Talk:John Esposito

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Why were these published works chosen as representative? According to amazon.com, he has at least 69 published books. Also, this article desperately needs expanding.JeremyBicha 01:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Robert Spencer and frontpagemag be considered "views of a tiny minority" per WP:BLP. Can some user look into that?Bless sins 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people aware of Esposito likely share those views. Arrow740 06:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Criticism section[edit]

206.57.40.102 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Pamela McVay206.57.40.102 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) While I may agree that Kramer's points should be noted, their current phrasing in the article makes them sound as if they could not possibly stem from personal animus or from jealousy. The article of Kramer's to which this article links makes what I consider to be serious accusations of poor scholarship, and they are based on what I consider poor and poorly reasoned evidence. For example, according to the link Kramer says:[reply]

"During the first part of his career, John L. Esposito never studied or taught at a major Middle East center. He completed a doctorate in Islamic studies at Temple University in 1974 and then spent nearly twenty years teaching comparative religion and Islam at the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit college in Massachusetts. His early published work dealt with Pakistan and Muslim family law. Had he continued along this trajectory, he would have remained obscure even by the standards of Middle Eastern studies."

Esposito is a prolific publisher, especially for someone not affiliated with a major research university and therefore responsible for a lot of teaching. (Although I think Temple University is a much better institution than Kramer seems to imply) The first book-length study he was associated with, so far as I know, was _Islam in transition : Muslim perspectives_ which he edited with John J. Donohue. It was from Oxford University Press in 1982, which in terms of publishing means it was basically finished by 1981 at the latest. In other words, within 8 years of finishing his doctorate, Esposito had enough clout and had performed enough service in the field to edit a volume whose scholars' backgrounds and topics covered the entire gamut of the central middle east, from Egypt to Pakistan. In the pre-e-mail era, corresponding with the large number of middle eastern scholars represented here would have been a Herculean labor. Kramer's assertion that Esposito "would have remained obscure" seems highly unreasonable given Esposito's early exposure to so many scholars from different regions, especially while working with such a distinguished press as Oxford. Moreover, very little of Esposito's published work has been on Pakistan. Of his many publications, nearly all are comparative, synthetic, edited compliations attempting to create a synthesis, or, like "Islam: the Straight Path" intended for a wide audience.


As one of the many people who have turned to Esposito's textbook in my preparing my own teaching, I also resent Kramer's apparent assertion that those of us who chose it did so in order to make some point about Edward Said, or out of a reluctance to assign _Orientalism_ to our students, or out of a desperate desire for works that fit a particular political slant. The article attributed to him says:

"The rank-and-file of MESA [whom Kramer seems to imagine were the only people reading Esposito] were drawn increasingly from academics like Esposito, at lesser universities and colleges. Many of them were teaching the most basic courses on Islam, with enrollments driven by bad news from the Middle East. They were on the lookout for sympathetic texts on Islam — pitched lower than Orientalism, uncontaminated by anti-Americanisms, preferably even written by an American — which they could use in their classes and recommend to their departmental colleagues."

I will let aside the barely hidden contempt Kramer heaps on academics "like Esposito," those of us teaching at "lesser universities and colleges", all of us presumably unable to detect unreasonable scholarly bias. However, I point out that if there is a case for selection bias to be made here, it would actually be that many of us would respond well to a point of view forged in a teaching situation similar to our own. The article probably should reflect this; Esposito publishes primarily for scholars and teachers whose duties are like his own, and we teach most of the US's student population. Thus, yes, his ideas have been widely disseminated.

In any case, I can hardly imagine that anyone who has taught American freshmen and sophomores would think _Orientalism_ was any use as an introduction to Islam or to the Middle East. Any historian or comparative religion instructor in the who thought Esposito's text was, at the time of its first publication, their only choice would have to have been incompetent. Indeed, since _Orientalism_ is actually a critique of European intellectual history, the suggestion that we would consider using it to introduce even graduate students to issues in modern Islam is baffling. 

_Islam: the Straight Path_, as Kramer surely knows, is an introductory primer to Islam, written for the reader who knows nothing of Islam and little about religion as a scholarly topic. The natural alternative to it was not _Orientalism_ or some more appropriately critical (in Kramer's mind) text, but Huston Smith's _Religions of Man_ (more lately revised into _The World's Religions_, a work which is no less sympathetic to Islam than Esposito's. Moreover, scholars scarcely had search hard to find Huston Smith if they wanted to find a suitable introduction to Islam; Smith's book has been in publication in one edition or another since the late 1950's. Esposito's book won out with most people teaching the middle east because we thought it was better; more detailed, more up to date, and more engaged in issues we thought our students cared about.

