Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Posted: **Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:03 pm**

Rainbow_connection wrote: It's almost funny how badly they need to know why a clearly "ethnic" person has his last name.

I'd say less "haha funny" and more "funny, how people can be so incredibly dense."

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:04 am**

vorpal blade wrote:I find it strange that anyone would be prejudiced against Hispanics, as I have nothing against them, and as far as I know none of my friends have anything against them, but my friend Jose sure thinks it makes a difference.

I think part of the issue here is that very few Americans would actively say, "Yeah, I have something against Hispanic people!" (or black people or Asian people or whoever else). But we often do have unconscious stereotypes or make unfavorable assumptions about people. I know that I have had to break myself of this since working in public schools.

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:13 pm**

Our Muslim brothers and sisters today want to live in peace and freedom, especially freedom to practice their religion. They want the West to respect them. They do not want their governments to be repressive, corrupt, or to show a lack of respect for Muslim traditions. That is what we all want as well. If the West is not careful in how we respond to world events then the Muslim unrest and search for a better life may lead them to support groups such as ISIS, which will not make the world a better place to live in for anyone.

Before we can know how to respond properly we must have accurate facts about Muslims. We need facts that are not distorted by political or religious ideology; neither by fears of Islam, nor by attempts to paint a pretty picture. Whitewashing can be as harmful as demonizing. We need the plain truth, even if we don’t want to hear it. In the immortal words of Gloria Steinem, “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

Glenn Greenwald is a good trial lawyer. He presents his case selecting those reports and opinions which support him. When he used the Gallup poll data he actually used a press announcement that the authors of the poll had made. The authors are John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs, Georgetown University & Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director, The Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. The study published was the result of numerous studies done over a period of six years. The problem is that Esposito and Mogahed didn’t accurately represent the results of their study.

In this post I’d like to discuss the first part of the Gallup poll data as Greenwald gave it.

Gallup Poll wrote:A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence. . . . It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington. . . .

"About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews. . . .

The way the data was misrepresented by Esposito and Mogahed shows several interesting techniques in deception. The idea that Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States and the idea that only seven percent are politically radical is based on a single question. This article by Esposito and Mogahed gives an idea of the actual question asked. http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/M ... 022207.pdf

Gallup Poll wrote: Note: Respondents who said 9/11 was unjustified (1 or 2 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is totally unjustified and 5 is completely justified) are classified as moderates. Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radicals. The data for this poll were obtained during 2005-06 from Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Approximately 1,000 in-home interviews were conducted in each country. The sampling mix of urban and rural areas is the statistical equivalent of surveying each nation’s adult population, with a statistical sampling error rate of ±3 percent.

That is what they said in 2006 when this part of their study was released. However, in 2008, when the full study was released, they redefined “radical” to mean only those who thought the 9/11 attacks were completely justified. These amount to 7 percent of the world’s Muslims.

But what about those on the scale of 1 to 5 who thought that the 9/11 attacks were mostly justified or somewhat justified? http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/robert-satloff Those who were 4’s amount to another 6.5%. That’s now 13.5% who think the attacks were mostly or completely justified. The 3’s think that the attacks were somewhat justified, and that is another 23.1%. So at least 36.6% of Muslims think that the the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 were at least somewhat justified. It may be more than that, since we don’t know what percent think it was totally unjustified (the 1’s) and where exactly on the scale are the 2’s. The questioned wasn’t even asked if anyone condemned the attacks or not. The good news is that as many as 63.4% of Muslims might not believe that the 9/11 attack was even partly justified.

The percentage of 36.6% of Muslims who think that the attacks against the United States were at least partly justified agree with other such polls. http://www.fafoarkiv.no/ais/middeast/op ... tables.pdf

Fafo Foundation wrote:A poll conducted by the Fafo Foundation in the Palestinian Authority in 2005 found that 65% of respondents supported the September 11 attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_ ... 11_attacks

Wikipedia wrote:Polls taken several years later by Saudi-owned Al Arabiya and Gallup suggest some support for the September 11 attacks within the Islamic world, with 38% believing the attacks to be not justified, while 36% believing them to be justified when Saudis were polled in 2011.[29]

According to another Gallup poll taken in 2002 overwhelming majorities of Muslims did not think that Arabs carried out the attack of September 11. http://www.gallup.com/poll/5404/blame-s ... world.aspx Who did they think carried out the attack?

Gallup poll wrote: The "standard" answer from the U.S. perspective -- the al Qaeda organization, or Osama bin Laden specifically -- is identified as the source responsible for the attacks by 40% of Turks and a quarter of Lebanese (although, as noted below, more Lebanese think that Israel was behind the attacks).

