I agree with John: very interesting analysis. Two things I want to point out:
As I said earlier, the answer to the OP is a clear and unambiguous “no,” to the degree that I wonder why it still gets asked. mswas, I don’t think you’re a bigot; I just think there are enough bigots going around spouting off anti-Muslim bigotry that it gets confusing to folks that don’t know much about it. Once we get that out of the way, of course, we can start looking at the very alarming figures and trying to figure out how we should respond to a quarter-million people who believe terrorism is sometimes appropriate. Is this really something we think we can resolve militarily?
These are the countries with the largest Muslim populations. Look at Indonesia’s numbers, at Pakistan’s numbers, in your poll. While they’re alarmingly high, you can still see the huge numbers of folks that are opposed to terrorism, the majority of the populations. India, with the third highest Muslim population, wasn’t even polled.
Fair enough, I think we can agree that as expressed by the OP, it was pretty much just rambling. But the question itself is important and valid.
GK: excellent work, but still a quibble. John already some of the areas of possible uncertainty, but I have one that deserves mention. In the poll of British Muslims, IIRC (I’ll see if I can get a PDF of the study itself), a significant percentage of those who wanted Sharia said that they wanted parallel courts which did not infringe upon the British system of jurisprudence. Which, in my view, again complicates the issue. Surely that is a form of Islamic fundamentalism, but does it deserve divergent consideration as it does not seek to replace the British system? Is it still something that deserves concern, scrutiny, wariness? Truthfully, I’m not sure.
I think that results like that make the issue a whole lot more nuanced. In fact, I’m generally unhappy with most MSM reporting on subjects like this because it amounts to infotainment. The Telegraph piece, as far as I can tell (maybe I’m missing a link somewhere?) doesn’t even give you the raw text of the poll itself.
Other Pew polls also offer a dataset that is anything but simple. Some of the questions illustrate a rather frightening divide. For instance, when asked about the ‘cartoon crisis’, found that:
That is some scary shit, when most people blame violence including but not limited to rioting, arson and murder not on the unacceptable fanaticism of criminals, but on disrespect for a religion. I think that, even though it doesn’t quite square with GK’s definition above, being willing to riot and/or kill over an unflattering view of your religion is the act of a radical. But those who condone such behavior? Radicals themselves? Useful Idiots? A little from column A, a little from column B?
And what is to be said about a bizarre conspiratorial mindset when in the context of 9/11:
Other tidbits offer further hope (and confusion):
Surely that can’t mean that in the space of a year, the population of Islamic radicals fell by almost half? Much more likely is that some people hold certain views at certain times that fall somewhere along a spectrum of beliefs, and even some with radical beliefs today may not truly be radicals. I think that any one poll offers us a brief snapshot. In order to be comfortable making a statistical generalization about Muslims in general, I really would prefer to see a massive longitudinal study with questions that are much more in depth, and much less open to interpretation. I mean, heck, what exactly does ‘in defense of Islam’ even mean?
Although waving the “Sharia Law” banner can be scary for many folks, the poll results should also be considered in light of the fact that there is no single “Sharia Law.” Sharia is the general principle that all law should be interpreted in light of the Qur’an and other Muslim traditions. Much of it is harsh and repellant, but there are multiple traditions of Sharia and several of them are quite possibly workable even from the perspective of Englsh Common Law.
(A particularly strict interpretation of Sharia under the most Islamist views would simply bring down the nation that implemented them inasmuch as the tribal/nomadic/pastoral rules embodied in the economic precepts are utterly incompatible with modern economic theory and any nation embracing them would be bankrupted and tossed aside in short order.)
Granting that it is Wikipedia, there is still a decent article on Sharia at that site.
While that’s certainly the case, I think it’s still something that (sometimes) is worthy of concern. Just like, as an American, I want to see our legal system based on rationalistic principles rather than “judeo-christian” ones, even if the result is similar or the same.
I’m as wary of those who want Sharia law as I am of those who want to base American law on their interpretation of the Christian Bible, and for exactly the same reasons. And of course, both factions vary in intensity, from fairly moderate people to the real lunatic fringe.
I figured that goes without saying. It would seem that the greatest fault people are finding here is in my rhetorical skill. For me the question is more about the proportion of the minority. Though George Kaplin’s analysis is interesting. I wouldn’t even have ventured to guess it was as many as a quarter billion who supported such tactics.
It’s not very good at all. He selectively quotes, ignoring the other passages in the Suras he references, and in one case only quotes part of a passage, conveniently leaving off the rest of the passage because it contradicts his thesis.
I posted in that Pit thread with a comparison to what he quoted versus what surrounding passages in those Suras say.
An interesting contention. I think the real test of such a point would be, are there any states currently using some form of Sharia as a basis for their laws, where the laws are generally fair and reasonable by Western standards? I mean, Saudi Arabia is clearly a lost cause at the moment, but Pakistan and Iran are both pointed to as reasonably advanced Muslim states, and both have very nasty Sharia-inspired laws in place, especially wrt the treatment of women. I’ll be glad to cite you some scary stuff along those lines, but you’d do better to cede my point, really you would.
Are there some Gulf states like Dubai where things are more reasonable? What about Indonesia? Is there any evidence of Sharia law being implemented anywhere in a way that’s cat all consistent with Western values?
I agree. I further stipulate that the sexism that is endemic in many Islamic societies is also making them less competitive, as it surely myst be preventing many talented, ambitious women from making valuable contributions to their societies.
I think “Is Radical Zionism in the Minority among Israelis?” or even “among Jews?” would be a question to be taken seriously. In both cases the answer would probably be “no,” depending on how “Radical Zionism” is defined, but the question is still worth discussing.
Clearly you are operating from a preconception. What else could:
mean?
If I thought that a quarter billion seems large, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it would be subtracted from the total Muslims? If you are looking to feel righteous at some fearmongering Muslim hater, you’re not going to find that here. I’ve taken your side of this debate on other message boards. I just don’t hate Muslims that much, and I’m not terrified by terrorism. I simply think it’s naive to buy into the ‘religion of peace’ rhetoric. The reality is that Mohammed was not silent on the use of force, whereas Jesus largely was. The question that is left is interpreting exactly what Mohammed meant with those words and how his followers throughout history have interpreted them.
The equivalent would be to “among Jews,” of course–and why on earth would that be a question worth discussing as phrased? Of course it’s not, not by any meaningful definition of “radical” (I’d assume here we’d be talking about an ideology that says God granted Israel to the Jews and that no other religious people had any right to live within the historical boundaries of Israel). By phrasing the question in such a way, we either end up with a very, very short debate, or else we find ourselves debating with antisemites.
If you ask the slightly different question of the prevalence of radical Zionism among Jews, you have a question worth discussing.
Uhhh…that I was asking a question of you? I was genuinely not putting words into your mouth.
My point was that your alarm at the quarter billion Muslims who sometimes support terrorism needs to be seen in context of the one and a half billion Muslims alive.