In short, while Kramer may well know a great deal about radical Islam--indeed, he is a leading authority on it--he apparently knows very little about American teachers of history and comparative religion, except that he thinks we're all incompetent. His critique of Esposito has been widely disseminated, and therefore needs to be in here, but it ought not to stand without substantive analysis.

206.57.40.102 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Pamela McVay206.57.40.102 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Why does his criticism section even MENTION obscurity? Since when does Wikipedia care about how "obscure" or even how "American" people/subjects are? Why is this even a valid criticism in the first place? Does it even mean anything? How about - Is it even a criticism? I suggest removing such racist garbage. --68.11.242.153 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Behemoth101[reply]



I added that Campus Watch is an American pro-Israel and pro-Iraq War think tank. This is true even according to Wikipedia. Please do not remove. I removed criticism section for now[1], per concerns raised regarding WP:BLP in [2] --Aminz 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms Esposito are more prominent and propounded by more reliable sources, as opposed to one non-notable person. Arrow740 06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument made there. WP:BLP requires balance between positive and negative views. --Aminz 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is undue weight. Please read BLP again. Arrow740 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am making the same arguments. A WP:BLP can not conain only criticisms. --Aminz 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP does not say that a biogrpahy cannot contain any criticism. Beit Or 07:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. We can have criticisms but not "all" criticisms. --Aminz 07:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. Notable and releevant criticism must be included. In addition, yours and Bless sins' edits to this page clearly violate WP:POINT. Beit Or 07:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bless sin's edits? It is not WP:POINT. What point? I am saying we should apply equal standards to WP:BLP articles. --Aminz 07:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to insert criticism that violated WP:NPOV#Undue weight into Martin Gilbert, so you want to remove notable and relevant criticism from this article. This is a violation of WP:POINT. Beit Or 07:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain the difference between valid criticism and the one that violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aminz 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it many times, but I'll do that once again. Beilin's criticism was about a rather obscure book by Martin Gilbert, who is best known for the biogrpahy of Winston Churchill. On the other hand, Martin Kramer's criticism of Esposito is about the latter's rise to fame. This is clearly an important aspect of Esposito's notability and thus not in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Beit Or 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Martin Kramer is a Likudnik ideologue and hack. His so-called criticism is nothing but shrill nonsense. There should be a criticism section on this page, but find some true academic criticism to replace this garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.49.17 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Has John Esposito converted to Islam?[edit]

Esposito seems to believe like many Muslims - that Islamophobia (i.e. irrational fear of Islam) is the root cause of terrorism and all that is not right with the Islam and the wider world. If we would just stop fearing Islam in America, Europe and in other parts of the free world, then, Buddhist monks would not be attacked in Southern Thailand - for being Buddhist; the beliefs within Islam that call for world domination - by almost any means - i.e. jihad / which the Prophet Muhammad took part in - to create terror and fear - in order to convert and to subjugate or to kill those who would not convert - so says the Koran. Does he believe that if we would rid ourselves of personally or cleanse society of all fear of Islam or Islamophobia, then the entire reality of jihad would go away - as 93% of the versus dealing with jihad in the Koran, Hadiths and Sira, relate to violent jihad - while only 3% deal with the highly publicized 'inner peace/struggle'. Or perhaps the reality that calls for apostates to be sentenced to death - and non-believers to be attacked - is probably what cleansed the once largely Christian Middle East of those believers - can also be rectified by doing away with the person choice to dislike, somewhat like, or even hate Islam.

Though it puzzles me how it is that - in reaching out to Islam - those who profess to be Christian - like Esposito and the Archbishop could so easily overlook the plight of Christians within the Islamic world. So eager to help – they trample the very thing they claim to believe. Solving the 'Islam problem' is far more exciting and something which they could gain much more prominence than dealing with the old 'Christian persecution problem' in the Islamic world.

While it is not possible for Esposito or the Bishop to bring a personal bible or a cross into Arabia or to worship freely there, due Esposito Saudi sponsored position at GU, his sole aim is to convince us that the problem with Islam is entirely owing to western attitudes towards the religion.