In Iran, the single most commonly volunteered perpetrator is the United States itself -- either based on the view that the United States would attack itself in order to provide a pretext for subsequent actions against al Qaeda and international terrorism, or that the actions of the United States indirectly led to the attacks. The United States is also tabbed as the source of the Sept. 11 attacks by at least one in six Lebanese, Turks, and Moroccans.

In three countries -- Lebanon, Kuwait, and Morocco -- the single most frequently named source for the attacks is Israel.

In Pakistan and Indonesia, a wide range of responses is given, the most common being the general description that the attacks were the work of "non-Muslim terrorists."

I like to think that our Muslim brothers and sisters just couldn’t believe that other Muslims would attack innocent civilians in America. Now, obviously, if you think that Israel carried out the 9/11 attack, or that the United States attacked itself in order to provide a pretext for subsequent actions against Muslims, then you are a lot more likely to say that the attack was unjustified. As I think about it the evidence suggests that the 36.6% who think that the attack was at least partly justified is probably an underestimate, given the misunderstanding of the motives of those who carried out the attack.

In 2007, Dalia Mogahed, one of the authors of the Gallup polls, gave a speech in Beverly Hills for producers, directors, writers, and intellectuals in a forum for “Focusing the Lens: Engaging the Muslim World Through the Arts.” http://media.gallup.com/muslimwestfacts ... ech01c.pdf In that speech she said

Dalia Mogahed wrote: In fact, several recent studies have found that Muslim publics are at least as likely as the American public to condemn terrorism.

A recent study shows that only 46% of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,” while 24% believe these attacks are “often” or “sometimes justified.”

Compare this with data taken the same year from some of the largest majority Muslim nations, where 74% of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are “never justified”; in Iran, that figure was 80%, and in Pakistan, 86%.

I checked out her sources and she quoted them correctly. However, she didn’t tell the whole story. For the full questionnaire see http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... re_emb.pdf According to her source,

World Public Opinion Organization wrote: Q-I23: Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?
........................................................................Iranians........Americans
Often justified.........................................................3%..............5%
Sometimes justified..................................................8...............19
Rarely justified.........................................................5...............27
Never justified........................................................80...............46
Refused/Don’t know................................................5...................2

These results compare well with the Gallup poll. According to the Gallup poll 12% of Iranians believe that military attacks on civilians are sometimes justified. 13% of Iranians believe that individual attacks on civilians are sometimes justified. Surveys taken between 2008 and 2009. However, consider the very next question asked in the World Public Opinion poll.

World Public Opinion Organization wrote:Q-I24: For each of the following types of attacks please tell me if you personally feel that these are sometimes justified or never justified?
Q-I24a: attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians?
.......................................................................Iranians........Americans
Sometimes justified................................................53%..............13%
Never justified.......................................................41.................80
Refused/Don’t know................................................7....................7

Note that when it comes to Palestinians attacking Israeli citizens suddenly that 80% who would NEVER attack citizens changes its mind. Now only half of them, 41%, think such attacks are never justified, and 53% say they are sometimes justified. Evidently for half of those who say they are never justified when talking in the abstract change their minds when it comes to Palestinians attacking Israeli citizens.

I can sympathize with this feeling. Context of the question is really important. If I am thinking of a legitimate government entity that has law enforcement or proper military authority, acting within their lawful duties and responsibilities, then I am likely to think that targeting specific criminals or outlaws – who happen to be civilians – is sometimes justified. If, however, I am thinking of a terrorist organization that targets random innocent civilians for the purpose of spreading terror, then I am unlikely to think this is ever justified. Sometimes it comes down to who is legitimate and who is not, and who is innocent and who is not, who is being bombed and who is doing the bombing, and what we perceive are the motives of the participants. But spreading around statistics like 80% of Iranians think attacks against civilians is unjustified, or “the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks” is deceptive, irresponsible, and ignores the complex nature of the issue and the deep brotherhood Muslims feel for the troubles of fellow Muslims.

What we want to know is how sympathetic are Muslims to organizations which use terror as a means when the end is believed to be very worthwhile. This poll helps us to understand.

World Public Opinion wrote:Q-I21: Please tell me if you think each of the following are having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world

Q-I21g: Iran
......................................................................Iranians............Americans
Mainly positive.....................................................83%..................10%
Mainly negative.....................................................3......................80
Depends (vol.)......................................................8......................n/a
Neither (vol.)........................................................1.....................n/a
Refused/Don’t know...............................................5......................10

Q-I21k: Hezbollah
....................................................................Iranians..............Americans
Mainly positive.....................................................75%.....................9%
Mainly negative......................................................6......................80
Depends (vol.).......................................................7......................n/a
Neither (vol.).........................................................3......................n/a
Refused/Don’t know..............................................10......................12

Q-I21m: Hamas
.......................................................................Iranians..............Americans
Mainly positive.....................................................56%.......................10%
Mainly negative......................................................8..........................77
Depends (vol.)......................................................10.........................n/a
Neither (vol.)..........................................................4.........................n/a
Refused/Don’t know...............................................23.........................12

So when it comes to an organization such as Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran which targets innocent civilians in its methods to achieve its goals we find that 56%, 75%, and 83% have an overall positive impression of that organization, despite not personally favouring violence or attacks on civilians. It may be that Iranians don’t understand or believe as we do that these organizations in fact sponsor terrorism. But it puts a different light on the question of who is a “moderate,” and who really condemns “terrorism” if used by the “right” people.

