muslim balance
One of our commentators sent me a link to this article this morning by Daniel Pipes which reports how muslim populations are “divided by conspiracy and hate”. I thought that some of the reported results were interesting, and at times shocking, so I thought I would go to the original report of the study. And there are certainly some differences in “spin”, even actual numbers.
Pipes says:
In not one Muslim population polled did most people believe Arabs carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US. The proportions range from a mere 15 per cent in Pakistan holding Arabs responsible to 48per cent among French Muslims. Confirming recent negative trends in Turkey, the number of Turks who point the finger at Arabs has declined from 46 per cent in 2002 to 16per cent today. In other words, in each of these 10 Muslim communities, most view 9/11 as a hoax perpetrated by the US Government, Israel or some other agency. [emphasis mine]
Okay, you might have thought those numbers were actually lifted from the report. I can’t find the raw numbers online, but this is certainly not the way that the researchers elected to describe the results of their surveys (as shocking as they might be):
In one of the survey’s most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan say that they do not believe groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The percentage of Turks expressing disbelief that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks has increased from 43% in a 2002 Gallup survey to 59% currently. And this attitude is not limited to Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries - 56% of British Muslims say they do not believe Arabs carried out the terror attacks against the U.S., compared with just 17% who do.
The graphs do show that 16% of those surveyed in Turkey believe that Arabs carried out the attacks, but I can find no support for Pipes conclusion (in bold) in the numbers. Significantly, this question was not asked of non-Muslims so we don’t know what the “control” viewpoint is. But some of Pipes’ other analyses are more misleading:
Of all the Muslim populations polled, most displayed support for Osama bin Laden. Asked whether they had confidence in him, Muslims replied positively, ranging from 8 per cent (Turkey) to 72 per cent (Nigeria).
Suicide bombing is also popular. Muslims who call it justified range from 13 per cent (Germany) to 69 per cent (Nigeria). These appalling numbers suggest terrorism by Muslims has deep roots and will remain a danger for years to come.
The report uses different numbers and puts a decidedly different spin on these results:
Confidence in Osama bin Laden also has fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years. This is especially the case in Jordan, where just 24% express at least some confidence in bin Laden now, compared with 60% a year ago. A sizable number of Pakistanis (38%) continue to say they have at least some confidence in the al Qaeda leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs, but significantly fewer do so now than in May 2005 (51%). However, Nigeria’s Muslims represent a conspicuous exception to this trend; 61% of Nigeria’s Muslims say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden, up from 44% in 2003.
The belief that terrorism is justifiable in the defense of Islam, while less extensive than in previous surveys, still has a sizable number of adherents. Among Nigeria’s Muslim population, for instance, nearly half (46%) feel that suicide bombings can be justified often or sometimes in the defense of Islam. Even among Europe’s Muslim minorities, roughly one-in-seven in France, Spain, and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam against its enemies.
I can’t find an explanation for the different in numbers. Pipes says 72% of Nigerian Muslims support Osama, whereas the report says 61%. Pipes says 69% of Nigerians say suicide bombings are justified, the report summary says 46% believe that bombings can be justified often or sometimes. I suspect that Pipes has added on to these figures another category of respondents - those who say that suicide bombing is justified rarely or only in exceptional circumstances. And he has avoided any mention of the fact that these figures are dropping, despite the fact that he felt it significant to list the increasing support for Bin Laden over time.
There is no denying that surveys such as this include some concerning results. But Pipes’ article has distorted the figures and used them to draw his own conclusions. The reporter of the survey indicated positives as well as negatives signs in the data, and certainly didn’t consider that the three main themes of the results in the alarming way that they have been summarised by Pipes. He says “the Pew survey sends an undeniable message of crisis from one end of the Muslim world to the other”. Which might be true, if he were prepared to acknowledge a little bit of balance in his report instead of turning it into a polemic.
What is frustrating about this is that Pew does substantial research, takes the time to analyse their data carefully and then it is transmitted to the national consciousness by someone who picks out the most alarming results while ignoring those that are reassuring. If we are talking about analysing why Muslim people feel isolated, perhaps this sort of reportage could be part of the reason?
