The Islamic Threat : Myth or Reality? (Third Edition) [Paperback]

John L. Esposito (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0195130766 | ISBN-13: 978-0195130768 | Publication Date: October 7, 1999 | Edition: 3

Are Islam and the West on a collision course? From the Ayatollah Khomeini to Saddam Hussein, the image of Islam as a militant, expansionist, and rabidly anti-American religion has gripped the minds of Western governments and media. But these perceptions, John L. Esposito writes, stem from a long history of mutual distrust, criticism, and condemnation, and are far too simplistic to help us understand one of the most important political issues of our time. In this new edition of The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, Esposito places the challenge of Islam in critical perspective. Exploring the vitality of this religion as a global force and the history of its relations with the West, Esposito demonstrates the diversity of the Islamic resurgence--and the mistakes our analysts make in assuming a hostile, monolithic Islam. This third edition has been expanded to include new material on current affairs in Turkey, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Southeast Asia, as well as a discussion of international terrorism.

Editorial Reviews

Review

*Praise for previous editions:

"Esposito has written that rarest, and most useful, of books: a consideration of 'Islamic Fundamentalism' by someone who knows what he's talking about."--The Village Voice Literary Supplement

"Offers a valuable history of the leading figures and movements in the 20th century Islamic revival, underlining the trend in recent years away from violence and toward parliamentary practices."--The New York Times

"One of America's foremost authorities and interpreters of Islam...offers an informed and reasoned discussion of Islam in politics."--The Wall Street Journal

"There is no superior voice explaining Muslims to us."--Times Higher Education Supplement

About the Author

John L. Esposito is at Georgetown University.

Product Details

• Paperback: 352 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; 3 edition (October 7, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195130766
• ISBN-13: 978-0195130768
• Product Dimensions: 7.9 x 5.3 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (24 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #760,016 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

40 of 49 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Esposito: A Bridge between Two Communities, December 26, 1999

By 

C. King Khidr (Damascus, Syria) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Islamic Threat : Myth or Reality? (Third Edition) (Paperback)

Esposito is writing as a secular liberal with a sympathetic desire to eradicate the dominant Western fear that Islam stands as a tyrannical military threat to Europe and North America. Such a stance doesn't mean that he turns a blind eye to the militant and radically hostile anti-Western war-cries emanating from various corners of the Muslim world. On the contrary, he attempts to relegate such voices into their proper place -- which is that of a very small minority -- unlike the many Western political theorists who take such voices to be indicative of Islam itself. In doing so he argues that the vast majority of Muslims don't represent a black plague and that Islam isn't inherently hostile, despite the sophistry of the unemployed cold-warriors who feel forced to, as he puts it, "fill the threat-vacuum created from the demise of communism." After all, why has Islam suddenly become the new enemy? Were Muslims non-existent during the communist era? Esposito effectively highlights the various motives underlying attempts to vilify Islam, fixating such attempts against the contextual backdrop of the recent collapse of communism.

This is not to belittle the fact that Muslims, generally do stand opposed to most secular Western principles and values. But to stand in opposition to someone's values is one thing, to desire a Nazi-style elimination of him is another. This is the problem with the McCarthyistic demonization of Islam, a paranoic fear fueled by the false presumption that Islam's inherent anti-modernistic tendencies imply that the religion and its adherents are obsessed with a holocaustic elemination of all Westerners. The protagonists of such a view take their que from contemporary Islamic millitants, failing to see that such terrorists, (albeit the anti-Islamic nature of their deeds), are generally REACTING to Western POLITICAL interventions upon Muslim self-determination -- interventions that are often themselves instigated by misguided political theorists (who perhaps desire continued funding for thier think-tanks). This creates a viscious cycle of negative-feedback, like an amplifier that picks up and magnifies its own sound: intervention creates resentment which leads some to militant reaction which instigates more intervention; and so the pattern continues culminating in the likes of Laden. What Esposito seeks to do is pull the plug out of the amplifier. A sympathic course safeguards him from fanning the flames, which is why he is endeared by a large Muslim audience and even gets invited to speak at Muslim conferences. Few other non-Muslims have contributed to such an irenic enterprise as he has. For this he stands as a bridge between two communities.

THE ISLAMIC THREAT is a must read for anyone interested in the complex and multi-faceted dynamic that govern contemporary Western-Islamic relations.

54 of 68 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Balanced and Objective, September 8, 2002

By A Customer

This review is from: The Islamic Threat : Myth or Reality? (Third Edition) (Paperback)

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.

16 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Good reseach, poorly written and argued., December 28, 2003

By 

Moten Swing (NYC) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Islamic Threat : Myth or Reality? (Third Edition) (Paperback)

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.