Is it just a question of a difference of opinion on facts, or are we dealing with conflicting objectives? Don’t we all want peace, but how is it to be achieved? Is it to be a peace of equals who have different religious values and opinions?

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:26 am**

Emiliana wrote:
vorpal blade wrote:I find it strange that anyone would be prejudiced against Hispanics, as I have nothing against them, and as far as I know none of my friends have anything against them, but my friend Jose sure thinks it makes a difference.
I think part of the issue here is that very few Americans would actively say, "Yeah, I have something against Hispanic people!" (or black people or Asian people or whoever else). But we often do have unconscious stereotypes or make unfavorable assumptions about people. I know that I have had to break myself of this since working in public schools.

I agree with you, but I have a couple of practical questions. What is your method of detecting your true unconscious stereotypes? How can I determine that my friends are making unfavorable assumptions about people without making unfavorable assumptions about my friends?

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:18 pm**

Terry Pratchett wrote:Goodness is about what you do. Not who you pray to.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:54 pm**

vorpal blade wrote:What is your method of detecting your true unconscious stereotypes? How can I determine that my friends are making unfavorable assumptions about people without making unfavorable assumptions about my friends?

Fair housing agencies will often screen for discrimination by sending in actors posing as two candidates more or less identical in every feature except their race. The same tactic can be used to test for bias in job applications. Other studies use only names, and measure callback rates for people named Juan or Jamal as opposed to John.

This isn't the best way to determine biases on an individual level, since people can be biased by anything. However, taken on a broader level, it can be used to show trends. To give a more concrete example, if a medical school candidate is interviewed on a rainy day, it's the equivalent of a ten-point drop in MCAT score compared to a candidate interviewed on a sunny day. There are millions of things causing bias, ranging from the weather to getting an angry call from your ex-wife's lawyer. However, dealing with a large sample size, those random biases are spread evenly across the races, leaving (ideally) racial bias as the only dependent variable.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:58 pm**

Thank you for your comments, yayfulness. I have heard of the tactics you mentioned. I'm sure that prejudice exists, I was just wondering how one determines if one is prejudiced on an unconscious level. And what should I look for to see prejudice in my friends before I start seeing things that aren't really there.

Interesting comments on bias. Now, maybe I've just been spending too much time studying Gallup polls and it has made me a little cynical. But I was just wondering, couldn't there be some bias, whether intentional or unconscious, in those doing the testing? For example, it would be really easy to send out a number of job applications and accidentally put down the wrong return address or contact information on the applications you don't really want to see returned. You could send out two applications which are essentially identical except the name is Juan instead of John, but somehow in the one application you consistently make more typographical errors. Your handwriting or typing looks careless. You misspell the name of the organization or person you are writing to. You forget to add some important information. You send in the application after the deadline. When you have a vested interest in proving discrimination there would be a tendency to prove yourself right. Maybe one of the actors sabotages his application by acting dishonest or a lending risk, or forgetting needed information, because the actor knows the results he wants. If there is deliberate or inherent bias in a particular direction it doesn't matter how large the sample size is.

Posted: **Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:10 pm**

In that case, I guess you just have to ask yourself which is a more likely source of racial bias: social scientists in peer-reviewed experiments, or the population at large?

Posted: **Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:36 pm**

yayfulness wrote:In that case, I guess you just have to ask yourself which is a more likely source of racial bias: social scientists in peer-reviewed experiments, or the population at large?

Also, these studies are replicable. They have been performed many times by multiple groups. I mean, sure, there's a possibility that they faked results or subconsciously skewed them somehow. But the possibility grows smaller and smaller every time the results are achieved by a different study.

I mean, theoretically, it is possible the moon landing, 9/11, or the Holocaust were faked. But with how unlikely that is, and how large a confluence of events has to be for that to happen, I choose to believe that they weren't.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2015 8:58 pm**

vorpal blade wrote:
Emiliana wrote:
vorpal blade wrote:I find it strange that anyone would be prejudiced against Hispanics, as I have nothing against them, and as far as I know none of my friends have anything against them, but my friend Jose sure thinks it makes a difference.
I think part of the issue here is that very few Americans would actively say, "Yeah, I have something against Hispanic people!" (or black people or Asian people or whoever else). But we often do have unconscious stereotypes or make unfavorable assumptions about people. I know that I have had to break myself of this since working in public schools.
I agree with you, but I have a couple of practical questions. What is your method of detecting your true unconscious stereotypes? How can I determine that my friends are making unfavorable assumptions about people without making unfavorable assumptions about my friends?