October 24th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Thank you Bec, I will take that as the nearest thing to an apology and an admission that you have argued yourself into a cul-de-sac and that all your statements about wanting to leave Christianity are false, as are the unsupported statements that Chrisitanity has a “worse track record” than Islam etc etc.
A Year 9 boy’s class is hormonal Bec, but their teachers still expect them to exercise self-discipline and restraint. Unfortunately it is too difficult for some of us adults who are meant to have learnt a few lessons and know ourselves better.
Next time you post Bec, please inform us of where you are in your menstrual cycle so that readers may avoid demanding of others that they apologise for your hormone levels.
The woman of this household also informs you that there are good treatments these days for those who nevertheless struggle with seriously bad PMT.
Over and out.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Right, well clearly you don’t understand humour, either.
That was no apology Saint. Do you think I owe you one?!
October 24th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Nor did I say any of the things you accused me of saying above. You keep asserting that I have “argued myself into a cul-de-sac”, but nowhere have you shown me either how I have done that, or where I have made the assertions you keep stating I have!!
October 24th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Oh, and the point about PMT was that crying probably had very little to do with you. And what’s wrong with crying anyway? Given the way you commenced your involvement in this thread, I wouldn’t be surprised if you thought it was dumb and a sign of weakness. Just as well I’ve got plenty of real men in my life, men who don’t have a problem with crying.
You have so much good stuff to say, but on this occasion you’re being a right moron.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Saint… what do you feel when you’re writing about Bec?
Please don’t do the Australian male thing… “I feel…” (followed by a long treatise about what they think)
Can you name the emotion? (and no more… we all know your opinion). Stirred, irritated, amused, bored, smug, angry, happy, excited, conflicted… what???
Although you’ve hinted you’re dispassionate, that doesn’t gel with me. This is not a trick question… I’m just curious if you can put your finger on the feeling behind the words. I’d like to understand what’s happened here.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Most of what Saint has written here has a distinct tone of self-righteousness, and shows an intention to deliberately misread everything Bec has written and twist it to make points Bec never made.
For example, Bec noted that christianity, like Islam and many other religions, has extremists who perpetrate acts in the name of christianity that have everything to do with the culture in which those people are living, and very little to do with christ.
It doesn’t do christians any good whatsoever to conveniently forget the wrongs that are historically associated with their religion, while pointing the finger at others.
Yet Saint repeatedly chooses to misread this as evidence that Bec believes that christians have never done anything right and other religions and beliefs are all much better.
It has all the credibility of a celebrity opinion piece in a trashy magazine.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
That’s exactly what I was trying to say Laura…glad to know I’m not going totally loopy…
October 25th, 2006 at 12:12 am
You really can’t read Laura can you?
Jane wrote:
To which bec replied:
No inherent link between Islam the religion and its persecution of Christians or any other religious group:
October 25th, 2006 at 12:15 am
And remember, according to Bec, historically Christians have a far worse record than Islam when it comes to persecution.
October 25th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Just in case you missed it…
what do you feel when you write about Bec?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Just in case you missed it Janet #32, #42, #61
I also noted your #25 - You’re not a very good friend are you?
The over and out applies to you too.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Saint, I know Janet only from Signposts, I’ve never met her in real life. Don’t question her integrity by suggesting that she’s sticking up for me simply because she’s “a friend”.
October 26th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
No I question her integrity as she only defended you to uphold her transferance theory #25 and her no doubt, view of history #33:
Janet:
I suggest that an informed discussion could not be had with Janet and Bec. I suggest Janet and Bec need to inform themselves first.
October 26th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Saint, sure, my knowledge of history has been gleaned through my primary, secondary and tertiary education in a Western country, with a Western bias. Such a Western bias, in fact, that I knew little of the history of Australia’s indigenous people until I went to university and started trying to inform myself about it. As an Australian working in the South Pacific, I know much of Christianity’s record of wrongs, and little about Islam’s…I’d also hasten to add that I also know much of Christianity’s “rights” and little of Islam’s.
