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.

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.)

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 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 Islam shows it shares few if any major values with Christianity (I can't comment on Judaism). Specifically, 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. Even the mandatory 2.5% to charity 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 they most certainly don't share common values, which Esposito surely knows even as he hopes the reader comes away with the impression they do.

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.)

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 includes category 4 Muslims, only 75% sure the 9/11 attacks were justified, as "moderates"!)

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 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 Islam shows it shares few if any major values with Christianity (I can't comment on Judaism). Specifically, 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. Even the mandatory 2.5% to charity 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 they most certainly don't share common values, which Esposito surely knows even as he hopes the reader comes away with the impression they do.

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.)

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

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.

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

I took a look at this book in my school's bookstore expecting one of two extremes, either all Muslims are radicals or all Muslims are pacifists, but hoping for a balanced, unbiased report on the truth. Unfortunately, what we have here is an 'extreme' piece, one that claims the majority of Muslims are peaceful people who wish no harm to others. While I would love to believe this, I find it incredibly hard to when presented with the facts. Every poll released shows a majority view believing the west is wrong, that it is justified to murder innocent civilians, and that Islamic law should govern. Another propaganda piece to throw in the garbage. By that I mean get my money back on.

I purchased this book well aware of the articles the authors had already written about their findings. The articles would not give details of the poll results, and I had hoped to see the raw data in an appendix of the book. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

This is not a book of scientific fact; it is an opinion piece masquerading as science. When the authors say that only 7% of Muslims worldwide consider the 9/11 attacks "completely" justified they do not say how many consider the attacks "somewhat" or "mostly" justified. Then, the authors go on to label the 93% who may or may not consider the 9/11 attacks somewhat or mostly justified to be "moderates". This is absurd, and it appears that the reason that the authors do not release the raw data is because they realize that the detailed poll findings would not conform to the spin that they decided to clothe their results in.

An apparent example of question bias: the pollsters asked Muslims their opinion of democracy, and found that the "radicals" were more in favor of democracy than the "moderates." However, they do not illuminate these findings by asking questions about Western values like freedom of the press or freedom of religion, things that Westerners would associate with democracy but that Muslims may not. Could it be that the radicals are pro-"democracy" because they want to use democratic methods to establish a sharia state? The authors do not go down that path.

Most polls will show how the questions are phrased, the order of the questions, and the demographic breakdown of the respondents. This book does no such thing. As such, it is worthless propaganda, and raises far more questions than it answers. My opinion of the Gallup organization has gone down considerably to promote such propaganda as if the authors opinions are proven by a scientific poll.

A good book, which is especially useful to people unfamiliar with the Muslim world. I would highly recommend it to non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

Its positives are that it is especially revealing about Muslims societies and people, capturing their perspectives on a wide range of issues including feminism, terrorism and development; and then secondly in contrasting these perspectives with those of Europeans and Americans. The results are really quite surprising. The third good thing about this text is that it is highly read-able. At only 170 small-ish reading pages of large-ish font size, it takes about a half day to go through.

Its negatives are few. The one that struck me was that the book is based on reems of Gallup data - none of which is presented, even in the appendices. The reader is presented with isolated snippets of data, and I would have liked to see a more comprehensive and robust presentation of data from which to draw my own interpretations. Somebody might also raise the point that this is not really an academic or 'intellectual' book - but in fairness, I don't think either author intended for it to be so.

Instead of thinking I understand how Muslims feel and why they behave the way they do because I have read a couple news stories or heard a particular leader talk about them, this book helped me understand them through their own views, their own voice. The specific issues that I wanted to know what most Muslims (not just the few extremists) thought about were addressed: extremism, role of women, and their political aspirations.

I have great interest in the subject, so I thought the book was fairly easy to read and the larger principles suggested by the statistics were presented in a straightforward, helpful way. There were not a lot of detailed specifics, but some specifics related to countries and percentages of respondents when that was appropriate.

This book contains an explanation of what Muslims want
and why. One size does not fit all in this process.
Women are in government in Turkey, India, Bangladesh,
Pakistan and Indonesia. Circa 90% of Muslims say that
religion is important for an enriched life. Marriage
and family are considered the norm.

Muslims want economic opportunities, international status
and independence. Many Muslims admire the free speech
and political freedoms in the West. The lack of
education and poverty does not necessarily beget
extremism. Among Muslims, the jihad may be interpreted
to mean honor and sacrifice, although this has been
mis-used by some.

The radicals of Islam want respect from the West and
an empathy/understanding of Islam. In addition, they
do not want Western domination and intervention in
Islamic affairs. There is a considerable understanding
of Christianity in Islamic literature. For instance,
Jesus and mother Mary are mentioned more times in the
Quran than the New Testament. Required almsgiving is
2.5% of liquid assets. Muslim women do not want
Western women gender purity. The author sees the
political radicalism of religion as a problem and
not the religion of Islam itself.

This book has some excellent advice for the American
political establishment in establishing a baseline
for dealings in Iraq and elsewhere.

It is difficult nowadays to get an objective, nuanced opinion on Islam, neither flattering nor biased against it. If I were to recommend a way to try and achieve that, I would suggest reading several good books on the matter, including this among them.

After reading Mr. Kerry Walters' excellent review, I will only add that often is unclear to me whether the authors are presenting the results of the Gallup study or their own opinion. Said results are the most interesting matter that lead me to buy the book because Gallup shows the point of view of 1.3 billion muslim people; and even though I agree with the authors plenty of times, theirs is only the opinion of two persons [who are clearly well informed, balanced, scholarly... but only two, after all].

In any event, I recommend it, my rating being between 5 (content) and 3 (pleasure, sometimes falling to 2, sometimes raising to 4).