I know that I have unconscious stereotypes because occasionally I find myself surprised when I discover some particular positive trait in a person of a particular demographic. For instance, until recently I had never had a Hispanic female administrator, and I think I unconsciously assumed that Hispanic females wouldn't earn respect very well because they're often very meek. BUT this woman I worked under recently was amazing -- she wasn't as outspoken as a lot of admins, but she had this incredible mixture of confidence and humility -- she gained respect because when you talked to her, you knew she was really *hearing* you.

So I would say that the best litmus test for stereotyping, as well as the best cure for it, is to actually get to know people who are different from you.

As for how you can detect these prejudices in other people, I don't know that you can a lot of the time. But sometimes you hear something like this:

J.K. Rowling wrote:"Your mother was Muggle-born, of course. Couldn't believe it when I found out. Thought she must have been pure-blood, she was so good. ... Funny how that sometimes happens, isn't it?" said Slughorn.

"Not really," said Harry coldly.

Slughorn looked down at him in surprise. "You mustn't think I'm prejudiced!" he said. "No, no, no! Haven't I just said your mother was one of my all-time favorite students?"

He bounced up and down a little, smiling in a self-satisfied way.

And then you know that person's a bit racist.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:01 pm**

Avenue Q wrote:Everyone's a little bit racist.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:25 pm**

The other thing with replicating the studies is it's very easy to literally submit the exact same information. For instance, you could send out 100 resumes, 50 with the last name "John" and 50 with "José," and see how many callbacks you get. You type up the exact same resumé on the computer and change the name when you print it out. The name is literally the only possible change in that scenario. Or an online class taught by a teacher that the students never actually interact with. Half the students see "Mr. Smith" and half see "Mrs. Smith" on the online portal but they all get the exact same emails and information. At the end of the year, students rate "Mr. Smith" higher than "Mrs. Smith" despite receiving identical communications.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:27 pm**

yayfulness wrote: Fair housing agencies will often screen for discrimination by sending in actors posing as two candidates more or less identical in every feature except their race. The same tactic can be used to test for bias in job applications. Other studies use only names, and measure callback rates for people named Juan or Jamal as opposed to John.

yayfulness wrote:In that case, I guess you just have to ask yourself which is a more likely source of racial bias: social scientists in peer-reviewed experiments, or the population at large?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about fair housing agencies, activist groups, or the like. Could you give me two or three of your best experiments done by unbiased social scientists who wrote it up in unbiased peer-reviewed journals showing significant prejudice in the housing market or in the job market? Again, I know there is prejudice out there. I'm just saying that there may also be a bias in investigating the prejudice. Obviously fair housing agencies have a vested interest in proving there is unfairness. Otherwise the agencies would not have a reason to exist. I have yet to see an agency conclude that it has done its job and no longer has a reason for being.

Sorry, I don't have a lot of faith in many government agencies. Nor for that matter social scientists. So I'd be interested in reading 2 or 3 of these solid studies and making my own decision. I'm curious to know what is out there.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:55 pm**

Zedability wrote:The other thing with replicating the studies is it's very easy to literally submit the exact same information. For instance, you could send out 100 resumes, 50 with the last name "John" and 50 with "José," and see how many callbacks you get. You type up the exact same resumé on the computer and change the name when you print it out. The name is literally the only possible change in that scenario. Or an online class taught by a teacher that the students never actually interact with. Half the students see "Mr. Smith" and half see "Mrs. Smith" on the online portal but they all get the exact same emails and information. At the end of the year, students rate "Mr. Smith" higher than "Mrs. Smith" despite receiving identical communications.

Can you get for me a link to one or two studies showing all the details of the original research? It would be interesting.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:42 am**

Link including links to studies.

Relevant books: American Apartheid (Douglas and Massey), The Cosmopolitan Canopy (Anderson). American Apartheid is denser and focused on quantitative studies, while The Cosmopolitan Canopy is a surprisingly easy and engaging read focused more on qualitative studies.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:43 am**

vorpal blade wrote:Sorry, I don't have a lot of faith in many government agencies. Nor for that matter social scientists. So I'd be interested in reading 2 or 3 of these solid studies and making my own decision. I'm curious to know what is out there.

What would it take to convince you that there's truth to what I'm saying?

