Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

31 of 43 people found the following review helpful
Ever since 9/11 I have been on the lookout for any book dealing with changed perceptions or heightened generalizations regarding Islam and Muslims. "Islamophobia" by Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg is one of those books that must be read by Americans in this post-9/11 world.

This book starts off by reviewing the reaction of Muslims to the cartoon that appeared in the Danish news paper Jyllands-Posten, which portrayed the prophet Muhammad in a less than stellar light. From here the authors trace the depiction of Islam and Muslims throughout history and how this idea of the religion and its followers as backward, violent and primitive remains well-entrenched in the minds of many Western non-Muslim people. In the introduction, the authors make a statement that I think is right on target: That is they (views held by Americans) demonstrate how natural for so many Americans the image of Muslims as irrational aggressors and Americans as righteous innocents abroad and at home has become, so that any other perspective becomes not a counterargument but a challenge to an unquestionable world order." The authors skillfully present information to back up this statement.

From the history of Western perceptions of Islam, the authors go on to analyze political cartoons depicting Islams. Just before doing this they make a necessary distinction between caricature and stereotype. This is key, because I think for many people, caricatures and stereotypes are one and the same. Most people respond to visual stimuli and in the case of the cartoons, their lack of familiarity with Islam, coupled with a general post-9/11 resentment toward Muslim culture, allows them to formulate opinions based on the animations they read in the newspapers. For example, how many people know the difference between a Muslim and an Arab? The authors contend that too often people categorize all Muslims under the same category (violent, backward, oppressive, etc.)without any reference that may inhibit the formatin of inaccurate perceptions.

I could go on, but it is best for readers to read this book for themselves. I found it very interesting that in the 1950s cartoonists depicted Muslims as lazy and effeminate. Now, the depictions are much more savage in their portrayals. It seems that many cartoons follow the political winds blowing from Washington, DC.
44 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
22 of 32 people found the following review helpful
on August 21, 2007
The new book Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy by Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, is an excellent addition to the growing literature, study, and analysis of Islamophobia in the West. The authors give a working definition of what Islamophobia consists of in relation to other phobias in their introduction.

The first chapter deals with a very good but brief overview of Western interaction and reaction to Islamic civilization and Muslims. What is important to note is that this all came about way before 9/11 and that because of this long history, people in the West have an ingrained and often warped image about what the religion of Islam represents.

In this book, the focus is primarily the role of political cartoons in mainstream media that help shape everyday peoples' image of Islam and Muslims. The proceeding chapters give excellent examples of the imagery and effectiveness of conveying stereotypical images of Muslims and Islam.

For those interested in learning about Islamophobia, I recommend this book along with Dr. Mohamed Nimer's Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism: Causes and Remedies. For good essay on the topic, I recommend Dr. Ibrahim Kalin's essay entitled "Roots of Misconception: Euro-American Perceptions of Islam Before and After 9/11" which can be found online.
22 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on February 21, 2015
excellent analysis, well documented, proves that Islamophobia is a kind of racism which must be fought against
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on December 7, 2013
Chilling
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on November 15, 2014
Muslims make THEMSELVES the enemy by declaring themselves to be superior to everyone else as well as secretly funding terrorist organizations they call "charity". TRUE Islam means the literal interpretation of the Quran-NOT the watered down Westernized version that is introduce for indoctrination purposes.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
1 of 4 people found the following review helpful
on February 17, 2014
The authors try to alleviate American fears of Islamic terrorism by showing, with history and cartoons, that that Islam and the West have more commonality than divergence. It's not convincing. Western anxiety is fueled by observation of the sources of terrorism, especially 9/11, as well as the Koranic exhortation to jihad. Superior features of Islam, including charity and culture are used as justification for a world Islamic order. There's no denying the role of Muslims in preserving Greek science and culture, or in propagating Indian science and mathematics. It's small comfort after 9/11. There is evident anti-Zionism, jealousy of the West and contempt of non Muslim life style. Polls show that Muslims largely applaud suicide bombers and celebrated the WTO debacle and the fall of the twin towers. Some writers, like Noam Chomsky, blame our own policies and lifestyle. The most prominent feature of the book is presentation of syndicated cartoons that tend to make Muslims the enemy of the West. Curiously, there are no cartoons for the opposing case. It seems to me that the message in the cartoons is more compelling than that of the text.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
3 of 10 people found the following review helpful
on January 10, 2014
This book is probably the worst chronology of Islam I have ever read!
I have a number of colleagues and friends that have graduated from the "Cross".
They would be mortified by your "Political Correctness".
Let's see:
Do Islamists kill women for wanting education - YES!
Do Islamists rape women without penalty - YES!
Do Islamists kill journalists for criticizing Mohammed - YES!
Do Islamists kill Jewish journalists for no reason - YES!
Do Islamic countries allow Christian churches in their countries - NO!
Do Islamic countries allow American visitors whose Passport show an Israel stamp to visit - NO!
If it weren't for oil would anyone care - NO!
Go feed your camels!
22 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
5 of 14 people found the following review helpful
on April 14, 2013
Dear Great White Rabbit preserve us from the 'White Paper Brigade".

