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 13 of 13)
181. 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.
MORON. Neo conservatism was born in the anti Vietnam war LEFT.
When the left (so-called liberals) went limp on defense, and some where to Left of Mao, millions of americans just like me became republicans, Neo Cons, independants, Greens ... you name it. And nothing has changed in the stagnant ideology known as ameircan liberalism since. Therefore, there is no such thing as Neo liberalism.
thomas J gassett at 4:25PM on Sep 16th 2008
182. Reagan cut and ran from lebanon. Eisenhower cut and ran from Korea. Nixon cut and ran from Vietnam. Bush I cut and ran from Iraq. Bush II cut and ran from terrorists.
Democrats won WWI. Democrats won WWII. They held the course in Korea and Vietnam.
They win wars, republicans win no bid contracts.
Vote stupid or vote against republicanism. What part of the last eight years worked for you? What part of democratic administrations don't you like, the peace or the prosperity?
It's about the repbublican economy and the republican war, stupid.
What are they going to do to fix what they destroyed, turn into democrats?
Clif Kuplen at 5:23PM on Sep 16th 2008
183. almost forgot - democrats prevailed in bosnia
Eisenhower was the first president to put troops on the ground in Vietnam in '59. We spent 800 million bucks on the ARVN thanks to Ike, but it was the right thing to do. It saved American lives, but vietnam started on his watch. The idea that democrats have anything to do with ancient burkian conservatism, roman conservatism, fascist conservatism or la cosa nostra conservatism, all of which are other names for neoconnism is idiotic, but I notice an idiot is putting the idea forward.
It's about the republican economy, hockey pucks!
Clif Kuplen at 5:29PM on Sep 16th 2008
184. Clif, did you ever read Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly"? In that book she claimed that Ho Chi Minh had approached the OSS after the war and wanted the US to broker peace with France. She claimed that Ho's Declaration of Independence from France started out word for word as a repeat of ours and that he allegedly hoped that the US would be helpful since we had honored our promise to grant Philippine independence in 1946. I was never able to verify those claims elsewhere.
Pliny-the-in-Between at 6:15PM on Sep 16th 2008
185. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
1-10 of 438,000 results for 'neoliberalism'.
I told you that you wouldn't believe me Gassett, was I right or what?
You have big brass balls calling other people 'ignorant' since you are willfuly ignorant yourself!
not-pboyfloyd at 10:20PM on Sep 16th 2008
186. "What are they going to do to fix what they destroyed, turn into democrats?"
That is exactly what the smart ones will do, the 17# die-hards will squalk that everything is the Dems fault, always was the Dems fault and always will be the Dems fault.
They'll trash the entire country then say, "Clean up on aisle U.S.A, clean up on aisle U.S.A.!"
not-pboyfloyd at 10:33PM on Sep 16th 2008
187. ... um.. 17% not 17#
not-pboyfloyd at 10:42PM on Sep 16th 2008
188. http://beyondbotts.blogspot.com/2008/09/narrow-path.html
The new blog is now ready to rock with the first actual post.
Hope to see you all there in the future and hope that we all can continue our journey together.
Botts at 1:42AM on Sep 18th 2008
189. Atheism is darkness.
read Micah 1:1 to 7:20 there is your truth!
Ann Thompson at 3:15AM on Sep 18th 2008
190. um .. Ann..
Atheism is truth. Read my ass.
not-pboyfloyd at 4:29AM on Sep 18th 2008
191. Atheism isn't anything, it is non-belief, not the belief in non-belief.
There is truth or there is fantasy. To subscribe to not believing until faced with the factual truth - is prudent, it is cautious, why is it disdained?
Because, if even one person questions, then all answers derived from legend, from lore is suspect. Our culture, our history is suspect.
There are so many who can't let go of the safety blanket given to them by their parents. It comforts them, it lulls them into a warm place to put all their hopes and dreams into. And it is washed and dried and wrapped around them by their culture to the point they can never truly unwrap themselves - and why would they want to?
TJ at 12:42PM on Sep 22nd 2008