Why is Esposito so keen on getting westerners to accept Islam – or rather to see it in a positive light - over and above what it actually does in today's world? It is a valid question – if John Esposito has converted to Islam – would he put his personal interests above that of the University, society and then nation – in order to fulfil a religious role? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptoo (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms ARE many[edit]

I have just read the article and the discussion. The facts are that John Esposito IS highly criticized by many, though I don't have the full list ! That we agree or disagree with these criticisms is irrelevant, I think they should be mentionned at any rate, and could be mentionned in all neutrality with regards to Wiki's policy with giving a short summary of them and of which personns/organizations issued them. Unfortunately, I don't think my English is good enough to write a paragraph about that, besides the fact that, although I know in general which criticisms are made towards Esposito's views, I don't have enough precise references. But if anyone would write such a paragraph, with a neutral title such as "Criticisms", I really don't think this would violate the neutrality policy (as long as references are given !), which appears to me as being the motive of the discussion above. I would add that without any mention of a strong opposition in the intellectual and/or activist sphere towards Esposito's points of view and activities, this article is really uncomplete.

Spipou (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One little point more : of all the non-muslim intellectual personnalities who promote the inter-faith dialogue, John Esposito seems to me to be one of the most controversial, at least in the US and from what I can read in the anglophone media/websites. If I am not wrong saying this, this mere FACT should be written in the article !

Spipou (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Language[edit]

This section uses obviously biased language and ought to be either deleted or rewritten to have a neutral tone:

Following the September 11 attacks, Daniel Pipes's anti-Islamic organisation Campus Watch[5] initiated accusations that Esposito is an Islamist apologist because he raised attention to grievances that inspired people to conduct suicide bombings in Palestine. Esposito does not condone terrorist violence and has supported the Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings issued by Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. This fatwa, for which Esposito and Joel Hayward wrote the introductory sections, is one of the strongest condemnations of terrorism ever issued by a senior Islamic cleric.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.202.225 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Esposito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Esposito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect removal of Category:Muslim apologists[edit]

This is a relatively minor issue. Category:Muslim apologists has recently been removed by Vice regent with the motivation that “Esposito is not Muslim”. However Category:Muslim apologists defines itself as “The following individuals are all known to a significant degree for their work in the field of Islamic apologetics.”.

Besides the explicit label, the fact that “Muslim” in “Muslim apologists” is the object of the apologetics and not an adjective referring to the apologists can be easily understood by reductio ad absurdum: given that apologetics always requires a field to be applied to, and imagining that “Muslim” is an adjective that refers to the apologists as Vice regent understands it, there would be a piece missing… “Muslim apologists of … what?” Muslim apologists of pizza? Muslim apologists of basketball?

By having a look at what the people listed in the category defend it is clear that they defend Muslims or Islam. So “Muslim apologists” is to be intended as “Apologists of Muslims”, not as “Apologists (of what?) that are Muslim”. And indeed the category explicitly mentions it. --Grufo (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable sources that refer to Esposito as an apologist for Islam? The article doesn't state this and for now it should stay removed per WP:BLP.VR talk 12:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I thought that your problem was whether Esposito is or is not a Muslim, or so you have stated in your edit summary. Has your problem now shifted to whether Esposito defends Muslims or not? For as tautological as it sounds, if the article has Category:Muslim apologists, the article automatically states that Esposito writes in defense of Muslims. And I believe that we are talking about a fact evident enough (and nothing is bad about it). --Grufo (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grufo, everything on BLP must be sourced. If not, it must be removed immediately. If you think Esposito is an "apologist" or writes in "apologetics" than find a source that says that. And its the latter then "Muslim apologetics" is the better category, not "Muslim apologists". Also @GorgeCustersSabre:. VR talk 13:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grufo, sometimes less is more. Your argument of him not being Muslim is valid (although he is suspected of "converting to Islam" by some (see above)). But we need sources for the claim that Esposito is an apologist for Islam. While I've heard some academic criticisms of Esposito, they often tend to be drowned out by crankish claims made by people like Daniel Pipes according to whom many people from Prince Charles to Obama is a Muslim apologist and maybe even a convert. Caution is advised especially considering BLP.
Can user GorgeCustersSabre give his views as well since he's involved? 39.37.149.152 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed the anonymous IP address that always accompanies Vice regent… We are talking about how to categorize his work, not his life, and the article itself is a long bibliography of selected works from Esposito. The choice is then on how to categorize this list of works. Again, the fact that we are talking about literature in defense of Muslims is evident (almost tautological), nothing is bad about it, and it has nothing to do with his biography. --Grufo (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:. Hello. I hope you are fine. Here's a source saying that Esposito is an apologist for Islam. Paul Hollander, ed., Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 182-183. Being an apologist isn't a terrible accusation. It just means that someone seeks, through argument, to present the religion in a positive light. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GorgeCustersSabre:, I hope you're doing well too! I read those pages and they sound pretty anti-Esposito to me. They cite