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:29 pm**

yayfulness wrote:
vorpal blade wrote:Sorry, I don't have a lot of faith in many government agencies. Nor for that matter social scientists. So I'd be interested in reading 2 or 3 of these solid studies and making my own decision. I'm curious to know what is out there.
What would it take to convince you that there's truth to what I'm saying?

Thank you for the source. I'll look into it later.

Thank you for the question. My answer is that it would depend on what you are saying. If you are saying that there is prejudice in America, and studies show that there is prejudice in America, then nothing has to be done to convince me. That is also what I've been saying all along. I don't think you have said anything more than this. If you would care to say more, please do so.

All I have been saying is that I'm asking the question, couldn't there sometimes be a bias toward "discovering" more prejudice that there really is? What would it take to convince you of the truth to that?

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:38 am**

Oh, there's definitely bias. But there are also safeguards put in place in order to protect the research from bias, or make the effects of the bias as small as possible. (The best case is a double-blind study, but that's often impossible in the social sciences.)

Is bias relevant? Yes. But in general, I'm much more worried about bias in the interpretation of an experiment's results rather than in the actual substance of the experiment.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:34 pm**

I think I would agree with that, yayfulness.

Posted: **Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:02 pm**

I would like to continue now with my critique of Glenn Greenwald, with another “finding” he quoted from the Gallup Poll as described in a press release by the Gallup authors, John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed.

Esposito and Mogahed wrote:"Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed. . . .

In numerous articles Esposito and Mogahed argue why they feel “radical Muslims” are about politics, not religion. http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/M ... 022207.pdf http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/E ... mWorld.pdf http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/Esposito.pdf It is important to understand whether we are dealing with a political issue, which might be solved with political changes, or a religious and cultural issue, which is not as tractable a problem. Esposito and Mogahed wish to promote good will and understanding between Muslims and the West, which is a good goal, and consistently portray the tension between the two as due to political policies.

What it means to be “politically radicalised” according to Gallup.

To begin with we need to understand how Esposito and Mogahed define things. They have a rather odd working definition of what they call the “politically radicalised.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/28678/Framin ... error.aspx

Mogahed wrote: After analyzing survey data representing more than 90% of the global Muslim population, Gallup found that despite widespread anti-American sentiment, only a small minority saw the 9/11 attacks as morally justified. Even more significant, there was no correlation between level of religiosity and extremism among respondents. Among the 7% of the population that fits in the politically radicalized category -- those who saw the 9/11 attacks as completely justifiable and have an unfavorable view of the United States -- 94% said religion is an important part of their daily lives, compared with 90% among those in the moderate majority. And no significant difference exists between radicals and moderates in mosque attendance.

The graph in the article shows that 63% of the “politically radicalised” attended religious services in the last seven days, while 57% of the “moderates” did. Esposito and Mogahed want you to believe that religion was not a motivating factor, as the “politically radicalised” are not significantly more religious by these measures. It would be hard to be significantly more religious if 90% of the control group is already religious. It could also be pointed out that having Islam as an important part of your daily life and attending to religious services increases the likelihood of feeling that the 9/11 attacks were completely justified.

So why do Esposito and Mogahed feel that the “politically radicalised” are in fact politically motivated?

Mogahed wrote:The real difference between those who condone terrorist acts and all others is about politics, not piety. For example, the politically radicalized often cite "occupation and U.S. domination" as their greatest fear for their country and only a small minority of them agree the United States would allow people in the region to fashion their own political future or that it is serious about supporting democracy in the region. Also, among this group's top responses was the view that to better relations with the Muslim world, the West should respect Islam and stop imposing its beliefs and policies. In contrast, moderates most often mentioned economic problems as their greatest fear for their country, and along with respecting Islam, they see economic support and investments as a way for the West to better relations. Moderates are also more likely than the politically radicalized to say the United States is serious about promoting democracy.

While the politically radicalized are as likely as the moderate majority to say better relations with the West is of personal concern to them, they are much less likely to believe the West reciprocates this concern and therefore much less likely to believe improved relations will ever come. In short, perceptions of being under siege characterize those who sympathize with extremism.

One of the problems with this analysis is that it is difficult for a non-Muslim to understand that “occupation and U.S. Domination” is usually a fear of their religion being suppressed, not a political fear. Or that their own political future and their version of democracy cannot be separated from sharia and Islamic principles. But Esposito and Mogahed know this. http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/E ... mWorld.pdf

Mogahed wrote: This sense of Western encroachment seemed to extend beyond political domination to religious and cultural identity. While moderates and radicals both feel that Islam is disrespected by the West (only 16% of moderates, and 12% of political radicals associated “respecting Islamic values” with Western nations), political radicals appear more likely to feel that Islam is not only degraded, but threatened.

