Who Speaks for Islam?, written by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, is one of the most important books on the War on Terror. In the seven years since 9/11, we have been subjected to all kinds of ignorant pontification--much of it from the left, but some also from the right--on "why they hate us." This book, written by a leading scholar of Islam and the head of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, brings a wealth of real data to bear on this important subject.
The book is full of fascinating data on Islamic radicalism, on Muslim support for democracy, on the role of women, and on the values of Western popular culture. At first glance the results seem confusing: An overwhelming majority of Muslims rejects 9/11 style terrorism but a significant number of Muslims support the Palestine suicide bombers. Huge majorities of Muslims support democracy but reject the Western understanding of rights and liberty. In fact, a substantial majority of Muslims--including Muslim women--support some form of sharia or Islamic holy law. Most Muslim women want equal rights but even champions of those rights emphatically reject Western-style feminism.
What's going on here? Esposito and Mogahed argue that traditional Muslims, who make up the bulk of Muslims in every Muslim country, strongly identify with the Western principles of rule of law, self-government, and religious toleration. In fact, their main critique of America is that, as they see it, America backs secular dictators in the Muslim world who deny to Muslims the rights that are taken for granted by Americans. Many Muslims who back Hamas do so because they see the group as fighting for Muslim self-rule.
On the other hand, Muslims reject what may be termed 1960s liberalism. They reject the shamelessness and frequent depravity of American popular culture. They reject the type of feminism that relinquishes the home in favor of careers. They are resolutely anti-abortion. They consider homosexual marriage to be an abomination. Rather than import these "alternative lifestyles" into their society, Muslims want to live according to their own traditional values and elect their own governments that will defend Muslim interests.
Esposito and Mogahed shrewdly note that the values of traditional Muslims worldwide are very similar to the values of traditional Jews and Christians in the West. For instance, only around 15 percent of Muslims in Europe consider homosexuality "morally acceptable." That's way below the figures for the general public in Britain, France and Germany. But when conservative and religious Europeans and Americans are polled, it turns out that the percentage of people who are fine with homosexuality is about the same as that of the traditional Muslims.
Yes, I could say that I predicted all this in my book The Enemy at Home. But the great contribution of Esposito and Mogahed is to put a mountain of data behind these conclusions. Over six years their group has conducted tens of thousands of face-to-face surveys of Muslims in more than 35 countries making what they rightly call "the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done."
This book is a huge embarassment to conservatives like Victor Davis Hanson who, based on no data and very little familiarity with the Muslim world, have been portraying Muslims as violent theocrats who reject modern science, modern democracy and modern capitalism and spend most of their day performing honor killings and genital mutilations. This portrait of the Muslim world is about as accurate as that of a Muslim who believes that typical Americans live their daily lives according to the values of "Natural Born Killers" and "Brokeback Mountain."
What can we conclude from this book? First, that the values of the cultural left are an important source in alienating Muslims worldwide. Second, that Muslims don't reject modernity or the West: rather, they embrace what may be termed "1950s America" while rejecting the libertine values of the 1960s. Third, America can build alliances with traditional Muslims by showing them the face of traditional America, so that they see that Hollywood values aren't necessarily American values. Finally, left-wing groups like International Planned Parenthod and Amnesty International should stop pushing feminism, gay marriage and libertine values in the Muslim world.
Pundits like Chalmers Johnson love to say that American intervention in Iraq and elsewhere has produced a "blowback" of terrorism from the House of Islam. Wrong! It is in Iraq that America is allowing an elected Muslim government to rule according to Muslim interests and Muslim values. Iraq is the only country in the Middle East where the Muslim population actually chose its own rulers. Iraq is not the problem. Rather, it is the values of the cultural left, and the cultural imperialism that seeks to impose those values on reluctant Muslims, that is the real source of Muslim rage, and the best recruiting tool of the radical Muslims.



Reader Comments ( Page 12 of 13)
166. Well, if you are all serious about making our own page, we should start working out the details...
I suppose first off, we need to agree to a few moderators, from both sides of the aisle to decide what articles are to be printed. I'd suggest 2 from the christian/conservative side, and 2 from the atheist/agnostic/liberal side. That way, we'd have a more balanced set of articles to discuss.
