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 7 of 13)
91. Hi Ryan,
True on all points but the question I ask is not to provide support for or against Israel. The question is:
If supposedly Muslims hate the liberal ideology why do Muslims hate the Jews, a historically proven group of conservatives? The polls I provided show how many Middle Eastern countries despise the Jews, and they are not liberal by any means!
I'd like to see this fact talked about instead of dishonest attacks on liberalism.
goddess1prevail at 10:11AM on Sep 13th 2008
92. Amesty International is against the mistreatment of political prisoners and the use of violence in general I suppose. Promoting the libertine value that people shouldn't be tortured and killed for their beliefs.
________
Oh, the muslims and Dinesh can't have that. With a culture of human dignity and respect, the middle east couldn't stay the Calvinesque utopia it is today.
When Calvin "saved" Geneva, Dinesh claimed it a positive step forward for christianity. Called it a democracy birthing event, which when examined closely reflects the Iranian governance of today. Maybe he was blinded by the dogma, but it was nontheless a theocratic oligarchy, no different than what exists in Iran today, and what is sought by the terrorist groups.
It's really what Dinesh wants. Look at his last installment - which went from a desecration of a christian symbol (and conveniently left out muslim and atheist symbols) which morphed into a "christians built the west" diatribe.
Dinesh pointed out that Calvin saved Geneva by implementing ultra strict theocratic laws; fines for dancing, jail for drinking - but failed to mention the intrusive "home inspections" which were to examine if people were living a "godly" life. Left out was the human/book burning of an opponent to Calvins doctrine in direct conflict with local and regional law. Conspicuously absent was the fact that Calvin was consulted by the local government before any laws were passed. Omitted was the use of a riot to kill or drive out any opposition.
In one of the first few posts on this particular blog, Somber mentioned that she see's islam where christianity was 400 years ago. Calvin had his little Ayatollah shop of horrors just about 450 years ago....
ex-christian at 11:21AM on Sep 13th 2008
93. This posting is just another variation in the 'hate the lefties and the atheists' screed that D'Souza flames in at least 1 in 3 of his articles. From what he says one would have to assume that Muslims and Christians can agree on at least one thing when not trying to kill one another - they both hate liberals.
I used to wonder why this would be the case but I think the answer is pretty clear. Religious skeptics and liberals really are that dangerous - to those who must preserve their power and finances through distortion and intellectual paternalism. Think about it for one second and the why is pretty clear. Skeptics are people who have overcome incredibly intensive cultural conditioning honed over centuries regarding the very nature of existence and our place in the universe. Such people are a lot less likely to fall for some nonsense from a petty politician than are people conditioned to look for their answers in some cultural father figure and not question it. Helps to explain how a group of people can be appalled by Obama's minister and completely ignore McCain's and Palin's ministers, experiences, endorsements and a thousand other inconsistencies. (Try this little experiment; take that video of Palin praying to the Prince of Peace for oil pipelines and the Iraq war and add Mark Twain's 'War Prayer' to the end of it. Makes for an interesting perspective.)
Skeptics are dangerous because when confronted by huge numbers of divergent religious beliefs we don't respond with 'those other poor sots don't understand that our one belief is the true one'. Instead we look at the numbers and say, 'well is it more likely that one out of the hundreds is right and the rest of the people are deluded, or is it more likely that all of it is the creation of man'. Is it more likely that mystical texts (derived from even more ancient oral mythologies) from a couple of thousand years in the past hold all the answers when 99% of what we know through the scientific method was discovered since then? The skeptic deduces no (I guess falling victim to all those tricks left to foil the wise?).
Of course a believer can easily counter with the argument from faith. I suppose that's why the story of the doubting Thomas was created to provide that reliable cover. Faith requires one to believe even in the face of evidence. Skepticism does not allow that. For this reason skeptics are despised - their existence threatens the comfort of belief and the culture of manipulation. And that is what bother skeptics and why at least some of us post in places like this. We don't hate religion but we have come to fear its ongoing influence in earthly political matters. As I have posted in the past, the concern from a skeptic is one of compartmentalization - How does one separate those areas of life governed by faith from those areas of life that need objective critical thinking skills - like the selection of national leaders. Some here do it better than others. Some don't do it at all. True skeptics can't compartmentalize at all. To them, everything has to be critically considered. And there-in lies what may be the insurmountable wall. Maybe GHB was correct in an earlier bog - maybe we are 2 different species - or will be if allowed to continue on divergent paths.
Pliny-the-in-Between at 12:24PM on Sep 13th 2008
94. Only partialy true mary.
This country was founded by liberals, radical liberals.
To borow an expression from Mr D'Souza; check your history books .
mac at 10:58PM on Sep 12th 2008
-----------------------------------
Not true Mac.
This country was founded by men and women seeking religious freedom who were being persecuted by england.
By the way mac check out www.masterminchoi.com
This is the tkd school I attend.
Observant at 1:58PM on Sep 13th 2008
95. Sorry but you aren't very OBSERVANT....The puritians were indeed ONE of the first Settlements founded on the the American continent by Europeans, but the founders of the constitution that so many abuse were infact radicals and condemded by the crown ....
emanon at 2:15PM on Sep 13th 2008
96. Observant; if you are going to count the Puritans as the "founders" of the US, why not count the Spanish or the Norse or the early humans who crossed the land bridge from Asia? You'd be no more wrong than if you counted the Puritans.
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.
Ryan Anderson at 2:20PM on Sep 13th 2008
97. Observant,
History called those men radicals and liberals. Ever pick up a British history book?
goddess1prevail at 2:24PM on Sep 13th 2008
98. Pliny, thank you for your post at #93, it is *suitable for framing.* :-) Excellent.
Jude at 2:47PM on Sep 13th 2008
99. History called those men radicals and liberals. Ever pick up a British history book?
goddess1prevail at 2:24PM on Sep 13th 2008
-----------------------------
Answer> No never have.
Observant at 2:48PM on Sep 13th 2008
100. What is this I hear about this blog shutting down?
Jerry Brown at 3:04PM on Sep 13th 2008
101. 99. History called those men radicals and liberals. Ever pick up a British history book?
goddess1prevail at 2:24PM on Sep 13th 2008
-----------------------------
Answer> No never have.
Observant at 2:48PM on Sep 13th 2008
Who else finds this Orwellian pride in ignorance that seems to be more and more common in this country disturbing?
tmo at 3:14PM on Sep 13th 2008
102. Jerry; Ada Calhoun mentioned it on her blog. I guess some time around September 23rd or 28th.
Ryan Anderson at 3:16PM on Sep 13th 2008
103. TMO: "Who else finds this Orwellian pride in ignorance that seems to be more and more common in this country disturbing"
Seems to be getting worse with the Sara Palin craze.
The answer? Vote Michael Palin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos
Ryan Anderson at 3:18PM on Sep 13th 2008
104.
The English crown is placed on his or her head during a christian ceremony. The recipient doesn't need any qualifications other than the family into which they are born.
To deny this institution of divine right, is biblically a big no-no.
Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
So, your book of truth says that you should still be under the heel of the English crown. You should stay there, happily, as it is god's will. It's right in your own book - which you change to suit your own needs.
Maybe you should change your tagline from observant to can't see the forest for the trees.
ex-christian at 3:20PM on Sep 13th 2008
105. Ryan Anderson Is that all of the aol blogs or just this one?
Jerry Brown at 3:22PM on Sep 13th 2008