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: $11.07
You Save: $11.88 (52%)
New (40) Used (13) Collectible (1) from $10.85
Avg. Customer Rating:  16 reviews
Sales Rank: 10210
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 230
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 8.6 x 5.5 x 1.1
ISBN: 1595620176
Dewey Decimal Number: 297
EAN: 9781595620170
ASIN: 1595620176
Publication Date: February 25, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: THIS IS A HARDCOVER BOOK IN DUST JACKET. THE BOOK AND DUST JACKET ARE IN FINE/FINE CONDITION, NEW, NO DEFECTS INSIDE OR OUT.
|
| 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 11 more reviews...
 Does not do credit to the potential value of the survey July 2, 2008
1 out of 1 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
4 out of 8 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.)
 Muslim 101, Excellent Overview and Starting Point May 4, 2008
10 out of 16 found this review helpful
This book nose-dived to a three and even a two as I was confronted with what appeared to be a Saudi-USA sponsored propaganda piece that did not properly consider India (largest Muslim population after Indonesia) and that addressed what Muslims thought without being explicit about US misbehavior, what I think of as Dick "Not the Virgin" Cheney's "immaculate conception" of the most amoral, costly, and destructive global war in our history. Bless him--had he not taken the Republic over a cliff and into insolvency, the two thirds of the voters who have tuned out the two party spoils system ("you pay, we'll make it legal to steal") would not be coming back into 2008 steaming mad and with both feet.
However, I persisted, and ultimately this book settled at a four. What I found was a series of offerings that allow this book to be a very fine "Muslim 101 Lite" for the general public. I totally admire the reviewer that has listed more in-depth works for consideration and have urged him to edit the review to use the Amazon feature that allows links to the pages for each of those books.
I also detect a real disconnect in that the book lists all Muslim countries up front, but the fine print says the survey only covered the 10 predominantly Muslim countries, and that list specifically excludes India, which has the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia, and in my mind that discredits the study by perhaps 20%.
Highlight provided early on by the authors:
+ Muslims do not see West as monolithic (and also see distinctions between Americans, America, US Government, US military, and the bellicose presence of US forces in their countries). I found this also in a Strategic Communication survey across the 27 countries in the US Central Command Area
+ Muslim majority, and especially women, want jobs, development, opportunity, not jihad and certainly not US occupation or corruption
+ Muslim silent majority rejects attacks on civilians (but I would say the book does not do as well as it could on showing that they also feel USA "deserved" 9-11--regardless of let it happen or made it happen allegations). Today the USS Cole belligerents got a free pass and we are reminded that it was Bill Clinton that took Madeline Albright's advice to ignore the attacks on Khobar Towers (Iran), two Embassies (al-Qaeda?) and the USS Cole (al-Qaeda?).
+ Religious moderates are in the majority, consider democracy a FOREIGN concept, and look to find ways to accommodate faith, family, and state without their being exclusive or compartmented. One could even say moderate Muslims are pre-disposed to be holistic!
+ The one thing the West could do to improve relations with Muslims is to show more respect and press for more understanding (in both directions).
+ Majority favor religious law as a source of legislation, but do not want clerics to have a direct role in drafting the constitution (I am reminded of how Israel went too far toward extremism when it yielded to its religious extremists--and of course Israel used the tactic of terrorism against the British to good effect, and ignored Gandhi's observation that "Palestine is to the Palestinians as France is to the French.")
+ My valuation of this book takes a definite leap upwards as I appreciate three facts that come together:
- Within the limits of prostitution toward those who pay their bills, the Gallup book does a good job--but I have BLAND in one section--of raising hard truths that those in power have no interest in, but could be helpful to voters.
- Each section has little gray boxes worth a look.
- Each section ends with key points summarized.
+ The book ultimately loses one star because it does not cite many books for context and when it does, tends to go with the discredited Fukiyama and the discredited Blair. This is an undergraduate reading that needs several more layers of study, and hence I recommend the other books suggested by an earlier reviewer.
+ I am totally absorbed by the book's account of how the Pope, with the best of intentions and relying on his top "experts," made many mistakes in his speech attempting to reconcile with Islam, and was so told by over 100 Muslim scholars. This drives home both the limits of experts embedded with any leadership figure, and the importance of multicultural appreciative inquiry. The three candidates for President of the USA today are out of touch with citizens and out of touch with reality because they are giving stump speeches instead of leading nation-wide conversations on the ten high level threats to humanity outlined in A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility--Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the twelve policies that must be recovered from the special interests that hijacked them to steal from the many for the benefit of the few. See also The Global Class War: How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win It Back
+ The book does cite Professor Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism and adds primary research to the effect that the radicalized are not poor or illiterate, but rather educated and moderately well-off. This was my own finding in 1976 when I did my first Master's thesis on the prediction of revolution. The book astounds me in noting that while only 7% of the Muslim population is radicalized, this number is NINETY ONE MILLION. The book also documents the plain fact that the primary motivation for suicidal terrorism is almost invariably FOREIGN OCCUPATION.
