How Islam Apologists Like John Esposito Dupe Americans About Sharia

Source: How Islam Apologists Like John Esposito Dupe Americans About Sharia | Homeland Security

By Raymond Ibrahim

Does Islam itself promote hostility for and violence against non-Muslims, or are all the difficulties between the West and Islam based on secondary factors such as “radical” interpretations of Islam, economics, and other grievances?

This is the fundamental question.

Obviously, if “anti-infidel” hostility is inherent to Islam itself, then the conflict becomes existential — a true clash of civilizations with no easy fixes and lots of ugly implications along the horizon. Because of this truism, those who whitewash Islam’s image in the West insist on the opposite: that current difficulties are temporal, and not rooted to innate Islamic teachings.

Enter Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know, co-authored by John Esposito and Natana J. Delong-Bas. The authors’ goal is to exonerate Sharia — which they portray as enshrining “the common good (maslahah), human dignity, social justice, and the centrality of the community” — from Western criticism or fear, which they claim is based solely on “myth” and “sensationalism.”

Their thesis is simple: Any and all negative activities Muslims engage in are to be blamed on anything and everything — as long as it’s not Sharia.

In order to support this otherwise unsupportable position, and as might be expected, the remainder of the book consists of obfuscation, dissembling, and lots and lots of contextual omissions and historical distortions. A small sampling follows.

Sharia regarding women

The authors quote and discuss at length many Koran verses about women that seem positive (Koran 30:21, 3:195, and 2:187), without alluding to counter verses that, say, permit husbands to beat their wives (4:34) and treat them as “fields” to be “plowed however you wish” (2:223). Nor do they deal with Muhammad’s assertions that women are “lacking in intelligence” and will form the bulk of hell’s denizens, as recounted in canonical hadith.

They partially quote Koran 4:3: “[M]arry those that please you of other women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one.” This suits the authors’ purpose, which is to present the Koran as implicitly recommending only one wife, since it acknowledges the near-impossibility for a man to treat all wives equally.

Yet the authors deliberately left out the continuation of Koran 4:3. Perhaps because it permits Muslim men to copulate with an unlimited number of sex slaves (ma malakat aymanukum), even if the men are married.

Esposito and Delong-Bas also dissemble about child marriage, saying “classical Islamic law” permits it, but only when “the child reaches a mature age.”

Yet they make no mention that, based on Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha — that is, based on his Sunna, which is immutable and part of Sharia — this means nine is considered a “mature age.”

Freedom of religion and non-Muslims

The authors claim that “[t]here are more than 100 Quranic verses that … affirm freedom of religion and conscience.” They quote many at length, and then assert: “The guiding Shariah principle … underscored by Quran 3:28, 29:46, and 60:89, is that believers should treat unbelievers decently and equitably as long as the unbelievers do not behave aggressively.”

Yet they fail to mention or sideline the many contradictory verses that call for relentless war on non-Muslims — who are further likened to dumb cattle in Koran 25:44 — until they surrender, one way or another, to Islam (e.g., 8:39, 9:5, 9:29). They also fail to quote the verses that form the highly divisive doctrine of al-wala’ w’al bara’ (“Loyalty and Enmity”). This includes Koran 5:51, which forbids Muslims from befriending Jews and Christians. And Koran 60:4, which commands Muslims to harbor only “hate” for non-Muslims, until they “believe in Allah alone.”

Needless to say, they also ignore Koran 3:28, which permits Muslims to feign friendship for non-Muslims whenever the former are under the latter’s authority. (Such is the doctrine of taqiyya; see herehere, and here for examples; for other sanctioned forms of deception, read about tawriya, and taysir.)

It is, incidentally, because of all these Koran verses — because of Sharia — that the Islamic State forthrightly explained: “We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.”

The closest the authors get to addressing these issues is in a section titled “Can Muslims in the West be Loyal Citizens?” They respond with a “yes.” However, the evidence they cite are polls (based on wishful interpretations), which of course tell the reader little about the topic at hand: Sharia.


As might be expected, when the authors reach the topic of jihad, their dissembling reaches a new level. They repeatedly insist that jihad, as enshrined in Sharia, is simply the Muslim counterpart of Western “Just War” theory, which teaches that war and aggression are permissible only in defense or to recover one’s territory from occupiers. They write: “The lesser or outer jihad involves defending Islam and the Muslim community.”

As usual, they spend much time quoting and elaborating on Koran verses that comport with this position, while ignoring or sidelining the many contradictory verses. In reality, mainstream Islam holds that the Koran’s “Sword Verses” (especially 9:5 and 9:29) abrogate all the peaceful ones, and declare that warfare against non-Muslims — for no reason other than that they are not Muslims — to be not just permissible but obligatory.

Read the entire article and skip the book.

7 thoughts on “How Islam Apologists Like John Esposito Dupe Americans About Sharia

    • Muslims have been corrupting the minds of our children at every level:
      From the test you brought to our attention:
      . . .” Wherever they went, the Moslems brought with them their love of art, beauty, and learning.
      From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that
      of western Christendom.
      Some of the finest centers of Moslem life were established in Spain. In Cordova, the streets
      were solidly paved, while at the same time in Paris people waded ankle-deep in mud after a rain.
      Cordovan public lamps lighted roads for as far as ten miles; yet seven hundred years later there
      was still not a single public lamp in London!
      Some Spanish Moslems had homes with marble balconies and courts with lovely waterfalls.
      Bedrooms were vaulted with stained glass and speckled with gold. And metal pipes carried water
      into marble baths.
      Nearly every mosque had a public school in which the children of the poor were taught. Many
      Moslem libraries were excellent; the catalogue of one caliph’s library filled forty volumes. In
      addition, the followers of Mohammed achieved much in science, particularly in chemistry,
      astronomy, mathematics, and medicine. . . .”
      Source: Daniel Roselle, A World History: A Cultural Approach, Ginn and Company (adapte
      It should tell of the murders, rapes , burning’s torturing etc!

  1. It’s easy to be very tolerant of minorities until they became a majority and you find you are a minority. It’s easy to say, oh yes these lovely people, I love the way they wear interesting costumes. That’s fine until one day they are actually telling you what to do, they have taken over the local council, and what you thought was your home isn’t.

    Sir David Attenborough.

  2. If your religion promotes killing none-believers, beating women, punishing rape victims, or selling your daughters as wife’s, you are not praying to the god above, your praying to the one below.

  3. Mohammed spent his life raping and slaughtering infidels, and Muslims worship Mohammed. Why people can’t grasp this is still a mystery.

  4. John Esposito should have been hung for treason,sedition and vast leftist conspiracies to overthrow the constitution along with his henchmen whom worship Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood. As to Justice in the interim barrack Hussein Obama,and participants’ me personal solution is a short rope, a nervous horse and a tall,tall pecan tree

  5. Here’s the deal…
    No outside force can take the USA……None of the “unhappy minority” groups are large enough to take the USA by force, either……. But……….. inside & united……they think they might have a chance….

    Look at all the mismatched pieces of the DNC…… All these groups held together with tacky-tape…..
    But that’s not to say….. that it couldn’t get hairy…..

If sharia keeps spreading, you will not only be silenced by the media and big technology, you will be jailed - or worse. Speak while you can!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.