So instead of being self-righteous and patronising, why not start by educating Janet and I? After all, none of us learn in complete isolation from others - we are generally recommended books, journal articles, we are made aware of wars through people’s comments…
On rare occassions, I have conversations with Pacific Islanders where it becomes clear to me that they think I’m the stupid, tertiary-educated white girl. For the most part, however, people are generous with their time and knowledge, noting my willingness to learn and change my mind, and responding to me accordingly. I ask only that you do the same. I don’t believe that I haven’t shown a willingness to learn here, and I certainly believe that I have shown a willingness to stay in the conversation.
Now that I re-read my post, I should have said “*to my knowledge* Christians have a far worse record than Islam”. Here is my challenge to you Saint: your posts clearly demonstrate that you believe you know much more than the average person about Islam (they also clearly demonstrate that you think I’m stupid and not a Christian). Why don’t you explain to us why it is that you think Islam has been the cause of so many wrongs, detailing history etc, rather than merely assuming we are not interested?
I’ll add that I’m not interested in excerpts from the Koran unless they’re subjected to the same analysis that we Christians would expect Muslims to approach the Bible with. When I read those passages you posted, the first questions that popped into my head where “hmm, is “fight” the best translation there?” and “what was the historical context these passages were written in?”. As you yourself have pointed out, Saint, there’s plenty in the Old Testament that doesn’t make nice bedtime reading…but as Lance likes to point out, we don’t execute homosexuals or stone adulterers.
October 26th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I honestly don’t think it’s necessary to go blow for blow, comparing what wrongs christians have used the bible to justify, and what wrongs muslims have used the koran to justify- though by all means list them all if you want to. The point, Saint, which you continually fail to recognise, is not necessarily who has the “worst” track record, but that no-one has a squeaky clean track record. ie. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
So unless you are genuinely trying to argue that no christians ever used biblical arguments to be complicit in slavery, or to justify the murder of other christians (Catholics / Protestants), or to burn witches, or to remove children from their families, or to declare war on or invade other countries, etc., then you are charging Islam with crimes that could equally apply to christianity.
I’m not trying to imply that terrorism is right, I’m saying that individuals with an agenda will manipulate people’s religious beliefs (and anything else) in order to achieve it, be it Islam, Christianity, Atheism, or whatever.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Well, I wish Bec that I actually had taken up your invitation and come over to this therad earlier. I jump now into the fray, although belatedly and say this to “Saint” - You are an absolute fucker.
Yes i know that it lacks intillectual depth and strengt to say that about you - but never the less I find it interesting that you attack Bec with such gusto and yet for Phil and homer you remain fairly tame - bit of a nancy boy are you saint? A bit scared of the grown up fellas - not quite sure of your own mascualinty? A tiny bit afraid of the men? Fucker, absolute fucker. Blind psuedo intillectual who can’t even construct his own arguments - you have to cut and paste other peoples thoughts in their entirity.
Out of your depth in the real world of constructive intillectual debate, you resort to attacking Bec with false accusations and a disturbing pausity of actual evidence for any of your thoughts.
You shame yourself by even having the temerity tocontinue posting, let alone forcing your presence on te blogosphere. Do yourself and all others who have the bad luck to come across your ill prepared and badly put together crap - go back to your own blog, delete it and never appear on any blog anywhere in the world ever again.
Fucker, sissy boy, panty waste and imbicile - fucker…absolute fucker!
October 26th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
insert: ,em>a favour
October 26th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Yeah Greg, whatever. Thank you for telling me your testosterone levels today. Still it’s wonderful for you to come to her defense. Could you tell me, is this because
(a) I ruined her day and made her cry #22 (sounds like she had a lovely evening)
(b) she cried #29 because she could not ” believe the verbal and physical violence that Christians dish out, cloaked in Christian labels. I cried because I realised - again - how much I would like to walk away from Christianity, were it not for Christ ”
(c) I really made her cry AND realise - again - how much she would like to walk away from Christianity because #60 after all making her cry was “no mean feat when I have PMT, and you certainly don’t have the ability to make my faith waver!!”