+ Page 84 lists the Muslim perceptions surveyed has of the USA, we learn that they are:
- Ruthless (68%)
- Scientifically & technologically advanced (68%)
- Aggressive (66%)
- Conceited (65%)
- Morally decadent (64%)
The book does a very good job of addressing how the civil rights conflict is closer to the Muslim-Christian-Jewish conflict, calling this a clash of cultures (to which I would add, a clash of economic corruption and predatory looting versus commonwealth exploitation by, of, and for indigenous peoples) and specifically discounting the clash of civilizations as the model. Readers interested in the whole question of belief systems can find the Technical Preface by Robert Garigue free online or at Information Operations: All Information, All Languages, All the Time.
The book does well at portraying Muslims world-wide as feeling under siege from the USA, and concludes from its primary research that Muslim anger is based on US foreign policy and its effect on their own peace and development. This is not rocket science, but I assure you, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeline Albright, Condi Rice, even Strobe Talbott--they are NEVER going to come to grips with the fact that US foreign policy today is lunatic, out of control, costly, and totally out of touch with how to wage peace at one third of the cost of war. See for example Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025
The book ends on a note that suggests that both Muslims and Christians deeply want and need more erespect and understanding at a public diplomacy level, but the book is also quite specific in noting how US public diplomacy (and I would add, Strategic Communication) is completely out of touch with reality. You can no longer manufacture consent or use propaganda to mislead the majority of the world. As Joe Trippi points out, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything--Trippi is a genius, but I would note that we have moved one step beyond--cell phones, not the Internet, are the primary intellectual, emotional, cultural, and asymmetric warfare tool of choice today, one reason why the National Security Agency is freaking out--they cannot build a computer that weights next to nothing, runs on almost no energy, and can do petaflop calculations per second--the human brain (these are the last three words in Jim Bamford's book, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. US intelligence is "inside out and upside down" as I explained in Forbes ASAP, and desperately needs a draconian redirection of funding from the %60B we spend on the 4% we can steal, to rebalancing the use of all national powers and especially education, rule of law, and infrastructure here at home, and public diplomacy as well as open source or public intelligence that can exploit all information in all languages all the time.
I liked the details on the survey that are included in the appendix.
On balance, the book does a good job within the constraints of funding, US management, and the need to pander moderately to an Administration that has no regard for reality at the White House level (our flag officers and top civil servants and some political appointees such as the Secretary of Defense have rediscovered their integrity and are fighting a holding action for all of us here at home).
I would like to see two new surveys: one of all the countries they missed, and one of India alone, ideally done in partnership with the government of India. I regard India, Malaysia, and Turkey as well as Indonesia as major success stories, and the US Government does not seem to be ready to recognize that these four countries can and should be major partners in offering peace and development instead of corruption, occupation, and exploitation, to all Muslims everywhere.
Three other books within my limit of ten:
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror
The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (Vintage)
Web of Deceit: The History of Western complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush
A balanced view on Islam May 2, 2008
7 out of 10 found this review helpful
In a time of growing animosity between the West(Christianity) and Muslims world wide(Islam),this book provide us with a balanced approach to understand 'what a billion Muslims Really Think'. Most people belonging to the Christian way of life either have no interest in the Muslim way of life or have an extremely biased view of their perspectives. Ignorance and propaganda feed indignation, and indignant people will become more lenient towards subversive forces.This book should form part of prescribed literature in schools and colleges if we are serious to prevent extremism, creating a fair society and honest communication bridging the void.
Muslims are people too April 28, 2008
5 out of 9 found this review helpful
Based upon a Gallup Poll of thousands of Muslims living all over the world, this poll claims a confidence rating of 95%. It shows Muslims as strongly condemning the 9/11 attacks, as valuing rights, democracy, and many of the same things as Westerners also value. An easy read, it may help clear up tragic misperceptions about the Islamic religion. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed have fine credentials, and bring to even the beginning reader a picture of what Muslims really want - the right to practice their religion, freedom, democracy, and prosperity. While there are radical Muslims in the world, the survey indicates that voiced support for the 9/11 attacks amongst Muslims is only 7%, and only a fraction of these are actually committed to violent acts. It is a refreshing reminder that Muslim people and their values are not intrinsically different or alien from Christians in the West
|
|
|
