Back in April I exposed Professor Juan Cole for the Islamic apologist he is, and when I challenged him to a debate he disappeared like Houdini. Today we will take a look at Georgetown Professor John Esposito. He is another Islamic apologist, who is the founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding." In other words, he is paid by the Saudis to cover for Islam. Lets take a look at his article in today's Washington Post.
Violent 'Muslims' distort the tradition
What should we call terrorists, some of whom claim to be motivated by their religion? Can one be an Islamic terrorist? What about a Christian terrorist? Does what we call terrorists matter?
John, how about we do not play games and call them what they are? They are Islamic terrorists.
The position of WINEP reflects its own long standing interests interests as that of the Israeli government to obscure the primary drivers in the Israel-Palestine conflict which are political, the seizure and occupation of Palestinian territories which have been condemned by UN resolutions and major human rights organizations internationally and in Israel itself.
John, the primary driver in the Israel-Palestine conflict, is that organizations like Hamas want to destroy Israel in the name of Islam.
From the Hamas charter:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
The next paragraph is where Esposito, really turns on the spin cycle.
The more correct terminology would be to use the term terrorists or Muslim terrorists. The latter term, Muslim terrorists, indicates that the terrorists are self-described Muslims. In contrast, Islamic terrorists communicates the idea that the terrorism is a direct result of the religion of Islam itself. While the atrocities and acts of terrorism committed by violent extremists have connected Islam with terrorism, the Islamic tradition places limits on the use of violence and rejects terrorism, hijackings, and hostage taking. As with other faiths, mainstream and normative doctrines and laws are ignored, distorted, or hijacked and misinterpreted by a radical fringe. Islamic law, drawing on the Quran, sets out clear guidelines for the conduct of war and rejects acts of terrorism.
In the paragraph above, Esposito clearly is not telling us the truth. Here are some of the "limits" that Islamic tradition places on the use of violence.
From the Muslim ahadith. This verse shows us that Mohammad did not care if women and children were killed in night raids.
Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.
Lets take a look at another Islamic "limit" on violence.
From the Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Which has the stamp of approval of Al Azhar, the world's highest learning Islamic school.)
Justice chapter, Jihad: THE RULES OF WARFARE:
o9.15 It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings.
Esposito then went on to say that Islam rejects terrorism. Yea, OK Espo…
From the Koran:
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers:
I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.
YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
From the Bukhari ahadith:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Is that clear enough for you Esposito? I doubt it….
In the professors next attempt to whitewash Islam, he stated that Islam rejects hijackings.
From The Reliance of the Traveller
Justice chapter, THE SPOILS OF WAR:
o10.2 As for personal booty, anyone who despite resistance, kills one of the enemy or effectively incapacitates him, risking his own life thereby, is entitled to whatever he can take from the enemy, meaning as much as he can take away with him in the battle, such as a mount, clothes, weaponry, money, or other.
From the Muslim ahadith:
Book 019, Number 4332:
It has been narrated by Ibn 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent an expedition to Najd, and I (also) went with the troops. We got camels and goats as spoils of war, and our share amounted to twelve camels per head, and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) gave an extra camel to each of us.
Espositos next attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, was to state that Islam does not allow hostage taking.
From The Reliance of the Traveller
Justice chapter, THE RULES OF WARFARE:
o9.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph considers the interests and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
As we can see, once again Esposito is easily proven wrong, and is covering for the enemy.
In most cases, political and economic grievances are primary causes or catalysts and religion becomes a means to legitimate the cause and mobilize popular support. Contexts (political and socioeconomic), not religious texts, politics not piety, are often the primary causes or drivers. Religious texts or doctrines provide the source for legitimation and mass mobilization. As Robert Pape's authoritative studies, See, Dying to Win, demonstrate regarding suicide bombers in most faiths, the primary driver is most often occupation. Religion becomes a means to legitimate and motivate.
Esposito you are talking about of both sides of your mouth now, because Islam is combination of religion and politics. Islam is clearly advancing across the world and if not stopped, our families future generations will suffer under Islamic rule. That includes your family Espo, but you make sure you pick up your Saudi funded paycheck this week…