Chief of the Dhimmis

Sun Tsu speaks of two kinds of enemies in The Art of War. There is the “far enemy” and the “near enemy”. Islam defines itself to be the far enemy of all kafirs (unbelievers). The near enemy is the dhimmi. A dhimmi is a kafir who serves Islam. In the beginning of the jihad against our kafir civilization, most of the actual work of attacking our civilization is being done by the near enemy, the dhimmi.

When the State department starts controlling the language of memos and forbids the use of the word “jihad“, that is an action by non-Muslims, dhimmis. It was not a Muslim who issued the directive. The dhimmi is the puppet of Islam. It is not that Islam is so strong, but that kafirs are so weak and ignorant that they become dhimmis.

There is a hierarchy of dhimmis. At the top of the dhimmi-chain are names such as Bernard Lewis, a Jewish scholar of Islam, and Karen Armstrong, a biographer of Mohammed. But none can top John Esposito in dhimmitude.

In this newsletter we are fortunate to have Dr. David Bukay give us a detailed analysis of Esposito’s betrayal of kafir culture. [We are also unfortunate in that the superscripts that go with the endnotes did not move into the HTML editor. If you want the specific references, contact me and I will send you the Word version that has the superscripts and endnotes.]


The Esposito School: Islamic Apologists in Action, or Who is the “Near Enemy”?
David Bukay – School of Political Science
The University of Haifa, Israel

John Esposito is one of the foremost apologists of radical Islam in the academia. The term apologist means denying or even justifying events and activities, while blaming others. It is characterized by whitewashing reality and omitting facts unintentionally (selective perception and cognitive biases) or intentionally (for political or economic or other objectives). According to Esposito’s own words, The Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding is concerned with Islam and the West and Islam in the West, addressing stereotypes of Islam and Muslims. However, we shall prove to him and his school that, in fact, stereotypes, misconceptions and perhaps deceptions are theirs.

It is typical that John O. Voll, claims in his article found in Center’s homepage: “The Impossibility of the Clash of Civilizations in a Globalized World,” that someone who speaks about sounds is like a person who does not read the news. Yet, it is typical to the Esposito School to accuse others of not reading the news, while all evidence shows that they themselves do not watch TV to see the horrors of Islamic fanaticism; they do not read newspapers to understand Islamic terrorism; and they do not listen to the radio to experience Islamic “tolerance.” The world is filled with clashes and significant conflicts, Voll says, but he ignores the fact that at least 70 percent of them are by and among the Arabs and Muslims.

A vivid example of the blindness of the Esposito School can be found in Natana Delong-Bas, who teaches at Boston College. Her best and perhaps not surprising declarations are found in an interview with the London al-Sharq al-Awsat, where she declared, Wahhabism is not extremism, and the Muslim Brotherhood and Sayyid Qutb have nothing to do with jihadism. She further stated that there may be a Western conspiracy against the Arab and Islamic world, and said that she knows of no evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. Her response to criticism of her declarations was that she was misquoted: she does not deny that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, but only that he had no role in the logistics or the planning of the attacks themselves.

It is not surprising that her doctoral dissertation, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, a total defense of Wahhabism, has been highly recommended by the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., since her book was partially funded by Saudi sources. In her book she claims that Wahhabism is not a radical movement, and Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was the one who was the most correct in faith, the easiest to reconcile with the teachings of the Qur’an and hadith, and the most capable in matters of interpretation. Jihad as holy war was not the primary purpose of the Wahhabi movement, and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not promote martyrdom or call for jihad. By no means had he promoted violence against those who did not follow his teachings.

But history tells us clearly that the Wahhabis conquered the Arabian Peninsula by Jihad wars, eliminating others. Delong-Bas says that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab believed in the need for ijtihad (innovation). But academic research concludes that Wahhabism is the most puritan sect in contemporary Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence. According to Delong-Bas, women were not presented as inferior human beings in Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s writings, which are evidence of his high respect for women and how they were granted absolute rights. But Wahhabism is perhaps the most extreme and intolerant religious ideology concerning the inferiority of women. The book does not introduce or analyze Wahhabi teachings and practices but rather, defends them. In fact, it is not a critical account of Wahhabism at all, but a response to Western criticism mounted in the post-9/11 era. Above all, the controversial teachings and practices of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab have been glossed over throughout the book.