Among the radical group, the idea that Western nations should “refrain from interfering or imposing its beliefs and policies” was a common response to the open-ended question about improving relations with the West, second only to the need for Westerners to “respect Islam.” The moderates also express this sentiment, but it is a bit more muted and surpassed by a request for more basic needs such as economic development.

Feeling politically and culturally at risk, political radicals are more likely to push for cultural preservation, and to adhere to the idea that “attachment to spiritual and moral values is critical to Arab/Muslim progress” (65% of political radicals agree with this statement vs. 44% among moderates).

So radicals are more likely to feel that the main problem is that Islam is disrespected by the West, more likely to feel that Islam is threatened, more likely to feel that the West was trying to impose their beliefs, and more likely to feel that what is needed is more spiritual and moral values. Sounds to me that the way they perceive that the West treats their religion is at the heart of the problem, not politics.

As Dalia Mogahed said,

Mogahed wrote: The current war is about not appearing to denigrate Islam or impose a secular democracy that excludes faith, because it is this perception that fuels extremist sentiment and alienates those mainstream Muslims who want a democracy compatible with religious values.

There are a few quotes from some other articles that Esposito and Mogahed have written that I think merit quoting at this point. http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/Esposito.pdf

Esposito and Mogahed wrote: The heightened sense of the West’s threat to political freedom and to Islamic identity has reinforced the desire for Sharia, or Islamic law. Recourse to the Sharia, the blueprint for an Islamic society, provides a centuries-old paradigm. Thus, however different and diverse Muslim populations may be, for many Sharia is central to faith and identity. While both moderates (83 percent) and the politically radicalized (91 percent) want Sharia as a source of law, a significantly higher percentage of the radicalized (59 percent versus 32 percent of moderates) want to see Sharia as the only source of law This desire for Sharia is reminiscent of the reasons behind the early development of Islamic law: to create a rule of law as a shield against the power of the caliph or sultan. As Richard Bulliet in The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization notes:

All that restrained rulers from acting as tyrants was Islamic law, sharia. Since the law was based on divine rather then human principles, no ruler could change it to serve his own interests.

Today, greater interest by the politically radicalized in the implementation of Islamic law reflects their desire to limit the power of rulers and regimes that they regard as authoritarian, “un-Islamic” and corrupt.

There are many who feel that this yearning for Sharia is bound to cause problems. See for example, a speech by Hazrat Mirza Tahir, fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. https://www.alislam.org/books/shariah/

Quoting further from this article, in the opinion of Esposito and Mogahed,

Esposito and Mogahed wrote: Diagnosing terrorism as a symptom and Islam as the problem, though popular in some circles, is flawed and has serious risks with dangerous repercussions. It confirms radical beliefs and fears, alienates the moderate Muslim majority, and reinforces the idea that the war against global terrorism is really a war against Islam. Whether one is radical or moderate, this negative attitude is a widespread perception. The politically radicalized are not crazed lunatics caught up in an illusion that is not shared by the vast majority. Rather, they are distinguished by a greater “degree of awareness,” leading to more intense alienation, politicization and a deeper commitment to sacrifice and taking action to create change.

Unfortunately many in government and the press in attempting to defend Islam have led you to believe that attacks such as Charlie Hedbo were done by “crazed lunatics” who just happen to be Muslims, if the religion is mentioned at all. So we are all supposed to ignore the religious connection. In reality the terrorists have much in common with a vision that is shared by the vast majority. They are distinguished by a greater “degree of awareness” of the revival and restoration of Islam. To ignore or diminish the religious motivations of the Charlie Hebdo attackers is in itself disrespectful to Islam.

Source of tension between Muslims and the West, religion or political interests?

An impression one often comes away with after reading the articles written by Esposito and Mogahed is that the source of tension between Muslims and the West is due to politics, not religion. Consider this article in the Al Arabia News. “Tension is about politics, not religion” by Rami G. Khouri Wednesday, 15 December 2010. Khouri was reviewing an article by Esposito and Mogahed,

Rami G. Khouri wrote: Once in a while a piece of analytical research comes around that is truly essential reading for anyone interested in exploring why relations are so tense, aggressive, and occasionally violent, between many people in the United States, other Western countries and the Arab-Islamic region.

The report just released by the Gallup company, “Measuring the State of Muslim-West Relations: Assessing the ‘New Beginning,’” is one such study that deserves to be widely read by politicians, journalists, faith leaders and academics throughout the world (it is available for free at http://www.gallup.com). The survey data from interviews with over 123,000 people in 55 countries between 2006 and 2010 touches on critical core sentiments and issues that need to be better understood if we ever hope to reverse the cycle of violence and mistrust that now plagues so many Arabs, Muslims, Americans and Westerners.

He goes on to say,

Rami G. Khouri wrote: Third, those who see political differences as the key cause of bad relations also feel that violent conflict between majority Muslim and Western societies can be avoided. Those who see religion as the main cause of tensions tend to feel that conflict is inevitable (44 percent in the US and Canada and 51 percent in MENA).

