<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: wise view
Review: A wise man said "Don't judge before you know all the facts" and that's what the writer wants to say, the population of the world is about 5 billion, 1 billion of them are Muslims which means 1 of every 5 persons is a Muslim. Blaming Muslims for the attacks on the twins is not fair because we can't blame 1 billion Muslims for the acts of 10 or 20 of them like we can't blame all the German people for "Hitler" actions! The book is an objective one and it's one of the most interesting books I've ever seen, the writer covered most of the important facts about Islam, and we must be objective because I believe that since the 11th of September attacks most of the world believes that Muslims mean terrorism and cruelty but that's not right because Islam is a religion of peace and any one doesn't believe that he should read the translation of the "Holy Quran" but a reliable translation of course, and let's not be so blind to see that the 11th of September attacks have it's causes which is strongly related to the American policy! At the end I'll say it's important to know before we talk because ignoring the facts doesn't change them.
Rating:
Summary: Balanced and Objective
Review: Another attempt to cast a people into a light that makes them look more palatable to the rest of us, but I think the author only gets halfway there. What really frightens me most about the recent actions being perpetrated across the globe today is the wide range of support they receive from Moslems at the grass roots levels all over the world, even in so-called moderate states like Saudi Arabia (where they're convinced that Israel knocked down the twin towers with a nuclear warhead) and Indonesia (where they think America did). It's the man on the street in Riyadh and Jakarta who scares me more than Saddam does. Sure, Moslems are people, just like anyone else. It's useless to demonize them. But they follow a teaching that REQUIRES the defeat and murder of the rest of us. Sounds like a threat to me. How about you?
Rating: 
Summary: Good reseach, poorly written and argued.
Review: Esposito's book is helpful in many ways-mostly because it shows that "political Islam," "fundamentalist Islam" and like terms inaccurately imply a certain uniformity of opinion and agenda to very disparate groups. In short, there exists a powerful reformist current among Islamic political groups that seems willing to work within democratic political institutions-should any such thing appear in the countries in which they exist. Esposito demonstrates these points nicely. However, he implies that these two points undercut those who argue that militant, reactionary Islamic groups are a real danger. A second, and related, problem is that Esposito consistently glosses over the truly objectionable (from a liberal-pluralist view, anyway) actions taken by Islamic governments and groups. He takes exception to the designation of Khaddafi as a major sponsor of terrorism (p.82), yet is not willing to discuss precisely what Khaddafi's actions have been in this regard. Similarly, he provides a list of nasty things that "Iran was accused of" (p. 121) without saying much about the truth or falsity of those accusations. He argues that both charges are exaggerated. Fair enough, but he simply asserts the accusations were in fact inaccurate, without providing an argument to support his assertion. The author's style is shown clearly in the chapter on "Islamic Organizations: Soldiers of God." First, he quotes some newspapers to demonstrate that there is an hostility to political Islam, then wants to argue that this hostility is misplaced and simplistic. "Yet again the reality is far more complex than its popular image. The majority of Islamic organizations would claim that, where permitted, they work within the political system...Many Islamic organizations today espouse liberalization and democratization" (p. 128). Citing what such organizations "would claim" or what they "espouse" is perhaps a bit disingenuous. What we need to know is what they plan to do, and whether they plan "one man, one vote, one time"-to end any democratic opening by establishing an Islamic state. Esposito notes that such questions are difficult to answer-most organizations are factionalized and many are unclear about their ultimate intentions. However, this does not refute those who argue that such organizations are dangerous. He makes the same point again and again, and it is no more convincing each time: Political Islam is heterogeneous, and therefore those who say it represent a danger are wrong. Esposito would have been more accurate to point out that many of those (newspaper columnists) who argue as to the supposed dangers of Islam are really only referring to a small, if violent, subset of Islamic organizations. Simply put, Esposito is not skilled at argumentation-his strengths are in research and synthesis. For example, the author makes an interesting comparison on p. 215. He asks rhetorically why people have feared democratization in the Islamic world, but not in Eastern Europe? Is it "because...we believe... the Judeo-Christian tradition... is more democratic?" Good question. He implies that we in the West simply dismiss Muslim societies as "not conducive to democratization or modernity." Bad answer. It seems obvious that, whatever the problems of Eastern Europe, very large, mass-based political parties and organizations with highly questionable allegiance to democracy-and some with a history of militance and terrorism-simply don't exist on the same scale as in many Muslim societies. That is, communism is discredited, and the major parties all want in to NATO and the EU (for good or for ill). It's an obvious riposte, but one that apparently didn't occur to Esposito. The book is not particularly well written. His use of parenthetical comments is excessive and confusing, and he seems allergic to the use of the comma. He repeats himself almost verbatim at several points, making parts of the book seem like a rough draft-and this is the third edition! Most seriously, in the last, most important, chapter-where he takes on Huntington and Lewis-the footnotes are mis-ordered starting on number 29-one is missing, and the rest are accordingly inaccurate. How did the editor at Oxford University Press let that happen? To return to the book's strengths, it is quite good at demonstrating that the truly reactionary, militant groups-for example in Algeria-were in large part radicalized by oppressive governments. Esposito also shows nicely that the U.S. is quite happy to support secular autocratic governments in the Middle East and elsewhere, yet decries as dangerous those Islamic groups which someday, just might form an autocratic government. These are very helpful points. But overall, the book is over-rated by those who have reviewed it here and elsewhere. Let me give one more example of the author's style of argumentation to make my point. In the final chapter, he writes, "Despite stereotypes of activists as fanatics who wish to retreat to the past, the vast majority share a common call for the transformation of society not through a blind return to seventh-century Medina but a response to the present" (p. 209). Note that there is no necessary contradiction between these to supposedly contradictory positions. That is, if we grant that the Islamists' proposed return to seventh-century Medina is not "blind," but, let's say, a reasoned and thoughtful "response to the present"-as Esposito shows it to be-then the stereotype is in fact reasonably accurate. Okay, so the call for a return to the past is not "blind", or unanimous-but it still might pose a danger for those who don't want to go along.