Creating a page isn't that big of a deal. There are numerous free WYSIWYG html editors, unless somebody here is a webmaster. Once we decide on who would be the moderators, they could choose the best page design. If you're interested in taking a stab at creating a page, here's some great resources.
http://www.thefreecountry.com/webmaster/htmleditors.shtml
ex-christian at 9:35AM on Sep 15th 2008
167. Great idea! ASk botts, somber and the rest of the rat pack to join you? You shutins (daily DD whores) should spew your own blog. Don't bother to tell me how to find it ... just stay there. Thanks.
xxxxxxx
Another great reason to do this ;)
Pliny-the-in-Between at 2:58PM on Sep 15th 2008
168. Well written Pliney (167)....could not have put it better myself.
mac at 3:24PM on Sep 15th 2008
169. http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/
Since this place is going away soon, I humbly invite the regulars to visit my new blog.
I hope that some of you visit and comment from time to time. I plan on making it an interesting place.
-St. Brian
http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/
Saint Brian the Godless at 7:30PM on Sep 15th 2008
170. http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/2008/09/does-christianity-dumb-you-down.html
New Page:
Does Christianity Dumb You Down?
Saint Brian the Godless at 8:57PM on Sep 15th 2008
171. Not sure what I'm doing wrong trying to make a comment on Brian's new blog.
not-pboyfloyd at 1:53AM on Sep 16th 2008
172. Not Pboy, vat giffs? It should work. The purple link at the bottom, "post comments"...
Hope you figger it out. :-)
Saint Brian the Godless at 3:39AM on Sep 16th 2008
173. http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/
You can always just go to the generic title page and scroll down to whichever of the two pages up there at this time you want to post to.
Two for now. More to come.
Saint Brian the Godless at 3:41AM on Sep 16th 2008
174. Yea, Brian..
I think that I'm doing everything right, and I know that I'm doing everything right!
The only trouble is that I can't be doing everything right, because it won't 'take'.
I have my 'handle' .. pboyfloyd
password.. dot dot dot dot etc.
copy those 'security' letters that I see to that 'bar'...
... then I think of the bar and drink a mickey of rum!
Hey, wait a minute, I think I see what the trouble is...
not-pboyfloyd at 12:07PM on Sep 16th 2008
175. AHHH!! I HAD THE SAME PROBLEM!
Your HANDLE is youe EMAIL ADDRESS!!! Took me a while to realize it.
Saint Brian the Godless at 1:35PM on Sep 16th 2008
176. I tried again 10 min. ago.
Just noticed that it is saying that I'm using the wrong password.
This is strange because I just opened the Google 'account' specifically to be able to comment on your blog.
I was saying that you have made your own blog 'not-kiddy-friendly' I see.
Tch,tch, bad language! LOL
not-pboyfloyd at 1:42PM on Sep 16th 2008
177. In fact, the Founding Fathers of the 18th century were heavily influenced by French Secular Humanism and were in the classical sense of the word, LIBERAL>>
You people are entirely ignorant. To most of this world 'liberalism' is captialism ... something you Leftist trash hate. Maybe it's a selfhatred thing?
thomas J gassett at 2:17PM on Sep 16th 2008
178. Gassett...
I was under the impression that it was YOU who was calling US 'liberal'.
Some of these words take on different meanings depending on how they are used.
For example, neoliberalism is not the opposite of neoconservatism, in fact if they are not exactly the same thing, then at least they go hand in hand.
I could go on about political nomenclature but, you being you, you probably would refuse to believe me anyways.
Look it up on those 'internet tubes', I KNOW that you have them!
not-pboyfloyd at 3:51PM on Sep 16th 2008
179. Does Christianity Dumb You Down?
Saint Brian the Godless
retarded athesit want to know!
thomas J gassett at 4:10PM on Sep 16th 2008
180. Some of these words take on different meanings depending on how they are used.
All I know is freaks like you turned 'liberal' into a dirty word. Have your heard your empty suit, the most liberal turd in the senate even once call himself a liberal? I rest my case.
Imagine a clown that needs a telepromoter to give a stump speech then vote accordingly.
thomas J gassett at 4:14PM on Sep 16th 2008