Campus Watch, “Esposito: Apologist for Militant Islam,” FrontPageMag.com

which is a notoriously bad source. Also the source says "Esposito tried to present Islam and Islamism in Western categories thereby hoping to create a more favorable attitude to them in the West." There's plenty of academics who do that, but we wouldn't label them as "apologists". Does the source use the term "apologist"? If so, I missed that.VR talk 14:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FrontPage Magazine is a deprecated source, meaning that it can't be cited as source of facts, and has very little weight for opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Hi again. Thanks for your question. It’s in a section about apologists but, you are correct, it does not explicitly state “John Esposito is an apologist”. I think you have a point about its sources. So I won’t be dogmatic about this issue. I’ll go with whatever consensus emerges. Thanks for your goodwill. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GorgeCustersSabre: I just saw the author for that source, its Ibn Warraq. That's definitely a controversial source and criticized by academics (Ibn_Warraq#Criticism). I'm removing this, per WP:BLP, until we can find better sources.VR talk 15:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorgeCustersSabre, you are absolutely correct in saying that there is nothing wrong in being an "apologist", but the problem is that the word can have different meanings. Once upon a time, the term propaganda and propagandist was used neutrally but this is not the case anymore. Generally, when we talk about apologia we usually mean it in a negative, judgmental sense. The category apologists for Muslims is also strange seeing as it only includes less than a dozen authors (only Espesito beiong non-Muslim), when we can literally have hundreds if not thousands of authors who have written in "defense of Islam or Muslims", practically every Muslim scholar plus many non-Muslims I can think of as well, like Karen Armstrong. In any case, this is more an issue with the label "Muslim apologist", rather than the application of it to Esposito, so I'll bring my arguments there. 39.37.149.152 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against removing the category: It is evident that we are talking about apologetic literature (probably good one). --Grufo (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide reliable sources that Esposito is an apologist or his works constitute apologist literature.VR talk 17:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Literature that speaks in defense of something (even by restoring a mistreated truth) is apologetic by definition. And there is nothing bad with it. I believe you would like to remove it because his opponents apparently accuse him of being apologetic of radical Islam, but this is not what this discussion is about. I believe he speaks in defense of the more secular and pragmatic Muslims, so why would you like to hide it? --Grufo (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Apologist can be a negative label, but that doesn't matter as WP:BLP requires us to remove poorly sourced material "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". WP:BLPCAT says the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Currently we have nothing in the article that makes that clear. If you think what you're saying is so obvious, why can't you find reliable sources for it?VR talk 17:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Investigating what the problem is is far from WP:ASPERSIONS. “Apologetic” can have positive or negative meanings as much as its opposite, “critic”: it all depends on the context and how it is used, and per se is a fairly neutral term. This is an excerpt from a review of John Esposito's book Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change made by Emmanuel Sivan:

… This recent addition to an already bulky body of literature is a “mixed bag”. It begins in a promising manner with two, broad-ranging essays by M. C. Hudson (“Islam and Political Development”) and D. Crecellius (“The Course of Secularization in Modern Egypt”), both scintillating with insights. Yet, in this same synthesizing vein, we are also offered an essay (by three co-authors) on “Islam and Modern Economic Change”, which is nothing but an excercize in apologetics. Such apologia on the almost complete compatibility of Islamic law and economic practice with modern, economic development …

— Emmanuel Sivan in John Esposito (Ed.), Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical change[1]
Removing the category would be a bit like removing Category:Critics of Islam from… let's say Voltaire (or choose another name if you prefer). --Grufo (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "three co-authors" that Sivan mentions appear to be John Thomas Cummings, Hossein Askari, and Ahmad Mustafa. The source seems to be referring "apologetics" in a negative manner. The full sentence is,

Such apologia on the almost complete compatibility of Islamic law and economic practice with modern, economic development would be very interesting had it been a piece of modern, Islamic, speculative thinking on this issue; as an analysis by people supposedly educated in the norms of historical and social research, it is shallow, full of mistakes, and oblivious of the relevant literature

