You are here:   Reputations >  Overrated > Overrated: John Esposito
 

Hitherto almost entirely uninformed about everything Islamic, official America has been taking Esposito at his valuation of himself as an authority. He has briefed the State Department, the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. A tireless operator, he is, or has been, on a dozen bodies operating in the margins, such as the United Nations Alliance of Civilisations, the European Network of Experts on De-radicalisation, and the Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy. He has also been president of the Middle East Studies Association, the body that used to represent professional Arabist scholars before it was taken over by anti-Western and anti-Israeli activists of the Edward Said type.

Most of Esposito's 30-plus books have been written in collaboration with like-minded useful idiots, such as Georgetown colleague John O. Voll, Azzam Tamimi, a supporter of Palestinian terror groups, and Egyptian-born Dalia Mogahed, who backs the Muslim Brotherhood and has written pro-Islam speeches for President Obama. The books are repetitive exercises in Muslim apologetics.

Millions of Muslims have been killed since 1945 by other Muslims in wars and revolutions, and millions more Muslims, Christians and Jews driven into exile, but Esposito's expertise lies in skipping over realities of the kind. His pitch is that the Arab and Muslim countries are doing well, modernising, liberalising and democratising. "Diversity and variety, dynamism and flexibility," he writes in denial of the political and social degradation of the region, "account for a force that continues to be present from Africa to Asia." Or again, "Elections in Bahrain, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Malaysia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia [oh yes!] . . . have reinforced both the continual saliency of democracy and, in particular, the role of religion in electoral politics"—the last clause negating the entire proposition.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
February 22nd, 2013
4:02 PM
Whilst there are, undoubtedly, criticisms to be made of Esposito's work, general methodological approach and apparent influence, this article falls short of the critical standard required to be taken seriously. Rather like the 'Reputations' piece on Umberto Eco, which left the impression of the writer never having read anything by the author, Pryce-Jones appears to have never engaged intellectually with the subject and study of Islam. Clearly 'Reputations' is a short piece format, but the contrast with the informed academic tone of the article by Geza Vermes ('Writing and Rewriting the Bible in the time of Jesus') in the same issue is, frankly, shocking. This is undeserving of 'Standpoint'.

Eliott
December 27th, 2012
5:12 PM
Spot on, both the article and the comment above. I too am amazed at how succesful the Saudis have been in penetrating Anglo-American academia. Islamic study programmes seem to me to be an exercise in propoganda. It is shocking for example that Tariq Ramadan, who is financed by the Qataris, is allowed to call himself a Professor at Oxford University. He has not written any work of note and specialises in child like polemics. Truly sad.

Anonymous
December 20th, 2012
2:12 PM
There will always be 'useful idiots' who will spout apologias for the most reprehensible regimes - what will never cease to amaze me however is how easily US and UK universities roll over and offer them academic plum positions, tenure etc etc just for some Arab potentate's money. And even more amazed that nobody in the US or UK pick up on the skewed and biased 'scholarship' that emanates from these Muslim 'study centres'. It's simply paid for propaganda. Surely something skirting this close to immorality must also be of questionable legal status?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.