Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think | 
 enlarge | Authors: John L. Esposito, Dalia Mogahed
Publisher: Gallup Press
Category: Book
List Price: $22.95
Buy New: $13.00
You Save: $9.95 (43%)
New (43) Used (17) Collectible (1) from $11.48
Avg. Customer Rating:  23 reviews
Sales Rank: 38571
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 230
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 8.5 x 5.8 x 0.9
ISBN: 1595620176
Dewey Decimal Number: 297
EAN: 9781595620170
ASIN: 1595620176
Publication Date: February 25, 2008
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In a post-9/11 world, many Americans conflate the mainstream Muslim majority with the beliefs and actions of an extremist minority. But what do the world’s Muslims think about the West, or about democracy, or about extremism itself? Who Speaks for Islam? spotlights this silenced majority. The book is the product of a mammoth six-year study in which the Gallup Organization conducted tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 predominantly Muslim nations — urban and rural, young and old, men and women, educated and illiterate. It asks the questions everyone is curious about: Why is the Muslim world so anti-American? Who are the extremists? Is democracy something Muslims really want? What do Muslim women want? The answers to these and other pertinent, provocative questions are provided not by experts, extremists, or talking heads, but by empirical evidence — the voices of a billion Muslims.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 18 more reviews...
 "Who Speaks for Islam?" October 17, 2008
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
This book summarizes the information gained from the Gallup World Poll's massive multiyear research study of the opinions of tens of thousands of Muslims in more than 35 countries. The information is presented clearly and succinctly, addressing the questions most frequently asked by Westerners unfamiliar with Islam. The authors appear to have no hidden agenda but simply present their findings. An appendix describes the methodology used. An excellent resource for a dangerous period of history.
Excellent piece September 17, 2008
6 out of 8 found this review helpful
Don't look at what FOX news claims about Muslims, look at the hard facts on the ground....
 Real Islam September 6, 2008
3 out of 23 found this review helpful
In 1920s-30s, Palestinian Muslims committed massacre of Jews in Jewish land of Palestine murdering thousands of children and civilians. The murder was organized by the founder and supreme leader of the Arab Higher Committee, Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and supported by British Administration of Palestine. The massacre was, in reality, the Holocaust committed by Palestinian Arabs in compliance with Islamic Koran which demand killing Christians and Jews.
Haj Amin was close friend of Hitler. In 1941, Haj Amin came to Berlin and visited Hitler. He brought the Holocaust idea to Hitler. In 1943, Amin organized Bosnian Muslim battalions in Croatia comprising some twenty thousand men. The battalions were put in Waffen-SS units, fought Yugoslav partisans in Bosnia; thousands of Serbs, Roma ('Gypsies') and Jews hunted down by Haj Amin's SS troops were killed by those same troops, or they were sent to the Islamic death camp Jasenovac. After the WWII, the International tribunal declared Haj Amin was crime criminal; however, he escaped prosecution, fled to Egypt and then Palestine where he organized Fatah. After his death in 1974, Arafat, who was Haj Amin lieutenant, became Fatah commander. He organized PLO. PLO and Fatah committed numerous murders around the world killing American and European Christian and Jews.
From 1948 to 1953, Arab countries expelled almost million Jews and stall their properties. Laws of some Islamic countries ban Christians and Jews from living there, in compliance with Koran. In 1999, Kosovo Liberation Army stormed homes of the last 15 Jews in Kosovo's capital, who had to clear out, with just the clothes on their backs
The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a United States Senator and brother of assassinated President John F. Kennedy, took place shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968. He was killed following celebrations of his successful campaign in the Californian primary elections while seeking the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. The perpetrator was a twenty-four year old Palestinian immigrant named Sirhan Sirhan.
In 1985, the Achille Lauro cruise ship was hijacked. During the hijacking, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American from New York, Leon Klinghoffer, was shot and pushed overboard. The hijacking was organized by the militant Palestinian Liberation Front in part to demand the freedom of Samir Kuntar, the convicted gunman now at the center of a prisoner swap between Israel and Hezbollah. (Unclear, why US has never demanded his extradition to US for trail)
There are more:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
New York World Trade Center 2001;
Pentagon 2001.
(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)
The above is only a minuscule part of islam criminal and murderous history.;
 Well, it's not the "SILENCED majority" who speaks, is it? August 1, 2008
14 out of 28 found this review helpful
Imagine you begin to see the Nazis gaining influence in Germany. Imagine they have already killed several thousand Jews and are talking of killing more. Imagine the German people are doing nothing to stop them, and are afraid to speak out against them. Then imagine somebody writes a book saying, "What are you worried about? Nine in ten Germans are moderate. Only one in ten Germans think the concentration camps are COMPLETELY justified. So stop saying there's a problem with Germany. If you keep saying there's a problem with Germany, you're nothing but a paranoid Germaphobe." Imagine that, and you'd have something like "Who Speaks for Islam?"