To refer to an academic's work as "full of mistakes" is strong criticism, but it should be considered a criticism of the "three co-authors", not of Esposito.VR talk 22:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the book except that page and I believe I made a mistake in referencing it (I hope it is fixed now). By the way, Esposito is the editor of the book containing Sivan's quotation above, which for sure is a review of Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change (I checked), so I am fairly convinced the review cannot be too critical against Esposito and we are for sure in an unbiased territory. As I said, apologetics is a neutral term per se, and “excercize in criticism” would sound as negative. Moreover, although this is probably not the case, a source would not even need to endorse Esposito and it can perfectly be critical of him: it needs just to be reliable. --Grufo (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Esposito is the editor of the source containing Sivan, and yes reliable sources can be critical of Esposito, and we should include that criticism. However, Sivan is not criticizing Esposito, but rather "three co-authors", which I believe are John Thomas Cummings, Hossein Askari, and Ahmad Mustafa.VR talk 13:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being the editor of a book that collects a series of articles means taking responsibility for what these articles state. Consider that Category:Critics of Islam is often given for much less. Voltaire for example wrote relatively few words about Islam in proportion to the rest of his work. Esposito instead seems focused mostly on Islam. And besides what evidence and common sense can suggest about the tone of his work, at least a third of one of his books has been explicitly defined as apologetic. For me this is more than enough. --Grufo (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, certainly not on a WP:BLP. If this is your only evidence, then I suggest we remove this category for now (per WP:BLP rules) and take this to WP:DRN.VR talk 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has not been my argument and please do not reinterpret what I explicitly say. My argument has been:

Besides what evidence and common sense can suggest about the tone of his work, at least a third of one of his books has been explicitly defined as apologetic. For me this is more than enough.

--Grufo (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not his book, its a book he edited. In any case, I don't see us making progress anymore, so best to post this somewhere like WP:BLPN. In the meanwhile I'm removing the category per WP:BLP. Lets see what others say. VR talk 20:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A point to note is that the above source only criticises the three in regards to aplogetics regarding "compatibility of Islamic law and economic practice", and not the full range of their works. Esposito has written on much more than Islamic economic practice. The source does not seem to support the designation. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources that categorize Esposito as apologist:[edit]

  • Moylan, Tom (18 May 2013). "Critically Assessing the Role of Islam in Authoritarian Contexts". E-International Relations. Retrieved 2020-08-10. Apologists like Said with his accusation that Orientalism stems from xenophobia and Esposito, who identifies aspects of Islam from which could spring democracy

--Grufo (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the author? Is it this Tom Moylan or a different one? And not sure how scholarly a source E-International Relations is.VR talk 21:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“Who is the author?”: [3]
“how scholarly a source E-International Relations is”: It is a peer-reviewed magazine, it is widely used by Wikipedia ([[4]]) and its articles seem to have an acceptable number of citations ([5]). More information at their website ([6])
--Grufo (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Grufo (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By investigating further, I have understood that there is a sort of acedemic battle between two schools of thought in oriental studies, labeled respectively as “neo-orientalists” (right wing?) and “apologists” (left wing?) – see for example [7], p. 11. But this goes a bit beyond the scope of this topic. --Grufo (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions[edit]

I believe the removal has the effect of presenting as neutral an author that has shown the will to take position and is identified as such by the sources. To avoid impoverishment of the article the removal of the category is to be reverted. Furthermore a presentation of the current dispute between neo-orientalists and apologists in oriental studies is more than welcome to integrate the article. --Grufo (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are hardly in a position to "conclude" right now. I posted this on WP:BLPN and want to give others the opportunity to comment.VR talk 00:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: So you would still like to remove the category? Why so? --Grufo (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think its appropriate he is widely known as an apologist, unlike others in that category like Zakir Naik etc. He is known first and foremost as an academic. The sources presented thus far aren't the greatest and do seem biased. I also want to get opinions from others before adding the category as this is a WP:BLP after all.VR talk 00:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking forward for more interventions. Apologist in this case is quite an academic label, have you read what I wrote about the two fields in oriental studies and Marranci's paper? How do the sources seem biased? Does Marranci seem biased? Or Nester? Or Moylan? Please do explain. --Grufo (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marranci seems to contradict the view that Esposito is an apologist and in fact regards the categorization of apologist as "polemic" and less accurate than a different categorization:

