False information, even in quotes, makes it hard to trust the Islamic experts writing this book. When you begin by defining Islam as "a strong commitment to God", (pg.7) instead of by its literal translation: submission and surrender, you already lose my trust. Indeed, if you want to engage in a discussion of what that term means in religious terms, peachy, but be upfront about the naked truth because otherwise you are cooking the data, as it is easy to see that interpretations of that phrase can vary. With that initial red flag, I read Esposito (professor of Islamic Affairs at Georgetown) and Mogahed's work super-closely, checking figures and oh yes, assumptions. Googling the Gallup poll that they draw on for attitudes toward Muslims, I am struck by the small sample of that poll: 808 people. This is something which Mogahed, a Director of Islamic Polls at Gallup should have taken with a grain of salt, should have been more upfront about. Other bikini polls are usually around 2,000 respondent. A surprising assertion in chapter 2, that cried for clarification was the comparison between Muslims and Americans' desire for religion to influence law. The book says that 46 percent of Americans think the Bible should be a source of legislation. This is put there to show that Christian Americans are just as 'nutty' as Muslims, I think. Now if you follow that footnote, 41, to the Gallup indicated you are not led to a discussion of religion in America, only to the original poll on attitudes towards Muslims. Fortunately for me, I can Google those exact words and see that a later 2007 poll does does have those numbers and words. A footnote mistake surely. I think its fair for the book to bring up religion as a source of law for a culture. Most societies base their law at least partly on religion, a fact that we forget. This is a meaningful discussion that the book completely misses and I would have loved to see developed. However, the book does not closely look at the one statistically significant difference in that other poll. It says: 46 percent of Americans think the Bible should be a source of law "but not the only source" compared with 23 percent of Muslims who think Sharia should not be the only source. That's a bit of a difference statistically, but if you are unintentionally cooking the facts probably not one to bring up or have people look at. And again, I empathize with their problem. You can't prove anything from two different polls that compare one country to several and that compare such differently compiled religious texts (the bible reflects an oral tradition that stopped being compiled around the first century, whereas Sharia, depending who you ask reflects an evolving study of law upto the present). I think this book is written from a perspective, which does not let deep thinking or unruly facts get in the way, but hey at least it starts from something we can ascertain the truth of: facts. Now I do get this undercurrent of political partisanship, when the only president discussed is W. Bush and his support of less democratically minded rulers in the Islamic world, but the author could be excused because he was focused on writing about a precise moment in the American/Islamic interaction. They are just not thinking how others will read it. Same for the discussion of the neocon Francis Fukuyama's comments that Democracy has its roots in countries with a secularized Christianity. It is fair to note that he is an avowed neocon, but it would also be a good thing to look at his specialty, the study of democracy, and note that even Gallup concludes that all the countries interviewed want democracy, "except 10", (pg. 58). So no, despite the helpful bullet points at the end of chapter 3, no they didn't prove at all that Islamic countries want democracy. I did appreciate the nugget that the majority of people holding a radical view of Islam, were interviewed in Asian countries and not in the Arab Street. Food for thought. And I appreciated the passages from the Koran where Muhammed calls for toleration of non-muslims, but respectfully decline to take their word that most Muslims believe that this must translate to peace. Early Muslim texts are historical we are told by muslim experts, even if they describe battles, we are told. Fine, but you can't have it both ways. A better way of ascertaining how Muslims ideally interpret those texts is through works of religious exegesis, just as it is with other religions. Again, the authors are not analyzing deeply. In looking at the chapter on women, I tend to agree with Muslims, if not exactly these authors, that the radical position is the American feminist one. Muslim women are perfectly free in western worlds to veil or not, only bound by family ties as thong wearing westerns. Their desire for modesty is not a sign of oppression, even I would say in those countries that enforce it by law. We rarely hear stories of moderation in law I'm sure. I join Muslim women in rolling my eyes at near-naked American women carping about exploitation. It was interesting to read about the stir made by Pope Benedict's comments, calling for Muslims to embrace peace, but I was surprised no mention was made of those Muslims who defended the Pope's words like scholar Ahmad Vincenzo: "We totally agree with Benedict that it is not possible to advance dialogue between religions that plays down the specific doctrines and rituals of individual faiths." Well, maybe I'm not surprised. The Coexistence chapter, had me cracking up. Obviously, Muslims are annoyed by the idiotic coexist car bumper stickers as I am. They really reflect a simplistic position that religion alone is the cause of war, which flies in the face of a lot of history and a lot of better-informed books by atheist-evangelists. For the record, here I tend to agree with the authors of his book and the atheist historians that religion in general is not the cause of war, I just don't think they prove it about Islam at all in this book. (And I reserve judgement on other less tangible things like culture for sure.) I still don't know what the nugget source of that terrorism is, other than evil, but I haven't given up finding out.