(d) #62 I do not understand Bec’s humour?
I notice that you are poorly lacking in evidence as well. Remember you made the claims, back them up. (And please do take notice of what Bec claims I have accused her of - did I accuse you of being universalist/unitarian Bec? - before you slap me down. No skim reading now OK?)
Bec, I had started a long response to your last comment, but well Greg is here to Explore his inner child.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Oh and Greg, keep the “the verbal and physical violence” down in Bec’s presence like a good brother now won’t you?
October 26th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Laura, your turn: what do you think Greg is really *feeling*?
October 26th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Oops sorry, my bad. That was for Janet.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
And here’s one for irony: after Bec said on another thread something along the lines that I don’t think she can add up, Bec might finally put 2 and 2 together.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Do you mean to say that this wasn’t directed at me, Saint?
“There is only one gospel. One way to God. No unitarian universalism here. No comparative religion studies here. It’s one way, God’s way. It’s God’s good news not yours.”
Saint, are you interested in conversation? Please don’t bombard me with yet another tirade - I can “add up enough” to figure out that you think I’m an idiot. But I can’t figure out what you want from this thread (other than perhaps a sense of having “won”?)
October 27th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
which I think should be noted…you haven’t - you lost the moment you forgot to post an original idea or display even a modicam of respect for Bec
October 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Saint, I find it pretty ironic that on your own blog, you’ve got all these apparently feminist arguments against things like hijab, yet over here, you’ve repeatedly referred to my gender.
A few of my friends have read this thread. Men and women, and more conservative - some of them far more conservative - than I. Definitely not the theologically-liberal-Gaia-worshipping-hippie you have constructed me as. They’ve all commented on how you keep referring to my gender. The very first paragraph directed at me reads:
“Ah Bec, what I love about you is how you claim ignorance of Islam while simultaneously displaying your own ignorance about the history and influence of Christianity. Such multi tasking is only worthy of a woman.”
Hmm. Seems inconsistent and ironic to me.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Hi all… haven’t had time to look in for a couple of days.
You know Greg… I’m not convinced that name calling / being abusive because you feel someone else has been name calling / being abusive lifts the level to a constructive dialogue. (I still like my transference theory better than your “imbecile” theory.)
I’ve just been supervising a VCE English exam, and now have an essay question for you all.
In your opinion, why did Saint launch an anti-Bec tirade?
1 Transference theory. Saint is passionate about the persecuted church, especially under fundamentalist Islamic regimes where this is severe. He is rightly outraged by the treatment of our fellow believers there. He is concerned the church is asleep about militant Islamists seeking to overtake the world by all means possible. He is outraged about wishy-washy Christianity, universalism, and the “all roads lead to God” new age wanky theories. Bec writes down some words that push his “red hot buttons” and “Ka boom”.
2 Greg theory. Saint is an imbecile.
3 Misogyny theory… hinted at in 76 and 85
4 Human experimentation theory. (post 32) Saint develops a conviction that Bec is consumed with fear and self loathing, and he “goads” her to prove this is the case. Bec gets upset… case proved! She really does have terrible self esteem!
Apart from the utter illogic of this jump…in this scenario, Saint is happy to regard Bec as an “It”, a thing to be experimented upon. Seeing others as an “It” gives permission for cruelty everywhere… from social ostracisation and ridicule, right through to extreme human rights abuses… an incapacity to have empathy and respect is at the core. (This could be renamed the “Saint is a complete arsehole” theory.)
5 Your own hypothesis.
Well, Saint has said an emphatic “over and out” to me, so I guess we’ll never know for sure! I’d be interested in your vote.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I think #1, and if that’s true, then I hope Saint learns not to target those who could actually be allies.
Maybe a bit of #4 too, though - I don’t think that “Saint is a complete arsehole”, but I do think that he’s totally blinded by his own agenda. I’ve never quite copped this level of vitriol, but I have copped the “wishy washy” accusation a few times…mind you, that dates back to my first few years at uni, and now, thankfully, most of those people don’t believe that any more but put their original view of me down to “where they were” at that point in time.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Re #83 Bec are you telling me you not only skim read you don’t go past the first couple of sentences AND you like to quote out of context.