In another article, Halliday has strongly criticized the ‘neo-Orientalist’ and ‘apologetic’ positions, because these debates have only ‘generated much hot air’ (1997: 401). Halliday, rejecting the use of the traditional polemic labels, has suggested a more accurate description of these opposing academic viewpoints as ‘essentialists’ versus ‘contingencists’. So, essentialists are ‘those who argued that the Islamic world was dominated by a set of relatively enduring and unchanging processes and meaning, to be understood through the texts of Islam and the language it generated’ (1997: 400–1). By contrast, Halliday has defined the ‘contingencists’ as those who reject any universalistic framework and prefer to focus on the ‘contingent’ realities that exist in each Islamic country or socio-political situation (as Esposito).

VR talk 01:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit inaccurate. Marranci takes position against creating two fields, but in his (personal) refusal he acknowledges the fact that such division is quite common among academics. But as I said before, this goes a bit beyond the scope of the discussion (the article is not about Marranci). Furthermore you have still not answered some of my questions. Who do you think is non-reliable among the sources that have no problems in defining Esposito as apologist? Nester? Moylan? The fact that at least two sources do that is really more than enough, considering that Esposito is not a rock star and not everyone talks about him.--Grufo (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have two sources (Halliday and Marranci) saying that the categorization of academics as apologists is incorrect and Esposito should be considered as a "contingencist". I asked you who Moylan was and I have no idea what their credentials are. I need to dig a bit more into Nester's book. Esposito is a fairly famous academic in Islamic studies.VR talk 01:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have two sources that explicitly list Esposito as apologist (as I said, he is not a rock star), but if you want the list of sources that acknowledge the two schools of thought independently of Esposito there will be way more than two names in the list against Halliday and Marranci ([8], [9]). --Grufo (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that's another page, but the sources and the quotes are the exact same: Hoyland and Nester. Johnbod seems to have initially found both sources to be partisan, but later only reserved that judgement for the Nester source. Nishidani seems to have agreed with on what Johnbod said. (Hope I didn't misrepresent either of the users and they should correct me if I did).VR talk 01:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike categories in BLPs unless they are very firmly entrenched in self-recognized or a description accepted by the person's relevant peer-group. This one in particular is problematical, and the kind of sourcing about is predominantly politicized, pinning an 'apologetic' label to skewer an adversary. BPLs should avoid such labeling unless the author himself uses the term, or does not object to their work, or one of their works, being described as such.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure self-recognition is necessary. Some of the people in Category:Critics of Islam would maybe describe themselves as “not critic at all, only objective” – and yet they should still remain there. As for Esposito, he does not seem too enthusiast about categorizations in general – although about the category in question he says it is “one of the better names I have been called”:

When you start calling people names then that is when you begin to see a shift. If you say someone is an apologist for Islam, it’s like somebody saying to a Western scholar you are an Orientalist. They just use that sort of blanket blame. Actually that’s one of the better names I have been called. I have been called a stealth and so on.

— Younis, Inas (13 November 2015). "How to Build Bridges Between Christianity and Islam – Prof John Esposito Explains". Clarion India. Retrieved 2020-08-13.
Whether his approval is necessary or not though, I believe secondary sources are what decides about the matter. And in this case what I see is a mainstream division (neo-orientalists vs. apologists), opposed by some critical voices.
As for using the “'apologetic' label to skewer an adversary”, honestly I have seen also the opposite, using the “neo-orientalist” label to demean an adversary. This is just what inevitably happens when people start to use simplifications. --Grufo (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We just don't ticket people with exonyms they have never endorsed. Full stop. The rest is waffle. Numerous times people have tried to list the religion of people of Jewish extraction as Judaism, and this has been quite properly ruled out, on the grounds that if the subject of the wiki bio has not personally endorsed the connection, it cannot be inferred.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you read his whole response its very clear Esposito rejects the label. I guess there are now three sources that reject this label in the context of Esposito being called an "apologist": Halliday, Marranci and Esposito.VR talk 13:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had said he is not enthusiastic about it. But he is directly involved, so he counts relatively. And if you include Halliday (who does not talk about Esposito as far as I know) we will have to include the zillion sources that acknowledge the two schools of thought without mentioning Esposito either. --Grufo (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Esposito, John, ed. (1981). "Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical change". Middle East Studies Association Bulletin. 15 (2). Syracuse University Press: 30–30. doi:10.1017/S0026318400010269.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Esposito&oldid=1222149555"