|
| 
 enlarge | Authors: John L. Esposito, Dalia Mogahed
Publisher: Gallup Press
Category: Book
List Price: $22.95
Buy New: $13.08
You Save: $9.87 (43%)
New (39) Used (39) Collectible (1) from $13.08
Avg. Customer Rating:  25 reviews
Sales Rank: 5642
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
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand new item. Over 4 million customers served. Order now. Selling online since 1995. Order with confidence. Code: B20090105231050T
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Well, it's not the "SILENCED majority" who speaks, is it? August 1, 2008
17 out of 33 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
5 out of 16 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.
 Finally giving the Muslim majority a voice July 18, 2008
6 out of 9 found this review helpful
This is an excellent book. It's a summary of the 2006 World Gallup Poll, which represents nearly all the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Ordinary people don't appear too often in the media, and this poll gives statistics on what most Muslims in Muslim-majority countries think. This book gives the statistics but also puts them into a helpful, real-world context.
For those wanting a conversational, often humorous, yet academically reliable introduction to Islam filled with stories and anecdotes of growing up Muslim in America, check out The Muslim Next Door: The Qur'an, the Media, and That Veil Thing.
Does not do credit to the potential value of the survey July 2, 2008
5 out of 14 found this review helpful
Review of Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed released March, 2008
Both John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed work for the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, which claims as its mission providing data-driven analysis on the views of Muslims around the world. Esposito is known in his own right as a Sunni convert to Islam and a professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, famous for Muslim-Christian interfaith work, some of it funded by the royal family in Saudi Arabia.
This book is a very fast read based on Gallup's World Poll that seeks to address common, if biased, views of Muslims with the results of the survey claiming to represent the actual views of Muslims. Thus, it cannot be construed as representing an official Islamic viewpoint, but rather the views from a sample intended to represent 90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims.
Some of the supposedly surprising revelations of this study are practically humorous in a sad, insulting way: one "counterintuitive discovery" is "When asked to describe their dreams for the future, Muslims don't mention fighting in a jihad, but rather getting a better job." Other similarly hardly amazing tidbits are presented in the course of five chapters: Who are Muslims?, Democracy or Theocracy?, What Makes a Radical?, What do Women Want?, and Clash or Coexistence?
In the first chapter, we learn the basics of Islam, such as that "Muslims pray not only as a religious obligation, but also because it makes them feel closer to God". A gray box highlighting brief, important facts occurs on many pages throughout the book and one in this chapter tells us Islam means, "a strong commitment to God", implying that is how the Arabic translates.
In the second chapter we learn results of the survey indicating views that Muslims do not want wholesale adoption of Western democracy in their countries, but at the same time, a majority of Americans don't either, saying that they want the Bible as a major source of legislation. There is an unmistakable, but overdone, effort to show that American views and Muslim views are much closer than many think.
In the third chapter, we find questionable altruisms like, "The real difference between those who condone terrorist acts and all others is about politics, not piety," leaving open the possible interpretation that a truly pious person could condone terrorism. This brings to question the definition of piety employed by the authors and the survey.
In the fourth chapter, we learn things such as that while Western women view the hijab as showing inferior status of women, Muslims view lack of modesty in Western women as showing their degraded status.
And in the last chapter, we find out results like Muslims don't "hate us because of our freedom." The book concludes with an appendix explaining the scientific design of the poll, how it was conducted, and notes.
The book also draws on numerous other poll results, news articles, and interviews. For example, it refers to a Christian Science Monitor interview of Jenan al-Ubaedy, a female member of Iraq's National Assembly, in 2005. She told the newspaper that "she supported the implementation of Sharia. However, she said that as an assembly member, she would fight for women's right for equal pay, paid maternity leave, and reduced hours for pregnant women." I doubt Ms. Al-Ubaedy would have found the use of "however" as appropriate, as if what she was fighting for in equal pay and maternity leave were in opposition to Islamic law as she understood it.
While the poll itself is statistically valid and possibly even worthwhile for addressing certain misconceptions about Muslims, I struggled to think of an audience that this book would actually reach. Anyone who found the majority of the study results as enlightening is unlikely to be open-minded enough to read the book or believe the poll results, anyway. Further, the authors seem to have several questionable interpretations and views, such as a few mentioned earlier, as if they are going too far to adapt to their perceived audience. It seems to have been written too quickly and with too many questionably worded sentences, such as the one about terrorism and piety or the one about Ms. Al-Ubaedy's interview, that can allow for incorrect negative impressions about Islam that the book is supposedly aiming to dispel. Thus, the sincerity of the intent of the work is called to question.
