Customer Reviews

The Future of Islam

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Dr. John Esposito's work, over many years, has attracted extreme responses. Right now, with the wounds of 9/11 and two wars still fresh in our American communities, anyone who takes a moderate stance on engaging Islam globally can become a target. So, in this review, I simply want to reflect journalistic responses to Dr. Esposito's latest book.

First, the generally hard-nosed staff at the Financial Times declared the book a "handbook for this new age of engagement. Intolerant of the extremists bent on provoking a clash of civilizations--Western Islamophobes and violent Islamists alike--Esposito's book is a calculated appeal to the moderate middle ground." That's a staff widely respected around the world and that's their judgment.

I agree. Now, you may take a strikingly different political stance than Dr. Esposito, but at least we should know what he's saying, since it has gained a great deal of interest in important places.

Here's what the book is not: If you've already read a good number of Esposito books, you'll find that this book is not entirely new. He spends a good number of pages summarizing points he's made in other books and articles and talks. Also, if you're really looking for a good introductory look at Islam from Esposito's perspective, I would recommend What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam That's a better overall "reader" as an introduction to Islam for new readers and also for small-group study and discussion.

Here's what this book is: It truly is a kind of "guidebook," summarizing the past decade of Esposito's own research and insight. The book is, indeed, intended as a sharp-edged look at the dilemmas the world faces right now. There are, indeed, very bad players out there in the world, he argues in the book, and there also are moderates doing creative work as well. In a nutshell, he urges Americans to engage with moderates because the world's future hangs in the balance.

If your group already knows something about Islam and global issues--or, if your small group really likes to roll up its sleeves and grapple with timely topics--then this book can spark some spirited discussion.

The Future of Islam taught me alot about Muslims in America and Europe and the challenges they face. The book provides easy to read background info on how Islam is used in politics and society as well as on the root causes of global terrorism around the world today.

Esposito portrays Islam's future in terms of a diverse mosaic of Muslim reformers whose ideas on womens' rights, human rights, democracy, war and peace are eye-opening! In the last chapter the author's insights on how to improve the future not only for the Muslim world but for us in the West as well were inspiring. The book is a great read for anyone who wants a global understanding of terrorism and real alternatives for peace. I've also enjoyed Esposito's Islam: the Straight Path and look forward to more in the future.

The Future of Islam Excellent book to learn objectively about Islam and help us get red of the unjustified fear of Islam that is being spread by the media and right wing politicians

One of the understandably scholalry reviewers has charged John L. Esposito of intellectual fraud for omitting any reference to Ibn Ishaq's work: Sirat Rasul Allah - Muhammad's earliest biography that brings across the allegedly dark and dirty side of his character. Such a criticism, however, is unwarrented and baseless. Any matured and discerning scholar of Islam does not take the Sirat Rasul Allah on its face value. The manuscript, compiled at least 150 years after Muhammad's death, was based on poetic narrations of some of the popular poets of Muhammad's era, and passed down the generations by word of mouth. That was a time (seventh to ninth centuries of Christian era) when human mind was dominated by fairy tales, legends and bizarre speculations. The poets were thus culturally oriented to present facts in highly emotional, embellished, fanatacised and exaggerated manner, primarily to appeal to the emotions of the listeners rather than to leaving hard historical records for posterity. There were indeed some critical scholars who denounced him. "Malik, one of the founders of four schools of Muslim theology, who was a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, called him `a devil'. Hisham bin Umara, another prominent theologian of the time said, `the rascal lies.' Imam Hanbal, one of the greatest jurists of Islam refused to rely on the traditions collected by him. There were many other learned men who held similar views about Ibn Ishaq's works. The same is more or less true of his successors like al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa`d..." - Muhammad and the Qur'an, London 1992, p. 12.

Hence, blaming Dr. Esposito for omitting any reference to Ibn Ishaq's work is unfair and unscholarly. His work greatly clarifies the misunderstanding and misconceptions about Muslims and Islam and at the same time assures the Muslims that they have many sympathisers in the West. It also brings across the evil paradigms of the modern era that are appropriated by the extremists, the radicals and the right wingers on both sides of the divide, and had been venerated by the past Bush administration, and their adverse fallout on the the mainstream Muslim community - in America, Europe, and the Middle East. The book also shows light at the end of the tunnel that the Islamophobes, the preachers of hate, the ultra-conservatives, the radicalised and militant Muslims and the media are jointly striving to block, with potentially terrible cosequences for the minority Muslim community in the West and globally perhaps.

Mohammed Yunus

excellent book, easy to read. it provides great and clear description of islam and excellent perspective of the future of this religion in general; a religion that has been tainted by terrorism and negative media, particularly in the US

l highly recommend it for everyone, particularly for those individuals who have negative opinions or perceptions about Islam and muslims. It shed lights on so many unanswered questions that many people are afraid to ask

Content Summary: Esposito here reviews some of the radical elements in modern day Islam, from the ideology of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, to the "godfather" of radical Sunni Islam, Sayyid Qutb. He demonstrates, however, that theirs is not the only or primary voice of Muslims today. In global surveys (from "Who Speaks for Islam Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think) he illustrates that Muslims have condemned 9/11 and that many want the same democratic freedoms many North Americans also cherish. In fact there are quite a few "modernists", from Timothy Winter to Amina Wadud, who believe that Islam's interpretation is more open, tolerant, inclusive of all other religions, and open to democratic concepts.

