Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think [Hardcover]

I read the introductory chapter and the penultimate chapter entitled 'What Do Women Want?' this morning at a bookstore here in London. I found the 'Women' chapter, containing Gallup Poll results on Muslim women's views, an extremely interesting and engrossing read. And I found the authors' interpretations and commentary to be, on the whole, fair, balanced and enlightening.

I warmly recommend this book to all who wish better to understand the Muslim world and relations between it and the West.

Incidentally, I found the other two Amazon reviews of this book (by Gobby and Skylar) ludicrous, polemical, and, in places, somewhat deranged.

Before I begin this somewhat critical review, I would like to pre-empt a possible misunderstanding. Judging from the comments and responses to some of the other reviews that have been posted, I think that is quite likely that I will be accused of racism or derangement, simply for criticizing this book. For that reason, let me be clear about where I'm coming from: by attacking the blatant bias of this book, I am emphatically NOT saying that someone must be rabidly critical of Muslims or Islam in order to qualify as "honest" in my eyes. The truth isn't always as dire as some media pundits would have us believe. Moreover, I'm just as happy to criticize many anti-Muslim polemicists for their biases. Indeed, I've already done just that. See my far more severe review of Lee Harris's ludicrous anti-muslim polemic "The Suicide of Reason" for more details. So, what I'm trying to say is this: there are liars on all sides of the political and religious spectrum, and we're not going to get anywhere by pretending otherwise.

Now on to the review.

This book is based upon the largest ever gallup poll of the Middle East, so the reader can expect to learn a fair amount, and some of the data that we are presented with is quite surprising. For example, on page 80 we discover that radicalized Muslims are actually more in favour of "moving towards greater governmental democracy" than non radicals (50% versus 35% respectively). That's an interesting figure, but it might not mean what the authors presumably intend us to think: one possible interpretation is that Islamists want to utilize democratic elections in order to be swept into power themselves, and once there apply their less than tolerant policies to close the electoral door behind them. This isn't a possibility that is mentioned by the authors.

So, the book does offer some intriguing figures for us to ponder. Alas, the authors insist on supplementing their solid data with dubious apologetics. I could give literally dozens of examples, but I'll instead settle for just one, so as to give the reader a feel for what they can expect. Take a look at these two quotes:

"Leaders have used and hijacked religion to recruit members, to justify their actions, and to glorify fighting and dying in a sacred struggle." (P74)

"Hamas originated primarily to resist Israeli occupation, but religion has been used to legitimize its existence and its acts of terrorism. Even the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, a secular Palestinian militia similar to Hamas, has used religion to justify its suicide bombings. It chose the name al-Aqsa (a major mosque and religious site in Jerusalem) and calls its attacks "jihads" and its fallen "jihadists" or martyrs." (P78)

I think that a reasonable response to these statements might be "oh, well then I suppose that shows that religion -including Islam- is a potent force in galvanizing people to war and terrorism." But that's not the inference that Esposito wants the reader to draw; he instead claims that this effectively lets Islam off the hook. So, we mustn't say that Islam can make people prone to Jihadist violence, but should instead say that religion is sometimes "hijacked" so as to make people behave violently. The fault doesn't lie with Islamic doctrines of Jihad and maryrdom, but rather with the people who, from time to time, exploit the Islamic doctrines of Jihad and martyrdom in order to make people behave violently. Hmmmm...

Overall, the book is still worth reading for the statistics and information alone, but expect to come across quite a bit of dubious rhetoric along the way too. This book could have been vastly improved if it had included an appendix which allowed the reader to see the results of the poll, sans commentary and spin. Oh well.

The reader might also want to check out M. Steven Fish's vastly superior and less biased book "Are Muslims Distinctive?: A Look at the Evidence".

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 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, 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 than westerners and so 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 take hold 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 Anglicans. 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 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 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." They speak of the great books they "collected" (certainly not "plundered") from the West at the height of their empire. 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 the U.S. and the U.K. 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 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 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....