Along the same line, one finds Noah Feldman, a Jewish law professor at Harvard University, whose book, After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, explores the prospects for democracy in the Islamic world, using the same arguments as Esposito’s School. Even after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Feldman argues that the age of violent jihad is past, and Islamism is evolving in new, more peaceful and democratic directions; The Islamists are the best hope for democracy. They never got a chance to govern, although they are committed democrats and that Islam and democracy are deeply compatible. The experiment of Islamic democracy deserves to be run. Islamic democrats are the best hope for the future of the Muslim world-and they deserve our admiration and our support. Islamist parties in power mean much improvement over the situation today. The Islamists are not inevitably or unalterably opposed to the United States, which by allying itself with autocratic regimes in the Middle East is not only mistaken by choosing the wrong rulers but by betraying its own values too. No comment is the best comment to these vanities, just because reality shows the almost totally opposite.

Perhaps the best way to properly evaluate and estimate John Esposito’s attitudes and views is to quote his assertions from his book, What Everybody Needs to Know about Islam; which represents one of the best propaganda sources of how to show a sweet, synthetic and detached view of the reality of Islam.

As to the question “is Islam intolerant to other religions?” (pp. 70-73) Esposito claims that theologically and historically, Islam has a long record of tolerance. Muslims did not try to impose their religion on others or force them to convert. All that remains is to tell this story to the original peoples of the Middle East and North Africa, mainly Christians, who were Arabized and Islamized by force; to the peoples of the Balkans and Eastern Europe who were exterminated, depressed and humiliated; and to the tens of millions of Africans who became slaves, tortured and deported from their lands.

In our generation, Esposito should tell this to the Armenians, the Christians of Iraq (Assyrians), the Christians of Lebanon, the Christians of Palestine, and especially the peoples of Southern Sudan who suffer a policy of extermination and genocide. These indeed prove Islamic tolerance.

Esposito ends his “refreshing” analysis by claiming that the Constitution of Medina accepted the co-existence of Muslims, Jews and Christians. Muhammad granted freedom of religious thought and practice to the Jews and Christians, setting a precedent for peaceful and cooperative interreligious relations. By that, Esposito probably refers to the Jewish tribes in Arabia, who during Muhammad’s lifetime, were deported and massacred; their children were taken as slaves, their women as concubines, and their property was expropriated. Today, Esposito narrated, Muslims mainstream and extremist, conservative and progressive, struggle to balance the affirmation of the truths of their faith with the cultivation of a pluralism and tolerance rooted in mutual respect and understanding. Indeed, we can witness these highly esteemed words in today’s Saudi-Arabia, Iran and Sudan; three Islamic regimes, and the Muslim behavior in the West.

As to the question “why do Muslims persecute Christians in Muslim countries”? (pp. 76-79), perhaps Esposito has forgotten his words on Islamic tolerance before, where he states: Muslim-Christian relations have deteriorated over time under the influence of conflicts and grievances, from the Crusades and European colonialism to contemporary politics. Indigenous Christians were favored by and benefited from the colonial rule. The product of European missionaries that converted local Muslims… the creation of the state of Israel has contributed to the deterioration of relations and Christian fundamentalists like Robertson, Graham and Falwell have been the source of intolerance, persecution, violence and terrorism.

It is very easy – Christians are to blame for all Islamic behavior. Had they continued to be massacred, enslaved and converted to Islam, like in Egypt and in Spain (in the Seventh-Eighth centuries), and the Balkans during the Ottoman Rule, as only few examples, harmony would have continue to exist in the Muslim-Christian relationship. Indeed, one should wonder, what do the Christian expect? To create the State of Israel and not to be exterminated by Muslims? To live on Islamic lands and not to be massacred? And, when asking Esposito about the genocide in The Sudan, his reaction is that there is no problem, actually the majority of the South is animist and the struggle has been political and economic as much as religious. They are not Christians, and this sums up the whole issue.

As to the question: whether Jews and Christians have always been enemies of Islam (pp. 79-86), Esposito refreshes our memory: the Jews of Medina had political ties to the Qureish tribe of Mecca, so they resisted Muhammad’s overtures. The Jewish population was granted the right to internal religious and cultural autonomy in exchange for their political loyalty and allegiance to the Muslims. The Jews backed Muhammad’s Meccan rivals, judged as traitors for the support of his enemies, many were attacked and killed.