If you like reading interesting takes on statistics, such as Freakonomics by Stephen D. Levitt, there is still some enjoyment to be had in reading this book. I could now cite in a dinner conversation that 88% of Muslims polled in the survey support women's right to vote, or that 80% of Iranians say that bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are never justified, while only 46% of Americans surveyed agreed, but that you might get a different result if you use substitute "terrorist attacks" in place of "attacks intentionally aimed at civilians."
I can't help thinking that a much better book could have been written with the results from the survey than this one. Despite the academic nature of the survey, when I finished the book I felt like I had just read something only pseudo-academic, flawed, off-target for an intended audience, and with questionable intent.
 Sham scholarship: Definition of "radical" restricted and "moderate" broadened AFTER data analyzed June 15, 2008
19 out of 35 found this review helpful
I'm familiar with Georgetown University professor John Esposito's funding (Saudi Arabia) and pro-Islam bias, but 5 minutes into the book even I was surprised at his audacity in translating "Islam" as "a strong commitment to God" when most other scholars, including loud-and-proud Islam apologists (both Muslim and non-Muslim), translate it as "submission to God". Replacing the harsher, but almost universally accepted, "submission" says all you need to know about Esposito's lack of objectivity.
But don't rely on my opinion. On 5/12/08 Robert Satloff published in "The Weekly Standard" (Volume 13, Issue 33, available on-line) a devastating expose of how this book is devoid of scholarship.
Specifically, Mr. Satloff details how Ms. Mogahed (the coauthor) admitted to changing the definition of "radical" AFTER the data had been collected and analyzed, effectively reducing the number of radicals from the 169 million Muslims in categories 4 and 5 of a 1: "9/11 totally unjustified" to 5: "9/11 completely justified" scale, to the 91 million members of category 5 only. (Page 97 of the book also reveals that Esposito now either considers category 4 Muslims, 75% sure the 9/11 attacks were justified, as "moderates", or just ignores category 4 altogether despite it being a swing group between "moderate" and "radical" with almost the population of Germany!)
In Mr. Satloff's words, "[the authors] must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate [of radicals] on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes... The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent [ie categories 4 and 5], there is another 23.1 percent ---300 million Muslims--- who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don't utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate."
It would be a big mistake to read this book if you are just beginning your study of Islam, since you might miss the subtle but fairly standard techniques Esposito uses to introduce his pro-Islam bias. One well-known technique he uses throughout the book is being neutral on Jewish and Christian theology by referring to Moses and Jesus as historical figures while validating Islamic theology by referring to "the Prophet Muhammad", capital P and no qualifier (such as "the Islamic prophet").
Another technique (and the first time I've seen it used) is his references to "Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition", an obvious (to me) attempt to imply that the three religions share a common value system, a fiction (at least when it comes to the Wahhabi version of Islam dominant in Esposito's sponsor Saudi Arabia) commonly promoted by political Islamists (ie non-violent but with similar goals as violent Islamists). Political Islamists' use of the term "Judeo-Christian-Islamic values" to try to ride the coattails of the well-established Judeo-Christian value system has so far failed to gain traction since even a cursory study of Wahhabi Islam shows it shares few if any major values with Christianity (I can't comment on Judaism). Specifically, Wahhabi Islam has no version of the Golden Rule, it tells its believers the exact opposite of "turn the other cheek", it considers non-Muslims inferiors who should (as revealed by God) have fewer rights than Muslims. (See Freedom House's detailed report on Saudi Arabia's government-sanctioned K-12th grade religious studies curriculum, available on-line.) Even the mandatory 2.5% to charity Wahhabi Muslims are required to contribute each year can only go to charities that benefit Muslims. (Can you imagine Mother Theresa turning away an orphan whose parents had been Hindu?!) But Esposito's term is technically correct, since the Koran incorporates a Muslim version of some Old and New Testament characters and stories, and since Jews, Christians, and Muslims coexisted for hundreds of years in the Middle East, so the three religions must share some aspect of a common "tradition". But Wahhabi Islam most certainly doesn't share common values with Christianity, which Esposito surely knows even as he hopes the reader comes away with the impression it does.
To sum up, if you are going to read 5 or fewer books on Islam, this should NOT be one of them. If you are well-grounded in Islam, this book has some interesting points (such as the fact that the vast majority of Muslims want "free speech", defined as "allowing all citizens to express their opinion on the political, social, and economic issues of the day", but with no mention of any right to criticize religion (p. 47)), and is a fast read. Don't buy it though, it's not worth the $16 I spent on it. (To illustrate how little regard I hold for the sham "scholarship" this book masquerades as, this is the first book I'm throwing out instead of donating to my library. And I donate every book, even those I strongly disagree with, to my library.)
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