Islamophobia simply does not exist for rational fear is not a phobia.

To say Islamophobia exists is irrational.

Why?

If a cultural codex such as the Nazis Mein Kampf , Christian Bible, Muslim Quran, ... whatever cultural codex, consistently informs within the variance of derived adherents behavior, terror against Other and subjugation of woman particularly as the political power of such a construct increases then the fear of such an entity is rational on the part of Other and woman - it would be irrational to be otherwise.

Is it the case Islam does not now or never has consistently informed terror against Other and subjugation of woman to mans will particularly when it obtains political power?

Where do Muslims and apologists for them such as this author think the "few violent Muslims" come from, the back of a cereal packet?

Norman Hillson "I speak of Germany", London 1937 said "..; the NAZI ... that great unified people are looking for peace and see friendship with Britain as a basis for peace not only for themselves but for everyone else."

It is this author along with the Hillsons, the apologists for tawdry dogma who enable the cultural relativist ethical nihilist jackboot on the throat of reason until it is to late - Peace in our Neighborhood-Gad! Like the Egyptian Coptics? Like the Indonesian Christians? Like the Saudi Arabian Women? Like Pakistan polio medical personnel? Like the Thailand teachers? Like the ....

The connection between the construct of Other in Nazi Main Kampf and the Muslim Quran is not a matter of contention it is fact if you care to check - not only the foundation texts themselves but compare actual outcomes against Other on the ground.

The meaning of the Nazi and Muslim connection is not academic and simply an opportunity for clever wordsmithing. There are too many victims and there are no less each day that passes.

Richard Dawkins is pointing out the obvious-When a cultural construct of Other(Quran)=another cultural construct of Other(Mein Kampf) be it religious or secular given time and space to flourish you can expect the same outcomes.

The question you ask 'Are the outcomes different'? Is there in any Muslim community in space and time a propensity to visit terror on Other - blow them to bit, and destroy Others churches, hunt down those who dare to question the 'Greatness' of the Prophet be it Mohammad or Hitler or..

What Dawkins is saying is based on empirical observation and rational justified understanding of psychological cause and effect at the individual and group level.

Cultural construct of Other(Quran)=another cultural construct of Other(Mein Kampf)

Cultural Foundation Text=Ethics=Ideas=Motivation=Action For and Against Other. Psychology 101.

Therefore " lumping all Muslims into one box"=" lumping all Nazis into one box".

Those who argue Islam consistently informs terror and subjugation of women are told they "conflate the actions of a few violent Muslims".

Logic determines "conflate the actions of a few violent Muslims"="conflate the actions of a few violent Nazis" .

Yes Other sent to the gas chambers. Is it Other being blown to bits on the streets does not count? Are the churches being shut down by Islamist's in Indonesia a (yawn) not at all like Kristallnacht "No religious persecution here".

Everyday since the seventh century empirical observation informs humanity genocidal constructs of Other lead irrevocably to terror against Other. Islamic text informs a genocidal construct against Other - the empirical proof - torn bodies each and every day.

Just having witnessed a Muslim woman covered in black cloth being led by her master-and observing the outcomes this ethic is informing when Islam obtains sufficient political power means woman should not have a rational fear as to the consequences of Islam?

The ethics which inform French school children being run down and shot and Thailand teachers being murdered and Church's forced to close in Indonesia and ..... does not inform a rational fear? How many died today torn apart by Islamic codex?