Espositio and Mogahed reassure Westerners that Muslims are just like Westerners, but caution them that Muslims are totally different and therefore Westerners have to be careful not to offend them. (I know, it's confusing.) To prove their point, they use a set of Gallup Poll data that is not available to the public for examination. (That's OK. They'll be happy to interpret the data for you.) The ultimate message of this book is: stop being such and Islamaphobic bigot. Stop suggesting that terrorism has something to do with Muslims. Stop saying that Islam is oppresive to women. Stop suggesting that fanaticism is a greater problem in modern Islam than it is in modern Judaism or Christianity.
The book has its virtues. It provides a helpful overview of Muslim denominations and the history of western/Islamic relations. It reminds the western reader that Islam is not a monolith and dispels the neo-conservative and liberal myths that inside every Muslim is an American just dying to get out. It cautions westerners that if they hope to improve the lives of Muslims, reform should be promoted within an Islamic framework, since Muslim pride will resist any changes that seem to imply Western cultural superiority. And it reminds liberals who are concerned abut how we Americans appear to Muslims that the number one thing Muslims dislike about us is our sexual liberalism.
Now for my difficulties. The authors refuse to consider the possibility that there is anything in Islam that might make it difficult for progress, freedom, equality, and religious tolerance to occur in Muslim countries. They dispel Western concerns about Islam by calling them "myths," rather than by actually marshalling a great deal of evidence to the contrary. For instance, it's a "myth" that Muslims are the "culprits" in terrorism. To explain how this is only a myth, the authors offer several paragraphs condemning the bigotry and Islamaphobia of westerners. They don't actually suggest who it was who flew those airplanes into the World Trade Center or blew up the buses in England or the trains in Spain, if not Muslims. Perhaps they were Baptists. But no matter if they were Muslims, because what we really need to understand, the authors tell us, is that Muslim reactions are the result of a Western lack of respect for Islam, and Muslim actions have to be "understood in context."
When, for instance, the Pope makes a negative statement about Islam, and Muslims react by beating Christians and setting their churches on fire, those beatings and burnings are the fault of the Pope's insensitivity, and not any reflection whatsoever on the influence of Islam as a religion. When a cartoonist ridicules the Prophet, and Muslims react by setting cars on fire and damaging property, we have to understand that the vandalism and destruction is the fault of western rudeness, and not any reflection whatsoever on the influence of Islam as a religion. (It's interesting to note, however, that Jews did not react to Pope Benedict's reinstament of The Prayer for the Jews by burning churches and beating Christians; nor did the Catholics react to the "Dung Virgin Mary" by setting cars on fire.)
In the event that you are an Islamaphobic bigot who believes Islam has a problem restraining its radical fringe, you can rest assured that, according to Esposito and Mogahed's analysis of the Gallup Poll data, nine in ten Muslims are moderate. They don't mention this, but, if you do the math, that means there are a mere ONE HUNDRED MILLION "radicalized" Muslims in the world. So, if you were an American killed today by a terrorist while you sat peacefully at your computer at work, the Muslims who would delight in your death number only one-third the entire population of the United States. Be comforted.
Of course, there is also the question of how the authors are defining "moderate" when they say that nine in ten Muslims are "moderate." The authors don't actually say what, specifically, they mean by "moderate," but it's clear from piecing together the scattered information that a "moderate" can include any of the following: a Muslim who wants to see the imposition of sharia law; a Muslim who believes women should not have equal legal rights as men; a Muslim who believes suicide bombings of civilians is justified, or a Muslim who believes the 9/11 attacks were "partially justified." Indeed, it seems that the only thing that excludes a Muslim from being counted as "moderate" in the authors' analysis is if he or she answers that the 9/11 attacks were "completely justified." So be comforted. Only 100 million Muslims think the 9/11 attacks were "COMPLETELY justified."
How do the authors attempt to re-inform the misguided westerner, who so prejudicially believes that Muslims are, _on average_, somewhat more likely to want to punish apostasy, repress women, drive the Jews into the sea, and riot in response to religious slights than are, say, Methodists? First, they are certain to quote primarily the verses from the Koran enjoining peace and tolerance, and they are prudent to omit all but one verse enjoining violence and exclusion. Then they make careful use of vocabulary, beginning with their frequently repeated claim that Islam means "a strong commitment to God." (In what language? Literally translated, it means "submission," but I suppose that's too rough for western ears.) They speak of the empire the Muslims "created," of course, and not of the empire they "conquered." The language is all very warm and inviting and non-threatening.