What did I write in #54:
I said perhaps you should consider Paul
I quoted a passage from Galatians
I asked what was he saying? I think that is an obvious reference to Paul and the passage I quoted.
I wrote six short paras highlighting the main points Paul was making of that passage of which you took the first para immediately to refer to you. Hey ho, po mo, the author is dead. Never mind what Paul was intending to say or me, it’s all about Bec just/
I then told you what I did(n’t) want from you.
And that is why Bec, on my blog I have these “apparently feminist arguments against things like hijab, yet over here, you’ve repeatedly referred to my gender.” (And I do notice how Western feminist sistas are so quiet when it comes to supporting their Muslim feminist sistas and yet, despite the constant denigrating of men and reference to men as oppressors, they cry foul when someone singles out their gender for special attention).
I am neither politically correct, nor a feminist Bec. I merely try, no matter how poorly, no matter how dimly, no matter how much through a glass darkly, no matter who inconsistently, in accordance with the light given me to subject every thought to Christ. If I happen to agree with some popular opinion, you may find that my foundation is completely different and that the end point of my reasoning would be completely different as well. I would hope that I could explain to you that my “feminist” credentials are based on an understanding of how God views humanity (hec what would He know, He is only our Creator), who we are in relation to Him, who we are now in Christ, not on some civil rights agenda. And I get that understanding the same way we all do: through the Scripture, the church’s teaching through the millenia, reason…working out my salvation in fear and trembling in the every day messy business of living. But the starting point is - must always be- God and the end point is - must always be God, and the lens is always Christ.
In God’s view, women are not excluded from either receiving God’s grace nor God’s judgment. Women are no more immune to sin than men are. The “cows of Bashan” against whom Amos prophesied, weren’t the oppressed, they were the oppressors. That’s Amos speaking God’s judgment to women.
I think God’s a bit more coherent than we are. And my own personal failings aside, my “inconsistency” I would suggest, is actually much more consistent and coherent than you care to imagine.
If however, one decides to subject the gopsel, one’s understanding of God, Christian ethics, whatever to the -isms of the world, you will get, as has been demonstrated again, on this thread nothing more than incoherence and inconsistency - not to mention heterodox thought and practice and the proclamation of a false (and ineffectual) gospel.
How many times do you see the let’s-all-join-hands-and-sing-kumbayah-
why-can’t-we-all-get-along-let’s-be-tolerant-show-me-some-respect show themselves to be the most intolerant and the most iconsistent to what they preach? Oh let me count the ways. And how often do you hear any credible explanation much less strategy for addressing the
And I think that’s your issue Bec. I really do firmly believe that you have - knowingly or unknowingly - gone to far in subjecting your view of Christ and the way you theologise to the agenda of this world, if not subjecting it desparately trying to reconcile them when what you should be doing, what God asks us to do, is to subject every thought, every agenda to Him.
I say this because of the little hints you drop and the sorts of questions you ask. And that is all I can go by. Go back on this thread alone and look at all the little references you have made and how you have used them: enviromentalism, stolen generation, western history, feminism, culture, other religions not to mention some good po mo interpretations.
And that is why “dialoging” with you is like I don’t know, reading the Green Left Weekly’s feminist manifesto or something.
As I said, I started a long reply to #74 but I think I will only reply to part of it that relates back to the original topic and I’ll do that in a separate comment.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Well that probably explains why the screen kept jumping while I typed. Too many fingers in the pie. Excuse the typos.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Saint, I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time or energy for this thread any more. I detect a change of tone in your “voice” but I don’t have the time or the energy to stay in the conversation and see whether that’s so. I just can’t justify reading this blog and responding to your comments when I have so many other things to do - I don’t feel I’ve been a good steward of my time and resources by spending as much time here as I have.
Dan, Phil - I’m just wondering what the commenting policy applies to if it doesn’t apply to the Saint’s comments on this thread.