Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

I disagree with the reviewers that looked at it as an apology to "fundamentalistic violence". As a matter of fact I don't agree with some of the author's views (only almost all of them). But you don't have to. He presents his case very well and if you read it you'll get a wider and better look at the world.
Something that is badly needed right now.

I had to read this for my Islamic Civilization II class and it worked out well. The time and research that went into this book was very thourough and I praise Esposito for once again writing a book on the facts of the Middle East/West relations. If you are reading this, you already have some interest I take it. There are not too many books on this subject, but if you are interested in learning about the different groups in different nations since the time of Hasaan al-Bana, then this is your book.

Esposito gets three stars for his effort to be impartial, but one star for his selective omission of some of the major sources of the threat. He, like Edward Said, faults the West for misperceiving or distorting the Orient and Islam. And though he certainly attributes these gross distortions of the Orient to the colonial powers, he appears to see it as characterizing the observations of virtually anyone currently who is not him/her self an oriental. This conveniently frees him to ignore any and all facts which might interfere with his theorizing and makes any refutation of his thesis impossible

To his credit Esposito does deal with the realities of the everyday Middle East and Islam. Unfortunately his dispassionate and reasoned presentation tends to minimize the real threats that he does consider and to mask those which he omits.

In effect he seems to imply that because Islamic nations are not likely to mass a large military force and collectively attack the West then there is no real threat. Recent events ... make that argument a rather lame one.

Firstly I should say that this review pertains more directly to the writing style and content of Esposito's text rather than a wider discussion of his thesis on the nature of militant Islam -- those looking for such an analysis may wish to consult other Amazon reviews for this book.

As with many writers on the subject, Esposito couches his discussion of contempory events by tracing their historical developments: indeed he devotes some two-thirds of the text to this end. Laudable and necessary though this approach is, I was stuck by the considerable unevenness of the structure: as can be discerned from a glance at the contents page, the chapters range from a modest 20 pages to an unwieldy 80 pages (within a 280 page text) with arbitrary sub- and sub-sub- divisions dotted throughout. Whilst this system can work effectively for certain writers, to my mind this approach causes Esposito to treat his subject matter in an similarly uneven style, allowing, for example, considerable discussion to one nation's history, little to another, or none to yet another, somewhat irrespective of what importance in the Islamic revivalist story might have been fairly attributed to that country back in in the mid to late 1990s. Developments in Palestine--relations between Hamas, Fatah and the US in particular--are glossed over, almost as an afterthought, in the concluding pages of the text.

Equally, general readers wishing to digest 'The Islamic Threat' cover to cover, rather than by chapter or sub-chapter as an academic gloss, will slowly become frustrated by Esposito's continual use of repeated miniture lists and translations of Arabic phrases. Clearly the term 'jihad', for example, should be translated the upon its first use, but surely not on the fifth or tenth use also.

I do not wish to be unfair to Esposito. He is undoubtedly a leading authority in his field, and attempts to offer an sober analysis of Islamic-Western relations in a time where it has conceivably never been of greater importance. My feeling, and I'm sure that of many others who have read 'The Islamic Threat' is that a fourth edition is sorely needed to correct both sometimes painful editorial clunkiness and, of course, bring his analysis into line with developments since the 1999 edition.

For the average Western reader living in a media-saturated environment, analysis of complex issues is generally sidestepped to make way for an endless barrage of the much more palatable (and profitable) sound bites. The problem with broad and shallow treatments of historically complex conflicts is the unsatisfyingly easy stock ideas that the viewers are furnished with, leaving little room for measured analysis and even-handed conclusions. Esposito's book, "The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?" sets up a detailed and well-reasoned historical foundation for understanding the conflicts that have arisen between two very different cultures in a stimulating contrast to Western news channel synopses of Islam's role in current events.