Again, the historical facts are different compared to Esposito’s analysis; Muhammad massacred the Jews of Arabia immediately after his military successes. As for the Jews of Haybar, they were massacred and persecuted and their fertile lands were taken after the Hudaybiah agreement with the Meccans, without any “provocations.” The Palestinians today sing: “Haybar, Haybar ya-Yahud, sayf Muhammad sa-ya`ud” (Haybar Haybar, ho Jews, the sword of Muhammad will be back), but is it possible that Esposito has not studied this chapter in Islamic history?

He continues: other Jews became Dhimmis and thrived under the protection of Islam. {However} the establishment of the State of Israel was a turning point in relations between Muslims and Jews, and severely strained their relations in Muslim countries. As for the Christians, the Muslim conquerors proved to be far more tolerant than Imperial Christianity had been, granting religious freedoms to the indigenous Christian Churches. Pluralism is the essence of Islam as revealed in the Qur’an and practiced by Muhammad and the early caliphs, rather than a purely Western invention or ideology. How nice, now one can understand why the Christians are a rare species and under extinction in the Middle East. The irony is that Esposito brings John of Damascus who held a position of prominence in the royal court, as proof of the integration of Christians, but John of Damascus had written perhaps the most devastating book of the massacre of Christians under Islam as a first-hand witness.

Esposito then clings to the Golden Age in Spain from 756 to approximately 1000 as a period of interfaith harmony. The only problem is that this was a myth invented by the Jews in the 19th century, as Bernard Lewis and others hve proved. Even the great Jewish exegete, physician and philosopher, Maimonides, described Islam as the worst enemy of Judaism, and he had to escape from Spain taking refuge in Morroco and Egypt.

Yet, the best of Esposito, is his declaration that, The Ottoman Empire is a prime example of the positive treatment of religious minorities in a Muslim-majority context. It seems there were two Ottoman Empires: The original Ottoman Empire was the worst in treating minorities in the Balkans and Eastern Europe; kidnapping millions of children and converting them to Islam (Devshirme system); bringing millions of slaves and concubines from Eastern Europe, mainly Ukraine and Hungary; massacring Christians, like the Armenian holocaust, to mention only a salient example. The Balkan Wars in the 20th century and the deep hatred and the reciprocal massacres are due to the Ottoman Empire past policies and behavior. But perhaps there was another Ottoman Empire according to Esposito, coming directly from the lands of the fairytales.

Esposito is at his best when analyzing “violence and terrorism” (pp. 117-138). Jihad is struggling against the evil in oneself and to be virtuous and moral. It also includes the right, indeed the obligation, to defend Islam and the community from aggression. Western governments are propping up oppressive regimes and exploiting the region’s human and natural resources, robbing Muslims of their culture and to live in a more just society. This is the reason for the use of Jihad. The Qur’an does not advocate or condone terrorism. Muslims are merciful and just. Islam does permit Muslims only to defend themselves and their families, religion and community from aggression. To prove this, Esposito brings verses from the Qur’an (22:39-40; 48:17; 9:91; 2:192; 47:4; 8:61; 4:90).

There is only one tiny problem with this: all the verses Esposito has quoted have different meanings and objectives. Qur’an 22:39-40 was revealed in year 624, and it gave the believers permission to fight against their enemies for the first time. It opened the second stage of Muhammad’s career of defensive fighting against his Quraysh enemy. But this verse was abrogated by 9:5, at Muhammad’s third stage, the age of Messianism, the era of total fight against all the idolaters started after year 626. Qur’an 48:17 and 9:91 give permission to those among the believers not to go to war, since Muhammad promised those who fight to enter the gardens of Eden. These verses have nothing to do with peace with the unbelievers. Qur’an 2:192 is connected to 2:190-191, that give permission to those who fight the believers (2:190 – conditional), and fight all the unbelievers whenever they are found (2:191 – unconditional). Then 2:192 states that if the unbelievers desist (meaning, accept Islam or submit to Islam) then Allah is forgiving and kind. As for Qur’an 47:4, one can only be amazed by Esposito’s distorted misuse, by declaring that it deals with how to treat prisoners. It is one of the most horrible verses in the Qur’an. It says: “when you clash with the unbelievers smite their necks until you overpower them, then (the rest who submit) hold them in bondage. Then either free them graciously or, after taking a ransom, until war shall come to an end (there will be no more unbelievers, or they will submit to Islamic rule). Qur’an 8:61 is again mistakenly quoted, for it is tightly connected to verses 8:59-60 which deal with the infidels and the command is to strike terror in the enemies of Allah and fight them ceaselessly. Indeed, this is the Islamic tolerance. Only then comes 8:61: if they are inclined to peace (after submitting to Islam), make peace with them. Qur’an 4:90 is connected and conditional to 4:89, which commands the Muslims to “seize the unbelievers wherever they are and do away with them.” Only then comes 4:90: “accept those who take refuge… or those who weary of fighting you or their people, come over to you…”

