his subject but while I would recommend this book as something to provoke, moderate and get the old brain ticking over I would caution against taking it as completely gospel.

Rating:
Summary: Bitterly disappointing, dishonest and Irrepesponsible
Review: Like many others (I'm sure), I selected this book based on the credentials of its author. I had hoped for a well-researched, reasoned, and, above all, TRUTHFUL meditation on the topic. By my naive reasoning, a respected social scientist, through their passionate dedication to a chosen field of research, would keep fidelity with the facts of the matter, and add the true insight that is born of this passion.

What I got was somewhat older, some eyestrain, and a sense of having been cheated.

This is not to say that this work hasn't had an impact on my life. As a result of my exposure to Mr. (Dr.?) Esposito's work, I am now FAR more distrustful of muslims in general and, for the first time, open to the weird conservative theory that universities are more about indoctrination than education. Congratulations, John.

This is, put succinctly, the most intellectually dishonest tripe I have read in 40+ years of reading. Esposito should be ashamed of this work, as should any university allowing him a venue for such illogical excrement.

To save other naive souls the time and aggravation, allow me to sum up Mr. Esposito's blindingly insightful work in 10 points he would like you to understand:

#1. All muslims are very nice people.
#2. Well, maybe not ALL of them, but the few bad apples like bin laden are only products of highly respected muslim teachings of a few hundred years ago and about 50 years ago. #3. What these naughty muslims are doing is completely against the teachings of the Koran, even though it really kind of isn't, if you interpret their behavior as a form of self-defense for Islam.
#4. None of this matters anyway, because Christianity is at least as bad if not much worse, considering the crusades, who can blame them for the premeditated killing of women, children and other muslims?
#5. And while we're on that topic, all of this is our fault anyway (Espisito, in perhaps the most spectacular example of reverse reasoning ever witnessed, actually cites the NATO policy of high-altitude flight during missions over Bosnia as one of the many "crimes" committed by our muslim-hating country against Islam).
#6. Muslim society and culture is actually far more progressive in its treatment of women, because the ladies love to wear the pretty scarves (and, presumably those alluring burkhas). It doesn't matter that they can't occupy high positions of government because... because... it just doesn't, OK?
#7. This is all the Wahhabi's fault. Wait a minute... no it's not. Sorry about that.
#8. Islam is perfectly compatible with democracy, even though the Koran clearly states that all government must be overseen by at least one Imam. Trust me on this one...
#9. Islam is a wonderfully tolerant religion. The Koran specifically states that, under certain restrictions, it is perfectly OK to allow Jews and Christians to go on living.
#10. Apart from us, the only other cause of terrorism in Islam is our habit of forcing savage dictatorships on the arab peoples. Egypt is especially yucky. We should drop our support of that government, so the Islamic freedom fighters there could get on with their various chores, like throwing grenades at Anwar Sadat for signing a peace accord, or machine-gunning German tourists in the Valley of the Kings.

So there you have it. The sense that the reader comes away with is that Mr. Esposito believes that, in writing this book, his role is higher and far more noble than simply communicating the sum of relevant knowledge on the topic. After all, the lesser beings he will enlighten are far too stupid and irresponsible to make up their own minds. Much better to write a clumsy, unsolicited and suspiciously incompetent defense to some invisible accusation than inform.

Perhaps this author might consider that the first step to dealing with the problem is recognizing it as a problem-not denying it through weird, irrelevant contextualizations, or justifying it with obscure or imagined offenses against the muslim world over the last 300 years. Through this dishonest and condescending rubbish, he has not only vaporized his own credibility in my eyes, but that of his subject premise as well.