Analytical Review: Much of what Esposito has written here also appears in earlier works, such as "Unholy War" Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam and "Who Speaks for Islam?" Thus, parts of this book are not fresh and merely rehashing early works. That said, Esposito's section on Islamist reforms is very interesting, and Esposito makes some clear and definitive statements that only an inclusive, pluralist view of Islam will be able to reconcile itself to a more positive future with other religions. He does not pretend that problems do not exist, but fortunately does not confuse the problem elements and radical of Islam for the whole of the religion itself. The problem does not lie just with Muslims - but with any person (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or of any other ideology) who sees faith and belief as a zero-sum game, that some are right and others are damned. "The Future of Islam" is indeed open, and has a positive path before it, if Muslims and friends of Muslims everywhere are willing to take it.

Don't let the fancy title of this author, Professor at Georgetown University, or the name of the publisher, Oxford University Press, fool you. The book is more of a propaganda pamphlet trying to make a case for political Islam and I only, and regrettably, bought it because I saw it reviewed in the prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine.
This is the main theme of the book: John Esposito dwells on opinion polls - without presenting their methodology - to come up with conclusions about Western attitudes toward Islam and Muslims. He also includes polls for Muslims to explain their behavior toward the West.
Esposito argues that the majority of Americans knows little and is misinformed about Islam. This has caused American bigotry toward the community of Muslim-Americans, which should be viewed as no less American than any other ethnic group in the United States.
As American as Muslim-Americans can be, many of them maintain unfavorable views toward the United States, not because they are not allowed to integrate - which they are in general disregarding the anti-Muslim opinions of a few American radical right wingers - but because these Muslim-Americans, according to Esposito, have feelings of solidarity with their fellow Muslims around the world.
So Esposito, a "leading authority" on Islam as per the book's jacket, argues for Muslim-American integration in the United States, but at the same time sees no contradiction if these Muslim-Americans maintain their sentiments toward their "fellow" Muslims overseas.
Esposito does not run out of failing arguments. In this single volume, he writes that Muslims are angry with America over (a) America's support of dictators in Muslim countries, (b) America's sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein, (c) "the attempt to manage the process of democratization in post-Saddam Iraq". So whether America befriends Muslim dictators, twists their arms, or removes them by military force, choices that cover almost all available options for US foreign policy, Muslims would still think unfavorably of the United States.
But wait, it gets better when Esposito presents the moderates among Muslim thinkers. He complains that Muslim "[p]reachers of peace or conflict resolution might, if lucky, get a little coverage buried somewhere in the back pages."
On page 32, Esposito writes: "On September 27, 2001, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar)...issued a fatwa, signed by American Muslim leaders and internationally prominent Islamic scholars. The fatwa condemned bin Ladin's actions of 9/11 and sanctioned Muslim participation in the United States' military response in Afghanistan."
On page 140, Esposito writes: "While majorities of Muslims reject suicide bombing in Palestine, prominent religious scholars and leaders like Qaradawi have been at loggerheads with religious authorities in Saudi Arabia and Egypt on this issue."
So according to Esposito, Qaradawi - whom he presented as a moderate Muslim - condemns in a fatwa suicide attacks on 9/11, but sanctions - in another fatwa - suicide bombings in Palestine.
Or consider this figure that enjoys "international influence" that Esposito presents: Frahat Hashmi. Esposito writes that Hashmi "asserts only religious scholars should reinterpret Islamic law and that the Quran should dictate the parameters of such reform." Fair enough.
But to Hashmi, reform still means the implementation of Shariah. "Hashmi says Muslims should focus on inculcating Islamic values in a gradual approach to implement Shariah."
In Hashmi's words: "I don't think that the Shariah should be artificially enforced... Unfortunately this is what has been happening in Pakistan. The Prophet (PBUH) first won the hearts of the people by giving them laws to live by and for Him to explain and achieve this took many years. Take the case of alcohol: it was first touched upon lightly, then after a while more strongly and then the third time it was banned. The purpose behind it was gradually explained so when the final ban came, people were ready to accept it. I feel it is important to first explain the concept to people and give them time to understand, debate, and accept it. Nothing should just be imposed arbitrarily."
Esposito simply fails to notice that the only difference between Hashmi, the so-called reformer, and the more traditional "religious scholars" is the way of introducing new rules and prohibitions. Whereas the traditional Muslim scholars want the bans instant, Hashmi prefers to "prepare" the people through more propagandizing, then coming with the same bans when the people are softened enough.
And by the way, Hashmi lives and preaches her version of Islam in Canada, where perhaps she plans to implement the Shariah once Canadians understand it enough and are recipient to it.
Esposito, the self-proclaimed leading authority on Islam, prints a book with the biggest amount of false arguments. Even in terms of style, his spelling of Arabic words (Esposito did not use proper academic transliteration but rather stuck with his own simplistic way of spelling Arabic words in English) makes me believe that Esposito does not even know Arabic well.
The book is a waste of money. It needs a whole rebuttal book to correct its errors. But if you live in the West and therefore know little about Islam or Muslims as per Esposito's polls, don't buy this book because it will only mislead you.
Islam is not tantamount to terrorism. This is what Esposito unfortunately failed to argue.