It is for you in the West to evaluate how Esposito distorts the verses to suit his political views. But Esposito’s propaganda industry reaches to the highest level when he deals with Qur’an 9:5 and 9:29, the vicious and murderers’ verses. He declares, in fact however, the full intent of “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters whenever you find them” is missed or distorted when quoted in isolation. For it is followed and qualified by: “but if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligation and pay the Zakat, then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind” (9:5). The same is true for another quoted verse (9:29), which is often cited without the line that follows: “until they pay the tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Indeed, as nice as it sounds, so is the reality horrible. The true definition of 9:5 is, they have the conditional option: either to convert to Islam (“but if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligation and pay the Zakat, then let them go their way”) or be slayed. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. In 9:29, (to pay the tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued), means submission to Islamic rule, losing independence, and paying the tax with humiliation. Can we assume that Esposito believes this is peaceful and tolerant Islam? Can we assume that perhaps he does not know all this?

If Esposito does not know the Qur’an commandments to the believers, here is the up-to-date list: fighting is prescribed upon the believers (2:216). It is jihad in the cause of Allah (2:244 and many other verses) against the powers of Satan (4:76), the unbelievers and the hypocrites (9:5; 9:73; 66:9), and the People of the Book (9:29). The order for the believers is to smite their necks (47:4; 8:12) and to strike terror in their hearts (3:151; 8:60), including the People of the Book (59:2) for the hereafter world (4:74). For this the Jihadi believers will earn paradise (3:195: 9:72: 13:22-23; 47:4-6), and their reward will be black-eyed virgins (44:51-54; 52:17-20; 56:22-24), and the utmost tiding is that they are not dead, but alive, staying and living beside Allah (2:154; 3:169-171). The Islamic “tolerance” is also practiced by Hadiths, attributed to Muhammad: “Whosoever disputes a single verse of the Qur’an, strike off his head” (Sunan Ibn Majah); “The Prophet said, whosoever changes his religion, kill him” (Sahih al-Bukhari); and “There is no community from which you cannot bring me Muslims from them, and the best I like is, that you kill the men and bring me the women and children” (al-Tirmidhi).

Regarding the question “why do they hate us?” which so disturbs the West, Esposito’s answer is very clear and concise: the establishment and the support of the State of Israel. America’s record of overwhelming support of Israel – witnessed in its level of aid to Israel, the US voting record in the United Nations, and official statements by the administration and the State Department – have proved to be a powerful lightning rod for Muslim anger over injustice. You see, it is so simple: remove Israel from the Middle East and there will be no Islamic anger and hatred to the West, and peace will prevail upon the whole area. Moreover, if Israel disappears, all the malaise found in the Middle East would have been prevented: The Islamic revolution in Iran; its nuclear program; its hatred of the Big Satan (US); the authoritarian regimes and the despotic patrimonial leaders; the inter-Arab rivalries; the conflicts and wars between and among the Arabs; the millions of Arabs and Muslims being killed by Arabs and Muslims; the Shiite-Sunni historical rift that threatens to erupt to an apocalypse; the emergence of al-Qaeda and all Islamic barbaric atrocities around the world. All these and many others would have not come to the world if only the State of Israel was denied. Is this what you mean, Professor Esposito?

A concise summary of Esposito’s views concerning his book, Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam, can be found in his interview with Joanne Myers, on May 7, 2002:
In his own words, he tried in his book to contextualize and ask: Where does extremism come from; where does this notion of engaging in a holy war à la Osama bin Laden come from; how widespread is it; what are the possibilities with regard to the future; and to what extent is this an unholy war rather than a holy war; to what extent is this a hijacking of Islam?

His answers are clear and really horrifying. To the question, what is the world situation concerning the threat of fanatical Islam? Esposito’s answer is simple. Osama bin Laden was raised with the Wahabi interpretation of Islam. Being very pro-Palestinian, his motivations include: his concern about the Arab-Israeli conflict; -his opposition to the West coming in, not only to the Holy lands of Islam; but he hates the involvement of the United States because it has inherited England and France as a neo-colonial power; and for its oil interests.

Not a word on Islam. Everything is so simple – Israel and the US are to blame, and if only the US would withdraw from the Middle East and Israel would perhaps disappear, there would not be a problem with radical Islam in the West at large. However, Bin Ladin utters his totally different objectives very clearly, in three stratified stages: a) to topple the Jahili Arab and Islamic regimes and establish Islamic rule according to the Shari`ah; b) to bring back the regions which once belonged to Dar al-Islam, from India to Spain; Andalusia (Spain), being the diamond in the Islamic crown; c) to commence the apocalypse of the clash of civilizations: Dar al-Islam against Dar al-Harb.

In response to the question concerning Islamic terrorism by Jihad around the world, Esposito’s answer is simple: Jihad means to be a good Muslim. It means to strive, the effort that it takes to be virtuous, to be a good believer. Jihad also means that in being a good Muslim you have the right and, indeed, the obligation to defend Islam and yourself if you are under siege, the struggle against an unjust government. This is a “just war.”

But Jihad has proven time and again clearly in the Qur’an and Hadith: it is the holy war against the infidels. Jihad is rooted in the Islamic religion and culture. It is pervasive, conclusive, and operative. Again Esposito rushes to clarify: from the early days of Islam, you have always had a minority of extremists that the mainstream body has rejected, extremists who have used or hijacked their religion to justify their actions, just as in other faiths. This is precisely what happened. So you have the globalization of jihad within mainstream Islam as well as among the extremists.

Where does the Wahhabi ideology and threat come in? Again Esposito is clear: it is an exclusivist worldview, but it does not mean that it is violence. Wahhabi Islam, as a puritanical theology, is very conservative and can be seen as extremist but not necessarily violent. The Saudis use their oil money to promote Islam, to build mosques, to pay the salaries of preachers all over the world, but it does not promote terrorism.

How and why is the US to blame? Esposito clarifies and simplifies: What sets up a problem for us is that when we went in, the Secretary of State said, “We are only going after Osama and Al-Qaeda; we are not going to take Afghanistan down.” Then we developed a rationale for it. But then we began to talk about “second frontiers,” and an “Axis of Evil.” We have also gone into the southern Philippines. We have talked about going into Indonesia. You want to see anti-Americanism? You will see it in spades. And it is not just going to be there; it will be all over the world.

Another issue is that we must have a parity of rhetoric and policy. We do not have that in the Arab-Israeli conflict. We do not have it on the whole issue of the promotion of self-determination, democratization, and human rights. In the Muslim world we have been very slow to promote democratization and human rights. Muslim countries must get the message. They must start opening up that system. Unless there is more political participation, unless there is the development of a strong civil society, and freedom of the press, you will see a perpetuation of the culture of authoritarianism and violence.

If you have that kind of society, it will feed anti-Semitism and extremist thought, because the society creates an extreme condition or situation. The more repression that is used, the more they radicalize. This would happen if you had only secular opposition, let alone religious opposition. Esposito clearly states that the United States should not in principle object to implementation of Islamic law or involvement of Islamic activists in government. Of course, the result of accepting Esposito’s misleading recommendations would be the example of Iran and the Sudan.

Anti-Americanism is very broad-based because of these issues and it is rooted deeply in grievances of the Islamic opposition against their government. They also blame us because we are seen as supporting their government, as providing arms for their government. People within Egypt or Saudi Arabia who want to bring down their governments blame us because we provide massive support for it. If you look at most Arab governments now, most Central Asian governments, post-9/11 they have become more oppressive. Post-9/11 they are looking for aid and support with no strings attached, and they want us to look the other way when they deal with their opposition, whether mainstream or extremist. We cannot give a green light.
Everything in Washington now gets framed in terms of terrorism. You have a meeting on food, and you add the term “terrorism” to the title of any conference. The danger is that if you frame not only the question but the way you approach it in too heavy-handed and overt a way, you will have a problem.

