The kind of thing I’m looking for might not be available simply because it shouldn’t be a question that interests anyone. But what I am looking for, if it exists, is this:
A breakdown of the percentage of Muslims who have beliefs to the following three effects:
Bombing civilians is a legitimate means for the advancement of political or religious interests.
Homosexuals ought to be executed.
Women ought to be obedient, first to their fathers and brothers, then upon marriage, to their husbands.
Worldwide percentages as well as USA-specific percentages are what interests me.
Your Q2 and Q3 depend on the specific area that this religion is practiced.
In order to get a legitimate % on your questions I’d suggest you let an academic, with much more knowledge on this issue, and much more knowledge in how to get an answer, deal with these questions, etc, and not depend on a random post on a random forum to justify your presumptions.
“Bombing civilians” is an poorly defined term. Do you mean intentionally targeted civilians or are you talking about civilian casualties being an acceptable aspect of conventional war? The United States and Great Britain bombed plenty of civilians during WWII. If you state that bombing civilians isn’t a legitimate means for the advancement of a political interest, then you’re condemning Roosevelt and Churchill for fighting Hitler.
Apparently in some streams of Islam, civilians are no different from people in uniform when waging war. I just typed it iirc because it was just said by a would-be suicide bomber released as part of the Schalit deal.
Is that what you’re looking for? Or is this Islamophobia-bait? Do you want a specific religious cite of these ideas? Just like most religions, Muslims aren’t uniform in everything.
It’s a sensitive subject but I don’t know the answer. On one hand we’re told not to paint Muslims with a broad brush. Islam is a religion of peace and the vast majority of Muslims do not support bombing civilians, killing apostates or dropping walls on homosexuals. On the other hand it seems as though there are an awful lot of Muslims who don’t have a problem with terrorist activities. Islamic extremist kill Dutch filmmakers, riot over cartoons of the prophet and support suicide bombing. I know a little about some cultures in the middle east but I’m certainly no expert and I don’t really know what to believe. This kind of question probably doesn’t belong in GQ. It probably belongs in Great Debates.
Yes. Bomb, gas, crucify, chop up with blunt butter knives.
Execution is too good. I say they should be fixed of their affliction, preferably by therapy consisting of two parts, the first full on hetro sex, whether they want to or not (especially effective when not), then intense homo sex (ditto).
Oh yes yes yes. And why stop at these three. I say obedient to sons, son-in-laws, brother-in-law, their own male servants, the pimply little teen next door. They should also be beaten twice a day to ensure docility/reinforce male superiority.
The OP is not trying to assert anything*, and he’s not looking to poll the SDMB either. He’s asking if anyone has references to well designed polls carried out by those academics or whoever with the expertise to do just such studies as Naxos is misguidedly chiding him for not consulting experts’ research on.
(*: Or, rather, like all human beings, he has motivations in mind for a request like this which likely will involve him being able to support future assertions of some kind. But he’s certainly not trying to assert what a number of you clearly think he is trying to assert… (consider “it shouldn’t be a question that interests anyone”))
But the OP confirms that he has a “hidden agenda”, so to speak, when he says of his first question that “I’m just trying to find a way to say ‘terrorism is okay’ without using the word ‘terrorism’.”
He’s presuming, then, that everyone who beleives that bombing civilians is a legitimate means for the advancement of political or religious interests can fairly be represented as believing that “terrorism is OK”. Perhaps they can, but this involves characterising Americans who would justify, say, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - very clearly the bombing of civilians for the advancement of political interests - as believing that “terrorism is OK”.
In other words, the OP is adopting a rather broad interpretation of “terrorism” for the purpose of characterising Muslims as supporting or justifying terrorism. Would he adopt a similarly broad interpretation when considering non-Muslims? Whatever the answer to that question, it seems to me that at the very least these points are worth unpacking.
They are fairly leading questions IMO, but regardless a good starting point for the OP is the Pew Global Attitudes Project (you can do your own searching there) which regularly asks this sort of question of various people around the world. It’s fairly agenda-free as far as I can tell.
I’d be interested to see “The social views of Christians” and “The social views of Jews” for comparison. And “The social views of atheists/agnostics” to boot.
No clue what your point is, and you seem to intend not to elaborate. (I asked you what presumptions you think I have, and where you thought I wanted the numbers to be sourced, and you answered neither question, instead giving me another mysterious aphorism.) Have fun with that.
I’m just trying to find out where such percentages, reliably measured, might be found. I’m not hung up on the exact wording of the questions. I’m just looking for stuff in their general area.
Cool, thanks, that’s exactly what I was looking for.
I have no clue how “True or False: Homosexuals should be executed” is a leading question. Either you agree or disagree with that statement. I want to know how many muslims, globally, agree with it. Also interested in knowing how many in the US agree with it. I’d also be interested, of course (though I didn’t specify this in the OP) how many muslims of various demographics agree with it.
Same goes for the other two queries, though the first one is not worded well that’s true.
I’m trying to avoid the word “terrorism” because a claim like “terrorism can be justified” seems false to me by definition. (“Terrorism” by definition is unjustified. If it were justified, it wouldn’t be terrorism.) So when someone says “terrorism can be justified” I’m not very sure what they mean. I’d have to start asking them about specific concrete cases to get at what they’re trying to say.
Maybe that’s the way I shuld put the question. Go find some specific act–let’s say of ‘small time’ terrorism–describe the motivations of the terrorist and the action with some precision, and ask people whether they think the act is justified. There’s all kinds of ways this could be filled in, but even just one question like this would probably be informative as a way to compare different demographics etc.