Posted by
On the Right on Sunday, May 11, 2008 1:22:15 AM
|
|
|
|
 |
Dhim·mi
(dîm-mî
or zîm-mî) - An Islamic term that refers to a subjugated non-Muslim
person living in a Muslim society. Second-class status is confirmed by the
legal system and dhimmis do not share the rights of their Muslim rulers.
(ex. of use:
"Hey Jimmy, if you want to be a dhimmi, then you'd better learn how to
shimmy.")
Dhim·wit (dïm-wît)
- A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic
domination with remarkable gullibility. A dhimwit is always quick to
extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom
(or life) if given the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
April 2008 Dhimwit:
John Esposito
"Show me the money!"
John
Esposito is a name unfamiliar to many, but there are few people on the planet
more deserving of general Dhimwit honors than this Catholic apologist for Islam,
who is currently on the Saudi payroll at Georgetown University.
Technically, Esposito is the founding director of the "Prince Alwaleed bin Talal
Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding," which already tells you a lot about
the man. Anyone with a decent set would have long told the Saudis just how
pathetic this guise of religious tolerance really is, when they won't even allow
churches on their own soil.
As for
Esposito, just two years
before 9/11, the second edition of his book “The Islamic Threat: Myth or
Reality?” was published. In it, the professor told a primarily American
audience that the threat of Islamic extremism is overblown and that they
actually have nothing to fear from the Religion of Peace.
Only in
academia can being so fantastically wrong about something of such tragic
significance actually be a boost to one’s career. Inexplicably, John Esposito
found his profile enhanced by the loss of thousands of innocent lives and has
since devoted himself to trying to convince Americans that they are the
real bigots. (This evidently delights his Muslim handlers, who find in his
writings yet another excuse to put off introspection and reform).
This month,
Esposito is promoting his new book “Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion
Muslims Really Think.” Not surprisingly, it is Esposito himself who speaks
for Islam and, as such, the voice of a ‘billion Muslims’ sounds remarkably
similar to his own. In fact, when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, Western
values and the superiority of Islam, the resemblance between Esposito’s personal
views and that of a “billion Muslims’ is downright uncanny.
Esposito
bases his new book on Gallup polling, which has an objective ring to it at first
– up until one discovers that the “Senior Scientist” on the cited Gallup project
is none other than Esposito himself. Having the ability to influence the
wording of survey questions yields some rather curious findings, such as the
claim that Americans are three times more likely to support the killing
of innocent people than are the Iranians, whose country pioneered suicide
bombings and whose religion fuels over a thousand deadly attacks on civilians
each year.
As with his
earlier (pre-9/11) effort, “What a Billion Muslims Really Think” is
designed to play on Western tastes and convince readers that they have no reason
to be concerned about an ideology with an explicit agenda of political and
cultural dominance. Toward this end, Esposito either glosses over or ignores
inconvenient details that might otherwise alarm anyone who is mindful of Islam’s
irreversible creep into the West.
For
example, the professor makes much of the finding that two out of three Muslims
believe that the 9/11 attacks are “morally unjustifiable.” That a third of all
Muslims (almost a half billion people) say they agree to some extent with the
carnage seems to be of trivial concern to him. Esposito also fails to mention
the rather critical detail that only 18% of all Muslims believe Muslims were
really responsible for 9/11! Who or what then, are they really condemning?
Many other
natural questions go unanswered in the book. Why do more Muslims oppose the
U.S. action in Afghanistan, for example, than they did the brutal attack on New
Yorkers and others which prompted it? If Muslims are so opposed to religious
extremism, then why do less than 1 in 10 support the overthrow of the Taliban?
If Muslims place such a high value on the lives of others, then where is the
outrage when such attacks occur? Why hasn’t Osama bin Laden been burned in
effigy?
At the end
of the day, “What a Billion Muslims Really Think” is really just an
exercise in illusion – a parlor trick to fool readers into thinking that they do
not see what they see.
By stacking survey
questions so as to yield preferred results, Esposito has the advantage of creating
the very data to which he then refers.
Even the
overall sampling is somewhat suspect. Esposito claims that his modeling method
represents “90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims,” which is both patently
absurd and a glaring indication of the manipulation taking place behind the
scenes. How is it possible to “include” 1.2 billion people while “excluding”
130 million others? Who is really being “excluded” when a contrived survey
sample of a few thousand is said to be representative of over a billion other
people?
Each day,
dozens of innocents are murdered explicitly in the name of Islam somewhere in
the world, yet in all of the forty countries that lost citizens on 9/11, only
one Muslim was killed by one person in revenge for the slaughter on that day.
What explains Islam's violent temper? In the Sudan, over a million Christians
have lost their lives to a Jihad-minded government that has also displaced
millions more from their homes – yet sympathy in the Muslim world is reserved
only for Palestinians. What explains Islam's astonishing self-absorption and
lack of human empathy?
Hundreds of
Westerners have lost their lives on their own soil to Islamic terror in the
years since 9/11. Millions of Muslims overseas celebrated the attacks that day
and continue to openly support the thousands of other Muslims who are as
determined as ever to commit mass murder in accordance with Qur’an’s expressed
hatred for those outside the faith, even as the West sacrifices cherished values
to accommodate mass numbers of Muslim immigrants whose gratitude is as weak as
their sense of entitlement is conspicuous.
Yet, along
comes Professor John Esposito to tell us that it is Westerners who have the
tolerance problem.
The Saudis
have definitely bought their man.