Note this carefully: a majority of Muslims feels that most problems with the West can be resolved because they reflect political differences, not religious or cultural fissures. We all need to focus more on political issues and foreign policies, and give less attention to purely religious matters as a means to better relations, because religion is not the problem – policies are the problem.

The problem is that a majority of Muslims do NOT feel that politics is the source of tensions between Muslims and the West. They say that religion is the primary source of the tension. http://www.adyanonline.net/pluginfile.p ... Center.pdf After carefully reading the document one can see that Khouri could more accurately have said the following:

Alternate Khouri wrote:Tension is about religion, not politics. Note this carefully: a majority of Muslims feels that most problems with the West cannot be resolved because they reflect religious differences, not political fissures. We all need to focus more on religious issues, and give less attention to purely political matters as a means to better relations, because political policies are not the problem – religion is the problem.

It is interesting how a more careful reading leads to an opposite conclusion. There are two survey questions involved here. The first question is, “Do you think violent conflict between the Muslim and Western worlds can be avoided, or not?” The second question forced the respondent to choose between things that are deeply interrelated to religious people. “Thinking about the tensions between the Muslim and Western worlds — do you think they arise more from differences of religion or differences of culture or from conflicts about political interests?” Let’s start with the second question.

Esposito and Mogahed divide the countries surveyed into five regions (where MENA stands for Middle East and North Africa). It is not clear what purpose it serves to pick these particular regions.
………………………………………………Percent
Region…………………...Culture……….Religion……..Political interests…….Don’t know/Refused
Asia…………………..….......11………....……26……………..33………………………..30
MENA……………………........9…………….....40……………..40………………………..11
Sub-Saharan Africa………13……………...48……………..24………………………..15
U.S. and Canada……….…26……………...36……………..35………………………....3
Europe…………………….....19……………...29……………..40………………………..12

It is important to note that no attempt was made to separate out those who were Muslim from those who were not, although this is not explicitly stated in the article. So the statistics for Europe and the U.S. and Canada are primarily going to be for what non-Muslims said. In two regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, and the U.S. and Canada) “religion” was picked more often than any other category as the source of tensions. In Europe and Asia “political interests” was picked more often than any other category. And in one region (MENA) it was a tie between “religion” and “political interests.” The table is unclear as to what we are to make of it.

In another figure (Figure 24) Esposito and Mogahed give a breakdown for each of the 36 countries where they have data. In 14 of these countries “political interests” was picked more often than other categories as the source of the tension, and in 22 countries “religion” was more often picked. Among the 26 countries with majority Muslim populations, 8 of the countries picked “political interests” more often than the other two categories, while in the other 18 countries “religion” was picked more often. Religion as the cause leads politics by about 2 to 1. Now, it is true that not all of the countries are of equal size. If you multiply the population (for the year 2010) by the percentages for the majority Muslim nations you find that 33.8% chose “religion,” and 33.7% chose “political interests.” The difference, of course, is within the statistical error, so we should say they are the same. Another 11.6% in the majority Muslim societies chose “culture” as the primary source of tension. But by any measure “religion” is picked as least as often as “political interests” in majority Muslim nations.

And, we should keep in mind that according to the data Esposito and Mogahed present,

Esposito and Mogahed wrote:Those who view the root of Muslim-West tensions as primarily arising from religious differences were far more likely, across the five regions studied, to view conflict between majority Muslim and Western societies as unavoidable.

“Alternate” Khouri has a point.

When you analyze the nations of the West which were surveyed (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom, and the United States) you get a somewhat different number. In these regions 37% of mostly non-Muslims put “political interests” as the number 1 source of tensions, and slightly less (33%) chose “religion,” but a great deal more people in the West than in majority Muslim societies feel “culture” is the most important factor – 23%. In Israel the feeling is 37% think “political interests” is the most important factor, while 40% think it is “religion,” and 18% think it is “culture.”

I cannot blame Khouri too much, however for largely getting it backward. Gallup only releases what it wants to release, and in the way the authors choose to present it. So sometimes you have to work a little to see what the authors didn’t explain fully. As one example, when Esposito and Mogahed presented the data they started with “Figure 20: Majorities Believe Conflict Can Be Avoided” shown in large type. And the accompanying table seems to show large majorities in each region believe that conflict can be avoided. They then show the chart I have shown, with its confusing message as to the root cause of the tension between Muslims and the West. Next, in Figure 22 we read in big print “Those who say conflict is avoidable more likely to identify politics as reason for tensions.” By simple logic one is lead to a false conclusion. 1. “Majorities believe conflict can be avoided.” 2. “Those who say conflict is avoidable more likely to identify politics as the reason for tensions.” 3. Therefore majorities believe politics is the reason for tensions. However, buried in the text is the crucial statement that “Figure 22 displays only respondents who viewed tensions as primarily due to conflicts in political interests.” So, Figure 22 should have said “Those who identify politics as the reason for tensions are more likely to say violent conflict is avoidable.” The difference, while seemingly subtle, leads you to the opposition conclusion of what the data actually says: religion is seen in majority Muslim societies as at least as important, if not more important, than politics as a reason for Muslim-West tensions. In every region religion and culture together are seen as more important than politics.