Next, the authors level assumptions about Islamic terrorism by making some surprising claims about Christians, such as this remarkable accusation: "The vast majority of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have been perpetrated by Christian terrorist groups in the past 15 years." Oh, really? Could you name two or three of these "Christian terrorist groups" please? No. No group names will be given. Not one. Just a blanket statement. In fact, the only name they mention at all is Timothy McVeigh, whom they classify as a "Christian terrorist," despite the fact that he never committed his acts in the name of Christ, never screamed "Praise Jesus!", never claimed to be motivated by religion, and described himself as an "agnostic," telling his friends, "Science is my religion."
For a book on polls, "Who Speaks for Islam?" contains a surprisingly limited number of raw statistics. The most frequently used word in the book is the vague "many." Sometimes the authors will make a statement and then support it not by reference to the Gallup poll, but by reference to a single anecdote. When the data is contradictory, they don't notice or comment. Finally, the authors do not seem willing to consider the obvious possibility that very different cultures might interpret the same questions very differently, so even if their answers are similar, they may not mean the same thing.
This book seems to be one more entry in the litany of suggestions that, really, all fundamentalists of all religions are EQUALLY dangerous, and, really, all religions and scriptures are EQUALLY conducive to peace, economic prosperity, freedom, gender equality, and religious tolerance. If the state of the world's predominantly Muslim nations doesn't seem to substantiate the fact that Islam is perfectly compatible with democracy, religious freedom, and gender equality, then the reason can't possibly have anything at all to do with Islam. How then does one explain the relative prevalence of oppression in the Muslim world, if one cannot cite Islam as even a single factor? I'm not sure, but from reading this book, I think it has something to do with the fact that Americans are all a bunch of arrogant, smug, small-minded meddlers, and if we would just stop criticizing Islam and instead start miraculously fixing the economic infrastructures of all Muslim countries without, at the same time, interfering in the internal affairs of Islamic states, we wouldn't have to worry about airplanes flying into office buildings.
I am more than willing to believe that women-oppressing, terrorist-supporting Muslims represent a radical fringe in Islam, but when a fringe numbers 100 million people, that fringe ought to be a subject of genuine concern. And even if 9 in 10 Muslims are moderate (as they probably are, if you're using a very broad definition of "moderate"), that still leaves us with the question as to why mainstream Islam fails to repress its radical fringe in the same way mainstream Christianity represses and contains and (when necessary) punishes its radical fringe. Why does Islam's radical fringe have such influence and such free reign, such power to silence Islam's moderates? The book speaks of the "silenced" moderate majority, but if the moderates are "silenced," they aren't "speaking" for Islam, are they? And so really the book has answered its own title question, and the answer is not encouraging.
Misses the major points regarding Western distaste for Islam July 28, 2008
4 out of 15 found this review helpful
As I write this review ( On July 28 2008) the first headline of Google is about three women Sunni suicide bombers who have just murdered in Iraq fifty Shiite religious pilgrims. No doubt these three suicide bombers are a minority among the Sunnis of Iraq and the Sunnis of the world, who disapprove of murdering other Muslims. But the minority sets the tone and creates the reality.
This fact points out the weakness of this present book. It aims to show that the Islamic world is more diverse, more desirous and admiring of Democracy, more eager to learn modern Science and Technology, more deserving of Western respect than has it been given credit for being.It tries to undermine stereotypical views of Muslims as terrorists and suicide- bombers. And it presents much evidence that in the world of opinions Muslims are more moderate, more eager for accomodation with the United States and the West than is generally understood in the West.
But in presenting the results of the Gallup polls which were done in a wide variety of Islamic societies the authors misrepresent the total reality behind Western distate for the Islamic world. They do not point out the tens of areas around the globe in which Islamic groups are in violent conflict with others. They do not focus on the major role in Terrorism which those who adhere to Islam have.
So while their call for greater understanding about, learning about Islam is justified they do not deal with the basic reason why the Islamic world is seen as a threat. Nor do they speak about the passivity of Islamic populations in allowing themselves to be ruled by cruel authoritarian leaders.
They too underplay the whole inciteful and violent side of Islamic media, and their spreading of anti-Western anti- Christian and anti-Jewish views through their populations.
|
|
|
