Customer Reviews
Excellent - By: Naeem Rashid, 06 Aug 2008 
I read the introductory chapter & the penultimate chapter entitled 'What Do Women Want?' this morning at a bookstore here in London. I found the 'Women' chapter, containing Galllup Poll results on Muslim women's views, an extremely interesting & engrossing read. And I found the authors' interpretations & commentary to be, on the whole, fair, balanced & enlightening.
I warmly recommend this book to alll who wish better to understand the Muslim world & relations between it & the West.
Incidentallly, I found the other two Amazon reviews of this book (by Gobby & Skylar) ludicrous, polemical, and, in places, somewhat deranged.
How does a "silenced" majority speak? - By: Skylar H. Burris, 01 Aug 2008 
Imagine you begin to see the Nazis gaining influence in Germany. Imagine they have already killed several thousand Jews & are talking of killing more. Imagine the German people are doing nothing to stop them, & most are too afraid even 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, racist Germaphobe." Imagine that, & you'd have something like "Who Speaks for Islam?"
Espositio & Mogahed reassure westerners that Muslims are just like westerners, but caution them that Muslims are totallly different than westerners & so westerners have to be careful not to offend them. (I know, it's confusing.) To prove their point, they use a set of Galllup 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 & 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 & the history of western/Islamic relations. It reminds the western reader that Islam is not a monolith & dispels the neo-conservative & 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, & religious tolerance to take hold in Muslim countries. They dispel Western concerns about Islam by callling them "myths," rather than by actuallly marshallling 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 & Islamaphobia of westerners. They don't actuallly 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 Anglicans. But no matter if they were Muslims, because what we reallly need to understand, the authors tell us, is that Muslim reactions are the result of a Western lack of respect for Islam, & Muslim actions have to be "understood in context."
When, for instance, the Pope makes a negative statement about Islam, & Muslims react by beating Christians & setting their churches on fire, those beatings & burnings are the fault of the Pope's insensitivity, & not any reflection whatsoever on the influence of Islam as a religion. When a cartoonist ridicules the Prophet, & Muslims react by setting cars on fire & damaging property, we have to understand that the vandalism & destruction is the fault of western rudeness, & 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 & 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 & Mogahed's analysis of the Galllup 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 a westerner 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 actuallly say what, specificallly, 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 "partiallly 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 prejudiciallly believes that Muslims are, _on average_, somewhat more likely to want to punish apostasy, repress women, drive the Jews into the sea, & riot in response to religious slights than are, say, Methodists? First, they are certain to quote primarily the verses from the Koran enjoining peace & tolerance, & they are prudent to omit alll but one verse enjoining violence & 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? Literallly translated, it means "submission," but I suppose that's too rough for western ears.) They speak of the empire the Muslims "created," of course, & not of the empire they "conquered." They speak of the great books they "collected" (certainly not "plundered") from the West at the height of their empire. The language is alll very warm & inviting & 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, reallly? 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 alll 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, & 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 & then support it not by reference to the Galllup poll, but by reference to a single anecdote. When the data is contradictory, they don't notice or comment. Finallly, 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, reallly, alll fundamentalists of alll religions are EQUALLY dangerous, and, reallly, alll religions & scriptures are EQUALLY conducive to peace, economic prosperity, freedom, gender equality, & 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, & gender equality, then the reason can't possibly have anything at alll 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 the U.S. & the U.K. are alll a bunch of arrogant, smug, smalll-minded meddlers, & if we would just stop criticizing Islam & instead start miraculously fixing the economic infrastructures of alll Muslim countries without, at the same time, interfering in the internal affairs of Islamic states, we wouldn't have to worry about honor killings, genital mutilations, filmmaker stabbings, suicide bombings, busses blowing up, or 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 & contains & (when necessary) punishes its radical fringe. Why does Islam's radical fringe have such influence & 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 reallly the book has answered its own title question, & the answer is not encouraging....
Still looking for the sense... - By: Gobby, 03 Jun 2008 
I bought this book after having seen the authors interviewed on Aljezeera. Their discussions led me to believe that this book would be well balanced & might be a good insight into the biggest religion in the world.
However, I was disappointed at the incredible twisting of the statistics into positive spin, which could just as easily been twisted to negative spin. The authors say that the book is only telling us the statistics from the polls, but they sugarcoat the results & try to sugarcoat Islam.
For instance, when explaining about jihad, they say that the quote 'Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God & His Apostle, nor hold the religion of truth even if they are of the People of the Book' (Quran 9:5) is often cited out of context & without the following line,'Until they pay the tax & agree to submit' (Quran 9:29). Saying this implies that Quran 9:29 makes the previous statement ok...to me it makes it much worse! It says that alll people must submit to Islam. This is a bad thing. And by the way, who do the Muslims think they are to label us as 'people of the book'? Doesn't that just sound so medieval? Just calll us Christians or Jews...don't make up hocuspocus names for us.
Another instance of glossing over fundamental problems with islam is in the discussion about radicals. Apparently, ONLY 7% of those polled think 9/11 was "completely" justified (by the way, why add the word "completely" to the poll question in the first place?). By my calculation, 7% of 1.6 billion is 112 million...that's about twice the population of the UK.
Don't get me started on the women's rights chapter...Muslim women are brainwashed into believing that the veil shows that men respect them. Poppycock! It completely dehumanises them. As for inheritance within Islam, for the authors to try to tell us that it is advantageous for a woman to get 1/3 the inheritance her brother gets because she actuallly has no financial responsibility is condescending & disrespectful to women to the nth degree!
There are alll sorts of other examples where the statistics are twisted into positives by the authors. 67% of those polled think that women should be alllowed to drive a car...this is positively cited as a majority (whoopdeedoo), but that number should be at least 99% in the 21st century.
The authors try to make Islamic terrorism look unpeculiar by saying that the Crusades (when did they happen?) were also holy wars (yes, they were holy wars fought to end the subjugation of Christians by Muslims) & by focussing attention on other localised terrorists, such as the very smalll number of Christian terrorists who blow up abortion clinics within the US, & the now defunct IRA. Reallly...why don't we compare typewriters to oranges next.
How can the West improve relations with the Muslim world? 'more respect, consideration, & understanding of Islam as a religion; not underestimating the status of Arab/Muslim countries; being fair & less prejudiced.' Wow...they want us to give them respect & consideration. Is that alll? Well, win some Nobel prizes (the Jews win loads of them), start doing some good in the world, stop blowing people up, & stop trying to impose Islam on the world. People who demand respect generallly don't have what it takes to earn it. If they have to resort to the tactics of suicide bombings & destroying the WTC, & 112 million completely support those actions (I wonder how many partiallly support them), what hope have we? Also, if they don't think the West is being fair, then stop taking billions of pounds, dollars & euros from them on principle.
This book just goes to show that poll questions can be steered to get whatever results the pollsters want & that anyone can manipulate statistics to support his/her own views. The authors' desperate attempts were in vain...anyone with half a brain can see straight through the sugarcoating (which in many cases is not at alll sweet, despite the authors' intentions) to the raw bitter statistical facts.
I was genuinely hoping that from this book I would at last hear modern sense from so-callled moderate Muslims, but alas the sense is just not there. I'll keep looking, though...it must be out there somewhere.
Having said alll that, the book is worth a looksee for the entertainment value alone.