How many victims everyday since Mohammed poked his hearing voices head out of the cave?

Islam is only a reality if Humanity allows it to be so to its own terrible detriment. Fear yes, justified yes, rational yes. How many more Muslims victims do Muslims and their apologists want? Alas they never will be satisfied.

You can look at Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria,.... and say if such a dogma is allowed to flourish in my neighborhood to enable a political foothold I have no worries regards my security or independence?

Islamophobia simply does not exist for rational fear is not a phobia.

To say Islamophobia exists is irrational.

Why?

The justified fear can be in part measured in $ and cents - if the fear of the impact on societies of adherents of Islam is irrational how much of the security budget would you cut? The fact the question can be asked in the first place means what?

You really believe clothing is not a political statement? The French understand perfectly the ramifications of allowing marks of slavery and subjugation on their streets in the same way Nazi flags waving from windows would now be removed with rigor.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
5 of 18 people found the following review helpful
on February 2, 2008
i think one of the issue(i say its one of the issue) in islam is the the border drawn in 1947 which the palestine is asking nothing more.why not stick to that border rather than expansion into palestine territory
22 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
35 of 88 people found the following review helpful
on September 3, 2007
The term of this book is incorrect: in non-Muslim countries, we are not "phobic" toward Islam, or Muslims. We are "phobic" toward Islamic terrorists and "Islamo-fascists" (Taliban, Al Quida, etc.). Thus, the correct term should be "Islamofascism-phobia", not "Islamophobia (thanks to British novelist Ian McKwen for that distinction). In other words, we are "phobic" (in fear of) those who want us dead. The Taliban and Al Quida want me and you dead. Thus, this fear is not irrational, and thus not a phobia. Rather, it is totally rational, a completely rational fear and aversion against Taliban and Islamic fascists. (I personally also dislike the use of "phobia" - a psychiatric term, to depict a political stance or political opinion. It is a misnomer, and to me smacks of the Soviet tendency to label political opponents as "insane", or suffering from a mental condition. Unfortunately, in the U.S., we picked this bad habit up, and now use it against people who disagree with us politically).

The second problem I have is showing cartoons as if they were somehow indicative of public opinion. Everyone understands that political cartoons are an exagerrated, often comical depiction, and not indicative of real public opinion (I bet one could analyze cartoons about Europeans in the U.S. press to then show how "racist" we are toward the Europeans). The authors depict cartoons as if they somehow are indicative of western opinion of Muslims and Islam, when in fact, they are exagerrations, and everyone understands them as such.

Also, the authors tend to contradict themselves. For instance, at one point, they state that most Muslims live east of Saudi Arabia (true), and thus don't care about Mideast politics. And then, they later claim that Muslims are enraged due to "U.S. Foreign policy". Well, which is it ? Is the Palestinian issue central, or not ? They seem to want to have it both ways: Muslims are not concerned about the Mideast, and yet, U.S. actions there are totally central to their worldview. (I would also like to point out here what real U.S. foreign policy did: save the Muslim Bosnians, give Egypt and Saudi Arabia billions every year, try to help Muslim Somalis in 1993, freed the Iraqis from Saddam, freed Kuwait in 1991, sending an aircraft carrier to Indonesia with aid packages, after the tsunami, taking in millions of Muslim refugees and allowing them to live in the U.S., etc. The U.S. record on foreign policy is far more friendly to Muslims than most people think).

They also claim that the West has much in common with Islam due to a shared respect for "Greek rationalism". In reality, the Muslims gave up on Greek rationalism 800 years ago, and have forasaken it since then. Greek rationalism was thrown out the window by the Muslims 8 centuries ago. To state that Muslims are a force for rationalism in our modern world is an extreme stretch, to put it mildly.

By the way, they claim that the sword is not a "central" symbol to Muslims. That might be true, but I also think I saw a sword depicted in the Saudi Arabian flag.
77 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
     
 
Customers who viewed this also viewed
Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire
Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire by Deepa Kumar (Paperback - August 7, 2012)
$12.42


Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century
Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century by John L. Esposito (Paperback - March 30, 2011)
$22.79
 
     

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.

Your Recently Viewed Items and Featured Recommendations 
 

After viewing product detail pages, look here to find an easy way to navigate back to pages you are interested in.