First anything, this book will not be read by the ones who would really benefit from it: the Breivikists in power or seeking power in the USA and European countries, and their (sadly many) supporters. Regrettably so, as this book is for them to realize their errors, and yet they are the ones who will not care to read it, or will call it deceitful even though what Rauf states as fact is all easily verifiable. It is a cry in the desert for those who need this book; and for those who don't, it's almost preaching to the choir.
Nonetheless, the exposition of key concepts both of Islam, of comparative religion, and of the development and practice of the U.S. Constitution, does deserve at least 4 stars, and it will be a good reading for anyone not already too prejudiced to consider real issues of both Islam and political theory in a fair light.
There are a couple mistakes that I think point to some oversights on edition, as I suppose Rauf knows them to be inexact, like dates and such in the history section as it deals not just with modern history or early Islamic history, but what is in between. None of them, though, distracts, so I will not point to them. Probably more importantly, this book is from 2004 and it shows. It is quickly becoming dated, and it would merit to be updated by Rauf himself in several places. The most obvious updates would be the growth of Islamophobia in all Western countries; the changes in the situation in the three Muslim conflicts he identifies as most important: Israel, Chechnya and Kashmir, but also in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the Neptunian Revolutions, in particular the Arab Spring, which also undermines somewhat his quasi-Chomskian argument for economic development before formal democracy. It will be noticeable to any American reader, even if not familiar with these international developments, at his mention of housing and automobile as the engines of the American economy.
A more important objection which would still be fair is that Rauf still promotes some of his ideological positions a little too much and his commitment to interfaith dialogue sometimes clouds real issues. Within Islam, he overstates the importance of Sufism and Sufis in some contexts and historical moments; but he underestimates the importance of Shiism and Shiites. In both cases, too, he never explains the very real theological differences between branches, which might be arcane for Christians and shouldn't be a barrier to coexistence and peace among Muslims, but which matter in the same way that the differences between Catholics, Protestants, Mormons and Orthodox matter in Christianity and Christendom. Also within Islam, I think he isn't hard enough on either Wahhabis or Nation of Islam for either their unorthodox beliefs or their real life practice. Most salient is the case of the Saudi kingdom's government and policies - for someone who professes his admiration for Muhammad Asad, there should be some criticism for the regime who bans his English rendition of the Quran. Conversely, in relations between Islam and others, he makes only passing mention of the Crusades, despite their enormous importance for the Muslim world's, and particularly the Middle East's, views on Western Christian nations. He also only makes a single sentence about the Spanish Reconquista, despite its brutality and its ill effects, not just for the Muslim world which lost a capital and for Jews who were expelled from Iberia, but even for Christianity itself through the rise of its particularly virulent form of militant Catholicism, with the Inquisition, the burnings of witches, Protestants and Renaissance scientists, and the oppression of the Native Americans under the Iberian crowns, all for the sake of Christianity. He also doesn't mention anything at all about the Barbary Wars, which is what really marred the reputation of Islam in America forever. And although he correctly understands the importance of the modern corporation and the modern financial markets in creating and sustaining American and Western capitalism, he seems to ignore the creation of Islamic banking in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, designed to be compatible with modernity and Islam alike. I don't know if that is a sincere spot of ignorance or an intentional omission, but it should not be left out of a book that seeks to find common ground. After the 2008 financial crisis, Islamic banking, which is full reserve, should seriously be considered even by nations without large Muslim populations as an alternative system immune to the kind of shocks the world is suffering.
Still, all of this is forgivable, overall, in a book that seeks to set a common ground and start a respectful dialogue. Other books can come later to fill in these blanks. The major defect of this book is that its more enthusiastic audience are people who do not need to listen to a conference on the common philosophical ground and concerns between Islam and American values; while those who most need to learn about this common ground and concerns are those least interested in hearing about it.