Besides, I would also recommend the following books [as Khaled M. Abou El Fadl -scholar trained in both Islamic and Western law- says, non-muslims "first and foremost [are to] learn and understand, because nothing helps the puritans' cause as much as Western ignorance, prejudice and hate"]:

A) ASSESSMENTS OF ISLAM: 1) The best, impartial, wise: "Islam. History, present, future" by Hans Küng . 2) Moderate Islam at its best: "The Great Theft : Wrestling Islam from the Extremists" by Khaled M. Abou El Fadl; 3) Harsh but well argued: "Muslims in the West: Redefining the Separation of Church & State" by Sami Awad Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh; and 4) Autobiography of a courageous woman: "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a controversial thinker with a very interesting life.

B) HISTORY: 5) General: "The Venture of Islam", by Marshall G. S. Hodgson (nowadays a classic included in any bibliography on Islam); 6) Turks: "The Turks in World History" by Carter Vaughn Findley; 7) Political theory: "God's Rule : Government and Islam" by Patricia Crone; and 8) Jihad: "Understanding Jihad" by David Cook.

Everybody may have a right to his or her own opinion, but this doesn't mean that all opinions are equally right. What separates mere opinion from reasoned judgment, at least when it comes to empirical claims, is a hard and judicious analysis of available data. The more heated the topic under discussion, the more important it is to have facts that back up positions. Otherwise, those who are most passionate, but not necessarily most informed, can carry the day.

Since at least 9/11, American pundits and people in the street (and a President) have made lots of claims about Islam. Everyone who reads the papers or watches television can recite them by heart: Muslims hate Americans because of our freedoms. Muslims despise democracy. Muslims are out to colonize Europe. The more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he or she is to become a terrorist. Muslims want theocratic governments. There's an inevitable and insoluble culture clash between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. And on and on it goes.

The extraordinary value of Who Speaks for Islam? is that the authors, John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed appeal to hard data from the Gallup World Poll (GWP) to examine these and other common U.S. opinions about Muslims. For six years, GWP interviewed tens of thousands of Muslims in over 35 nations, collecting a sample that represented 90% of the world's Muslim population (1.3 billion). The results--the hard data--are not just surprising. They're shocking. They suggest that almost every single thing that Americans think we know about Islam and Muslims are distortions. As such, Who Speaks for Islam? is a bracing reality check that, if read by enough of us, can change minds and policies.

Let me just mention two sets of data that go counter to two popular opinions about Islam. One has to do with sharia and the other with freedom of speech (and civil liberties in general).

The U.S. perception is that Muslims want to establish legal systems based exclusively on harsh sharia, or religious laws. But in fact, polled Muslims indicate something different. In most countries, only a minority of respondants want Sharia as the only source of law. In only 5 countries--Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh--do respondants want Sharia as the only source of law. Most respondants think that an ideal legal system is based in part but not exclusively on Sharia. Ironically, a 2006 survey revealed that a full 46% of Americans think the Bible should a "a source," and 9% think it should be the "only" source, of legislation. 42% of Americans think religious leaders should be directly involved in writing laws, and 55% think the idea is awful--almost exactly the same figures about Muslim religious leaders and the law that come out of Iran (pp. 48-49).

Another common assumption is that Muslims dislike free speech, and the worldwide protests against the now infamous Danish cartoons of Mohammed are frequently cited as evidence. But vast numbers of polled Muslims insist that they admire many Western civil liberties. Their resentment against the U.S. isn't its freedoms so much as what they perceive as "the West's hatred and denigration of Islam; the Western belief that Arabs and Muslims are inferior; and their fear of Western intervention, domination, or occupation" (p. 141). So what drove the protests against the Danish cartoons for most Muslims wasn't a hatred of freedom of speech, but shock at what was perceived as disrespect of a religious figure venerated by Muslims. Interestingly, many non-Muslims agree that freedom of speech should be limited when it comes to ridiculing religious figures or using racist slurs. 57% of (non-Muslim) British and 45% of (non-Muslim) French thought the Danish cartoons shouldn't be protected by freedom of speech. Similarly, more than 75% of both populations would forbid cartoons making light of the Holocaust, and 86% of both would disallow racist cartoons (pp. 142-145). Once again, things just aren't as simple as the one-liner "Muslims are against freedom of speech" makes them out to be.

Are there genuine differences between Muslims and non-Muslims? Of course there are. But understanding wherein real differences as opposed to imaginary ones lie is the first step toward genuine dialogue. Who Speaks for Islam? paves the way for that initial step. Highly, urgently, recommended.

As an American Muslim I am very concerned that a 2006 USA Today/Gallup poll found nearly one-quarter of Americans say they would not want a Muslim as a neighbor; less than half believe that US Muslims are loyal to the US! This indicates clearly that the majority of Americans have a distorted image about the views and beliefs of Islam and Muslims. To this end, this book provides essential insights into the thinking and attitudes of more than 90% of the 1.3 billion Muslims around the world on critical issues such as democracy, Jihad, women's rights, and coexistence with the West. The study shows that Muslims around the world have many of the same hopes and dreams and face many of the same issues and challenges as other people do. The book should be required reading for teachers, students, journalists, policy makers, specialists and non specialists, Muslim and Non-Muslims.

Honest, to the point and summarize how Muslims see and feel towards the West, instead of books written by "westerners" speaking on behalf of Islam and Muslims.

In my opinion, the book could answer the forever question Muslims in America faced, "why they hate us", and many will realize that on the other side of the fence they asking the same thing, why they hate us.. Question is, is it "us" or "U.S" that is in question. Good work!

For once there is a book where the real Muslim point of view is published. I thought the book was honest and shows readers a general overview of how Muslims think and what they believe without getting into too much detail. The only reason it did not recieve 5 stars from me is because although it provided acurate and honest information I found myself skimming over the dry parts of the book.