So you see, according to Esposito, Islamic terrorism is not a problem, and instead of dealing with the real issues, Washington bothers itself with nonsense. But it is much worse: Esposito actually blames the US for all the evils: a) the rise of Islamic radicalism in the West; b) acting impartially and supporting Israeli existence in the Middle East; c) the lack of self-determination, democratization, and human rights in the Middle East; d) supporting Arab and Islamic regimes to oppress the radical Islamic democratic opposition; and e) the worsening situation in the Arab and Islamic lands in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

However, Esposito’s comments to his criticism appear in an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly. He acknowledges that he is an “apologist for Islam and soft on Muslims,” and that he is accused of having misinformed the US administration about the true dangers of Islamist groups. He dismisses these charges as “ideologically-inspired”. After 9/11, there were growing fears that people would talk about the root causes and that they would focus on the Arab-Israeli crisis and if they focused on it some Americans would want to address this imbalanced approach. He believes that he represents an alternative school of thought within American academia — what America is truly about, free speech, open dialogue, and a multiplicity of views. Indeed, if we take the Soviet Union analogy, these highly treasured values of “free speech, open dialogue, and a multiplicity of views” come exactly under the title of Pravda.

According to Stanley Kurtz, there is reason to believe that the academy’s multiculturalist and post-colonial blinders represent more than a sad and silly waste of intellectual energy – more, even, than the spiritual corruption of a generation of America’s youth. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the reigning multiculturalist foolishness of the American academy may be directly connected to the intelligence failure that led to September 11. Of the scholars who dominate Middle Eastern Studies – most of them are deeply hostile to American foreign policy and Israeli existence – having long stigmatized and ostracized academicians who work with the American government and they are ideologically biased against the US foreign policy.

The analogy to the 1930s is obvious. There is much evidence that Chamberlain was encouraged in his appeasement policy by the academia of Oxford and Cambridge, and the communication media headed by The Times of London – both warmly supported the Munich Agreement. Today, the American government’s branches are facing a misleading onslaught by these multiculturalist and post-colonial blinders toward a policy of appeasement, and in fact subordination to the forces of evil.

The problem is not the Esposito School as such, but the views they proliferate under the cover of academic expertise; the spread of multiculturalist and post-colonial vanities, intertwined with false moral relativism, and the huge misquotations and the mere propaganda in their publications.

More dangerous is the multiplication of new generations of academia members with the same misconceptions and the march of stupidity. It is one thing to be wrong in the classroom, but it can be far more dangerous when such wrong-headed theories begin to affect policy. As long as the academia continues to be the main source of spreading such ideas, it will continue to deteriorate intellectually; it will stop being relevant to reality; and above all it will continue to mislead political leaders and policies, and by doing so, will contribute to national disasters. The worst danger is the growing irrelevance of academia to the day-to-day life, to improving political values and norms, rather than being a reliable source of knowledge to public opinion and people at large.


Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 21, 2006. See Also:
Natana Delong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.,2933,245384,00.html See also her interview: See also:
Noah Feldman, After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
See also his: “Jihad: The Struggle for Islam.” In Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green, (eds.) Introduction To Religion: What Religions Do. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1995. See: Jihad not necessarily a call to religious war –
See also his: “Globalization of Jihad.” In Barbara Segaert (ed.) Christianity, Islam and Judaism: How to Conquer the barriers to Intercultural Dialogue? Brussels; Peter Lang Publishers, 2004.

See also his: “Islam and the West: Muslim Voices of Dialogue,” (with John Voll). In Fabio Petito and Pavlos Hatzopoulos (eds.), Religion in International Relations: The Return from Exile. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

See also for section e his: “Post 9/11: Civilizational Dialogue or Conflict?” In Stanley D’Souza, S.J. (ed.) Ethical Approaches to Population, Poverty and Conflict: With Special Reference to Islam. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute, 2004. And the same: “Islam and the West after Sept. 11: Civilizational Dialogue or Conflict?” In Malik Aftab (ed.) The Empire and the Crescent: Global Implications for a New American Century. Bristol, UK: Amal Press, 2003.


Comments are closed.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!