Rating:
Summary: Balanced and Objective
Review: I can't believe that many of those reviewing this book actually read it. For one thing, they miss the whole point of this book, which is this: though of course there are wackos out there like bin Laden, Islam does not sanction them. The attack on the Twin Towers was not "Islamic," as people persist in believing, any more than McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma City was Christian, even though McVeigh acted in the name of the Christian Identity Christian fundamentalist group and was raised a Catholic. The author is trying to put things in perspective -- we do not view people who base their violent actions on the Bible (like the Ku Klux Klan) as representative of Christianity, so why do we view terrorists who base their violent actions on the Qur'an as representative of Islam? For people who wish to stay secure in their stereotypes of Islam, this book will not be useful. But Esposito, a Catholic and a professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown, has no pro-Islamic agenda. It's his academic field. And he tries to put the record straight and explain the Islamic world in this book. (Simply the fact that Saudi Arabia is described by some reviewers as a "moderate" Islamic state when its version of Islam is actually an extremist fundamentalist one clearly shows the total lack of understanding that most people have of the Islamic world.) Do yourself a favor and get this book. It tries to clarify the media stereotypes, tries to foster understanding, is not pro-Islam (it's actually more critical of Islam than Muslims might wish), and is extremely balanced and objective. It presents a bigger picture, and if you truly want to educate yourself about the world with respect to Islam, then this is a great book.
Rating: 
Summary: A studied avoidance of the aims of radical Islam
Review: I hate to say this because Professor Esposito is personally a nice guy but he functions chiefly via his published writings, and particularly this book which I have read and reread at length, as an apologist for the worst excesses of political Islam. And it's a shame, because Esposito is an intelligent and articulate individual who has and acts out of a deep desire for peace between the Islamic and Judeo-Christian worlds. Because he is actuated by a desire to sooth tempers and promote peace, Esposito either consciously or more likely subconsciously ignores the more troubling rhetoric emanating from the traditional Muslim world and makes excuses for whatever speeches or party platforms he cannot in good faith ignore. Esposito, like John Voll of UNH or Abadi at the U.S. Air Force Academy are of the school that it is "bad" to honestly report the violent words and objectives of the Muslim fundamentalists. Esposito et al explain away the violent and troubling imagery employed by the fundamentalist Muslims by explaining that these speeches are driven more by internal politics and that the fundamentalist movement in all these countries (Iran, Sudan, Algeria, Egypt) can be mollified if only we in the West pumped more economic aid into these countries and increased living conditions. Not so. And I think the Muslim Brotherhood, AIM, the FIS, the Refah Party, Al-Nahda, the Islamic Rennaisance Party and others would be offended by Esposito's patronizing suggestion that they drop their anti-Western agenda for money. Esposito should take a look at Turkey, one of the wealthiest and most economically and politically advanced nations in the Islamic world and a staunch NATO ally. That country has now gone to the Islamic camp with the elevation of prime minister Erbakan who has called for "uncoupling" Turkey from NATO and the West, the formation of an "Islamic NATO" with Iran and the foundation of an "Islamic Union of States." Erbakan's election and the electoral success of the Refah (Welfare) Party in Turkey proves once and for all that fundamentalist Islam is driven by more than just poor economic conditions. Even in Egypt, the fundamentalists have successfully recruited to their cause wealthy doctors and lawyers and have captured the professional bar and most medical societies. So, the liberals' cry that radical Islam is driven by economic privation rings hollow. Esposito points to the Iranian Revolution and the fact that it has not yet spread to many other lands as evidence of the fact that there is, in his words, "no global Islamic threat." Not so. The global threat from fundamentalist Islam has just begun. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War competition means that Islam now has a chance to flourish again in the light of day without being "crowded out" of the ideological field by other competing ideologies like communism and capitalism/liberal democracy. I think conditions are auspicious for the resurgence on a grand scale of radical Islam and that we have been lulled by the last 15 years into thinking that the Iranian Revolution was the high water mark
Rating:
Summary: Excellent balance to warped US media
Review: I really do respect Esposito because it is very rare to find an honest writer trying to convey the truth as it is. Meanwhile I feel astonish to find educated people who judge a religion from the point of view of the others or judge a religion from horrible actions of people who just belong to this religion. I invite those who are trying to find the truth to read a reliable translation source of Al-Quran, the holy book of moslems, and Al-Sonna, the instructions of muslems' prophet (PBUH). Also, I ask them to read about the early days of Islam and the behavior of Mohamed (PBUH) with the captures and with the non-mulsems. Even after the death of Mohamed (PBUH) and during the early history of islam, muslems never killed innocent victims in such atrocity that we saw in WTC. "innocent victims" referrs to muslems and non-muslems who were there because Bin Laden and his group cannot differentiate between the type of victims who were at WTC at that time.
Rating:
Summary: Caution advised
Review: The idea of portraying bin Laden as a "wacko" who is divorced from his religion.. may I ask who has read the Quran? Go to the foundation of Islam, their very scriptures call for killing unbelievers. McVeigh was an atheist up until his execution, and could not even quote scripture.
Rating: 
Summary: A fantasy in which 9/11 didn't and couldn't happen
Review: This book, written before 9/11, tries to convince the reader that something like 9/11 will not happen. Well, it did happen.
It is not an accident that Esposito failed to admit that something like 9/11 might be in the works. His purpose was to whitewash Muslim terror. And it is worth noting that such books do no one any good. They certainly do not help Muslims!
<< 1 >>
| 