I was very disappointed with Dr. Esposito's book on The Future of Islam. As a babe in the woods about the author, i innocently bought the book to learn about Islam from an "intellectual."
After the first 29 pages i went to bed exhausted from his anti-Israel rhetoric. The author used his credentials to rant about what is wrong with Israel.
The author is obviously coming from a biased position as he is founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. The Prince gave $$$$$$$ to set up this center. It is reminiscent of Jimmy Carter taking billions from a Saudi Prince to fund his projects and then writing a book blaming Israel for all the MidEast problems.
BTW i am in favor of a 2 State solution and a moratorium on building in Israel so negotiations can take place. But i also read books by professors for somewhat accurate work. Why didn't Dr. Esposito just call his book "My Personal Opinion about the Future of Islam?"

How is it that so many politicians, academics, and media analysts have such a poor understanding of Islam? Are they ignorant about Islam or is there a deeper problem?

The objective evidence shows that there is a deeper problem that goes far beyond simple ignorance. Ignorance is a failure to learn for reasons other than lack of ability to learn. Most politicians, academics, and media analysts are highly intelligent, educated, and experienced people and their understanding and approach to all subjects involving Islam has to stem from something far beyond simple ignorance.

I believe their inaccuracies derive from the same malady that has infected a large segment of Western society. Many have been so inundated by a misleading presentation of Islam that infects most mainstream educational and media sources that despite the fact that they have surely stumbled upon the truth about Islam at some point, they have been preconditioned to ignore, disregard or rationalize the truth. Books like "The Future of Islam" written by John L. Esposito contribute greatly to the problem. He seems bound and determined to use every deceit and clever literary trick he can to whitewash an inherently violent and intolerant religion. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the university with which he is associated has received generous donations from wealthy Muslims eager to lull Americans into a false perception of Islam.

One problem with "The Future of Islam" and other such inherently flawed presentations of Islam is that truth involves far more than saying what is true. The common law has recognized for centuries that when one speaks in certain settings that one is expected to give the whole truth. The greatest legal minds for centuries have understood that when one speaks on a subject one should not be allowed to deceive by careful omission of key information. A popular way to phrase the sentiment in California law is as follows: "Where one does speak he [or she] must speak the whole truth to the end that he [or she] does not conceal any facts which materially qualify those stated. One who is asked for or volunteers information must be truthful, and the telling of a half-truth calculated to deceive is fraud." By the foregoing standard, "The Future of Islam" perpetrates a fraud upon many of its readers. A dangerous misunderstanding of Islam arises from the book's failure to address any negative information about Muhammad even though much positive information about Muhammad is discussed as well as his absolute importance to the religion.

Islam is a revealed religion that derives exclusively from what Muhammad, Islam's seventh century founder, alleged Allah said were the rules for living and how Muhammad lived his life and instructed others to live. It is impossible to have an accurate understanding about Islam without understanding all that is alleged to have been said and done by Muhammad as described in the earliest biography about him titled "Sirat Rasul Allah," meaning life of God's Messenger in Arabic. The "Sirat Rasul Allah" reveals character attributes of Muhammad that are quite laudable and the mainstream media, academia, and books like "The Future of Islam" are very good at presenting those qualities, but the "Sirat Rasul Allah" also reveals Muhammad as a man that slaughtered captives, robbed caravans, sold women and children into slavery, had sexual relations with captive women, tortured prisoners, married a nine-year-old, forced his adopted son to divorce his wife so Muhammad could have her as a wife (she was purportedly quite beautiful), mandated war against non-Muslims, and who had some of his critics and rivals assassinated. [...] Ina religion that is obsessed with the life of Muhammad and his alleged beautiful example, is it not likely that the future of the religion will entail further emulation of the religion's beloved Prophet and Messenger? Moreover, the best predictor of the future is the past and it is likely that the future of Islam will mirror its very violent and aggressive past. John Esposito can fantasize all he wants, but real Islam will never go quietly into the night as did Christianity. People like Mr. Esposito falsely believe that Islamic culture will slowly secularize like Christian culture did, but such a belief represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam.

I only recommend "The Future of Islam" to those Islamic critics that want to see how the religion is falsely portrayed by the left-wing academic elite. For everyone else, save your money. You can read for free what the real future holds for Islam at the two following websites: [...].