"The Islamic Threat" was, for me, a breath of fresh air that takes a hot-button issue and presents it in a fair, even manner. He doesn't avoid stereotypes, but faces them head on as he carefully presents his research. Esposito first places Islam and all of its sects and movements in historical context, and then goes on to systematically address some very sensitive topics with diplomacy and aplomb. By the time the reader has reached the chapters entitled "Islamic Organizations: Soldiers of God" and "Islam and the West: A Clash of Civilizations", s/he is primed for an unbiased academic treatment of issues ranging from Nationalism, Jihad, terrorism, secularism, Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses", military rule, socialism, colonialism, and revolution. For this reason I concluded that the structure of the book was well planned. It would seem to me that even some of the more radical viewpoints may have been tempered by Esposito's levelheaded analyses. Once the reader has the historical and religious knowledge to draw on, the common Western stereotypes and biases regarding Islam seem instantly less plausible.

Since he tackles European colonialism in as fair a fashion as he explains the historical contexts of Jihad, he removes the "good guy/bad guy" associations that are all too familiar in East/West perceptions. He draws important parallels between the Eurocentric image of "the Jew" that has so disastrously affected the common era, and the misinformed fear-based assumptions about the Muslim world that pervade even the most liberal, "open-minded" circles. (Esposito, 43) He also points out that Muslims have a equally legitimate claim to the Judeo-Christian heritage as co-founders of the monotheistic tradition, and yet in many Western communities Muslims are suspiciously regarded as "other". (Esposito, 238)

"The Islamic Threat" directly discusses the Western share of responsibility in igniting some of the conflict between cultures. Esposito unveils the complexity of American and European interventionist foreign policy, and shines a beacon on some of the mistakes our government has made by fostering a "double standard in its promotion and protection of democracy and human rights". (Esposito, 272) Furthermore, he goes on to criticize the overuse of sensational terminology such as "Islamic Fundamentalism" since it promotes a "tendency to equate violence and terrorism with Islam". (Esposito, 286) The danger of this, as Esposito goes on to explain, is the adoption of the myopic misperception that Muslims are constantly agitating for random violence against innocent Westerners, when we take an altogether innocent view of our own constant invasion, interference, and patronizing application of Western ideals on the rest of the world. We so often forget the epidemic violence of Christian history, even within this century. Esposito illustrates the reality of Islam - a peaceful faith with millions of true believers who fade into the background at the mention of the latest [Islamic] "threat".

It's true that the third edition reads like a draft in places, but I attribute that to the "absentminded professor" syndrome more than carelessness or, god forbid, lack of knowledge. I would recommend an expansion of the post 9-11 chapters, but overall "The Islamic Threat" is a brilliant examination of a pressing question.

When I was an undergrad not so long ago, I took a class on Middle Eastern politics and history that was co-taught by two professors. One of the professors was a good, solid political science type, and the other was a professor of religion who specialized in Islam (the latter has since moved to Wake Forest and is now quoted extensively in places like Salon).

I don't know which one of them assigned us this book as a text. By the time I was done reading it, I firmly believed that the Islamic threat was "myth," and I stood ready to refute anyone who suggested otherwise.

How utterly, immensely wrong I was. The perceptions that Esposito attempts to refute -- that cultural Islam has a severe and threatening streak of resentment, irredentism, and violence -- have proven themselves absolutely correct. In retrospect, the writing was on the wall. Esposito belongs in the same trash bin as Edward Said, by dint of his refusal to squarely face damning facts about non-Western peoples.

At least I have learned better since then. Academics like Esposito, on the other hand, never do. He eventually showed up as an employee of Clinton's State Department, where he was instrumental in formulating the policies that allowed bin Laden and al-Qaeda to escape punishment for so tragically long.

(...). This book has been made irrelevant by history, and should be left unpurchased and unread.

Esposito is one of the very few scholars who have actually read and studied authentic Islamic references. Unlike the masses that quote out-of-context verses or use cultural shortcomings to stereotype and demonize, Esposito (like Karen Armstrong) is skillfully able to focus on the original teachings of the faith and differentiate between religion and tradition; and between mainstream and fringe.

... This book is a must-read for them and their disciples.