One of the ways the article “Measuring the State of Muslim-West Relations: Assessing the ‘New Beginning,’” was able to show that some people believe it is politics, rather than religion that is the cause of tensions was by including many European, non-Muslim countries in the survey. However, as this quote taken from the article suggests, seeing the cause of Muslim-West tension as political may be more of an anti-American sentiment than anything else. Back home it is a different story.

Esposito and Mogahed wrote: European perceptions on political interests and their role in fueling Muslim-West tensions represent a stark contrast from the outlook of many of these same nations when dealing with socioeconomic challenges that their own domestic Muslim populations face. Many Europeans viewed tensions between majority Muslim countries and the West as political in nature. Conversely, previous Gallup research on European Muslims’ challenges in France, Germany, and the U.K. (three nations included in the European region for this study) highlight public perceptions that stress cultural and religious differences as inhibitors to European Muslim integration.

Further discussion by Esposito and Mogahed indicate how difficult it is to interpret just what the respondents had in mind when they selected “religion,” “culture,” or “political interests.”

Esposito and Mogahed wrote: However, categorical definitions such as “religion,” “culture,” or “political interests” can take on different meanings from society to society. This is particularly the case when people in some societies have limited or selective knowledge of the other society in question. For example, Gallup’s latest research on Americans’ opinions of Muslims and Islam revealed that 63% of the American public described its knowledge of Islam as “very little” or “none at all.”

This confusion in understanding and defining other societies’ behaviors, and their respective motivations, also exists in predominantly Muslim communities. For example, many in such communities view the war on terror as a war on Islam. Former President George W. Bush’s description of the war on terror in September 2001 as a crusade only exacerbated this sentiment. Polling in the region highlights the degree to which respondents in some of the most populous majority Muslim countries believed the primary objective of U.S. foreign policy to be “trying to weaken and divide Islam” and “spread Christianity to the Middle East.” Even though political discourse in the U.S. nearly always frames the war on terror as an effort to protect Americans from attacks such as those on 9/11, many in majority Muslim societies view U.S. foreign policies as religiously motivated.

Thus, one society can view the issue as religious in nature, and another society can view it as political.

The source of tension is Religion/Culture

An argument can be made that there was no need to split “culture” from “religion.” Indeed, Esposito and Mogahed have practically nothing to say about what it means to choose “culture” as a cause for tension between Muslim and the West. Adding “culture” to the list of choices looks like an attempt to split the vote on religion. As Gallup says, http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islam ... -west.aspx

Gallup wrote: Religion and culture outpace politics across all regions surveyed as the root cause of tension between Muslim and Western worlds. This is significant in discussions about Islamophobia, considering political interests can vary and change while cultural and religious differences are more ingrained within populations.

When you combine “religion” and “culture” into one choice, then religion and culture amount to 45% of the respondents in the majority Muslim countries, compared to just 34% who chose “political interests” as the root cause of Muslim-West tensions. In Israel religion and culture together are now the choice of 58% versus just 37% for politics. In Western societies the combined group of religion and culture was chosen by 55% of the respondents, compared to just 37% for “political interests.”

It cannot be argued that those who think the 9/11 attacks were completely justified are any less religious than other Muslims. In fact, they appear to be more religious. The so-called “political” radicals actually state religious reasons, not political. Most Muslims believe that the tensions between Muslims and the West are due to religion, especially religion and culture together, and not politics. Calling them “politically radicalized” who hate America and feel 9/11 was completely justified is to deliberately misdirect our thinking.

This is not to say that the difference between terrorists and ordinary Muslims is that the terrorists are better Muslims. The difference is that while holding the same values as other Muslims, terrorists feel under siege. They feel desperate and powerless to fight the onslaught of Western values, culture, and morals which threaten their religion. They feel intensely disrespected for their religion. The proper course of action for us is not to ignore these terrorist attacks as the acts of deranged political extremists, but to acknowledge that fundamental to Islam is the demand that it be respected on its own terms. This is a value held by most Muslims. Similar beliefs are held by other religions. But…there are differences. Showing respect to others sometimes means curbing your freedoms, liberties and rights. Just how much you lose depends on what the others demand as their terms.

Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

Re: Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion