What do a billion Muslims really think?

I am going to stay out of the "what people think of Islam" debate, as that is not what the poll is about. As for what Islam thinks of the west, I am also going to stay out of the debate, since I have wrote a few term papers on it and don't really feel like delving back into it.

What I would like to point out is that this is not the first comprehensive study of Muslim attitudes towards various issues. The World Values Survey has long been accepted in the academic world as a very substantial and inclusive survey of attitudes across the globe. Have a look if you are interested in polls like this.

Until I see this new poll cited in Poli Sci papers, I am going to remain skeptical as to its accuracy. I find it suspect that they claim it is the only one out there, as usually when someone is suppressing other studies of the same nature, it leads me to believe they are hiding something or used flawed methods. I am not saying this is for sure the case, just that I would be a little skeptical.

I personally don't put much stock on polls regardless of their authenticity. The WVS is accepted as one of the most accurate polls out there though, and it is cited in many papers in this debate (for a good example check out "The True Clash of Civilizations" - Inglehart & Norris). It shows that the real cultural difference between The Muslim and Western world lies not in attitudes towards democracy (both populaces soundly endorse it), but rather in attitudes towards gender issues. The gap in this regard is huge. But I digress, check out the paper if you want to learn more, or PM me if you can't find it.

Polls are fun to look at, but they can be used to claim almost anything at all, don't 90% of people know that?


In case anyone is actually interested, here are some Papers covering various issues of the divide. This debate is usually credited with having begun with Samuel Huntington's famous essay, The Clash of Civilizations?, in which he attributed the coming war between Islam and the West (it was authored in 1993) strictly to cultural differences. It has snowballed (especially since 9/11) into a huge debate across the world of political science with a ton of different viewpoints.

Poli Sci Papers on The Clash of Civilizations

Huntington S - The Clash of Civilizations?

Huntington et al - Civilizations out of Sync

Kamrava M - The Middle East's Democracy Deficit in Comparitive Perspective (VERY GOOD - Rentier economics in my mind is more than half of the problem)

Ingelhard & Norris - The True Clash of Civilizations

If you Google Clash of Civilizations (in Google Scholar of course) it will return a ton of other articles and papers in the debate (I often used it as a keyterm in my University database).

WuTang Out

Well this Muslim poll doesn't surprise me. You only have to look at the people who are peddling all this crock about Muslims to know that it's all propaganda and lies. Anyone who still believes that the Bush admin speaks the truth, are seriously deluded.


Facts about Terrorism that don't add up...

'I Should Have Done Something When I Could'

A 100 YEAR WAR YIELDS GREAT BENEFITS

The world anti-terror war will last 100 years, which everyone was told in 2001 in a presidential address. Does anyone question how a president could know it will last 100 years? When America helped allies fight the Germans and America fought the Japanese, no one announced how long those wars would last, at least not publicly. Could it be that the reason this fake war on terror will last 100 years, is because it's PLANNED to last 100 years? A century long war is a great blessing for defense industry revenue. Before the attacks of 2001, defense industries were dying.

World War 2 was a massive, complex conflict which involved all the countries of Europe yet it only lasted about four years. The war with Iraq has lasted far longer, and still isn't over yet even though it was declared a victory several years ago. Does anyone ever ask themselves why this conflict rages on, and who gains from it?

COVERED FACES OF TERRORISTS

Why is it that whenever terrorists are shown in the media their faces are always covered? The government and media constantly tell us these men are proud to die for their religion. If so, then why would these men cover their faces with black ski masks? Can anyone even BUY a black ski mask in a DESERT country? Why don't they use a cooler material in the 120 degree heat they can see through?

Yet these proud men who supposedly will kill themselves for Allah never give their full names. They make blurry videos in the age of DVDs (with auto-focus cameras?) when standing over some innocent man who supposedly is about to be killed. Experts examining the videos stated the man in the chair was already dead. Since these killers are completely anonymous, how could any government from any country retaliate against their families if these men are unknown individuals? It makes no sense and defies logic. Could it actually be that their faces are hidden because the world would find out they are really American or allied intelligence agents, and not Arabs? If one looks closely at the build of these men in these videos, they don't appear to be of Arab origin. Many have tree-trunk necks and jar heads like those of Navy Seals.

PROOF OF DESTROYING AMERICA BY DESIGN

Could the government stop terrorists from invading America? Uncle has constantly insured that America's borders remain leakier than a rotted Three Stooges row-boat. Uncle is virtually playing the part of Curly by drilling holes in the bottom to let the water out. Uncle also made sure that Mexican Border agents had their automatic weapons taken away, and these firearms were replaced by semi-automatics. Now word has been circulating that now these weapons may be taken away.

Why disarm or under-arm border agents charged to protect America? The answer is a simple one: It greatly reduces their ability to both defend themselves and be able to disable or kill those shooting at them that cross the border illegally. How can they properly defend the border from those shooting at them from Mexico, which has already happened and taken the lives of border agents? Yet Mexican drug smugglers already have used automatic weapons against border agents.

So why was this madness ordered and to what end? The president WANTS illegal aliens in America no matter what he says to the contrary. It's clearly part of the bigger plan to destroy America from within. Illegal aliens bring sickness, crime and a large burden on the health care and financial systems. Emergency rooms within 100 miles of the border have been closed because of the financial drain.

How many hard working, honest American farmers and ranchers along the border have died because emergency help was too far away, thanks to the closed emergency rooms? We may never know that answer. There can be no other reason for encouraging illegal aliens to come into America other than to destroy it. The sick message is clear that border agents, farmers and ranchers are expendable, but illegal aliens and drug smugglers are not.

Full article.....
www.rense.com...



[edit on 20-5-2008 by kindred]

The people who want to pretend that these honor killings are not going on are as bad as the NAZI sympathizers if you ask me. These honor killings are the most barbaric practice I think I have ever heard of. HOnor killings are a Muslim practice, not all Muslims engage in this practice, but knowing that some do sure does a great job of keeping possible strays in line, don'tcha think.

The clue is back there in the thread. What does it mean to kill a soul. The soul is immortal, the only way to kill is soul is through eternal damnation. HMMMM, so what is he saying?

Here is a good article on the subject.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Here's another

www.spiegel.de...

"Hatin's crime, it appears, was the desire to lead a normal life in her family's adopted land. The vivacious 23-year-old beauty, who was raised in Berlin, divorced the Turkish cousin she was forced to marry at age 16. She also discarded her Islamic head scarf, enrolled in a technical school where she was training to become an electrician and began dating German men. For her family, such behavior represented the ultimate shame -- the embrace of "corrupt" Western ways. Days after the crime, police arrested her three brothers, ages 25, 24 and 18. The youngest of the three allegedly bragged to his girlfriend about the Feb. 7 killing. At her funeral, Hakin's Turkish-Kurdish parents draped their only daughter's casket in verses from the Koran and buried her according to Muslim tradition. Absent of course, were the brothers, who were in jail."

What do you think, did her brother save her soul from eternal damnation according to Islamic beliefs by killing her?

Originally posted by Lone Star Patriot
reply to post by earthman4

 

Well you don't really know me but you could change that number to two.

I'm Christian but I'm also Native American. I've been scoffed at by some Christians b/c I still practice Native American religion and rituals i.e. smudging. I of all people understand what it's like to worship in a certain way and have others call you a savage.

I respect all religions. I may not agree with them but I respect them. I have no right to tell them they are wrong in their beliefs. I don't like it when people tell me that.

Are all AMericans not native

Originally posted by earthman4
The Muslims I know accept Jesus as a prophet. I know only one Christian who even respects Islam. That makes Muslims better people in my eyes.

so much wrong and so much crazy where to start.........


I mean, you could pick apart the Koran and see references to non muslims being filth, low life pigs and monkeys, you could reference countries with Islamic majorities and witness the oppression of Christian minorities (as opposed to western europe , us, australia where muslim communities are growing), you could open your eyes, but no, you make some sort of nursery school comment about Jesus being a prophet according to Islam and one billion muslims automatically being better........

Holy GUACAMOLE!

reply to post by blueorder


That's simply not true.


www.islamonline.net...

Prof. Shahul Hameed **


Mar. 28, 2006



Consultant to Discover Islam Section

[Say: We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another.] (Aal `Imran 3:84)

Islam teaches the respect of all beliefs.

As is borne out by this command of God in the Qur’an, Muslims must believe in all the prophets of God previously sent to humanity. This means that they are not permitted to show any disrespect to any prophet or to the religion he taught to his followers. To a Muslim, religious belief must come out of a person’s free choice, as God has also commanded not to use any kind of coercion in the matter of religion:

[Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error.] (Al-Baqarah 2:256)

It is the conviction of a religion’s adherents, not the compulsion they can impose on others, that establishes its moral force on earth. This was a principle evident in the life and practice of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) as well as the Constitution of Madinah which he drew up with the multi-religious community of Madinah.

And even during the Crusades, arguably when there was the most tension between the Abrahamic faiths. When Saladin conquered Jerusalem he ensured peace and respect to members of all faiths, and insisted that people of all faiths be treated equally.

atheism.about.com...
This Date in History: Saladin Takes Jerusalem
Saladin October 02, 1187: Muslim forces under the command of Saladin officially takes control Jerusalem from the Crusaders, effectively ending any major Christian presence in the Levant (also known as Outremer: the general region of the Crusader states through Syria, Palestine, and Jordan). Saladin had delayed his entry into the city by two days so that it would fall on the anniversary of when Muslims believe that Muhammed ascended from Jerusalem (the Dome of the Rock, specifically) to heaven to be in the presence of Allah. Unlike the Christian capture of Jerusalem almost a hundred years earlier, there is no mass slaughter - merely debates about whether Christian shrines like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher should be destroyed to take away Christian pilgrims' reason for returning to Jerusalem. In the end, Saladin insists that no shrines are to be touched and the holy sites of Christians should be respected. This stands in sharp contrast to Reynald of Chantillon's failed attempt to march on Mecca and Medina for the purpose of destroying them in 1183. Saladin also has the walls of Jerusalem destroyed so that, if the Christians ever take it again, they would not be able to hold it.

Historically, Christianity has been more abusive and unaccepting of people of different faiths.


[edit on 21-5-2008 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
That's simply not true.


[edit on 21-5-2008 by Rasobasi420]

It simply IS true- check the reality of modern day Christians in Egypt for example.


you would need to go back several centuries to find equivalence with Islam- hence the growth of Islamic communities in traditional Christian heartlands of Europe, US, Australia etc etc

[edit on 21-5-2008 by blueorder]

So you're talking about government policies, not Islamic belief. They're very different things. Hopefully you can recognize that.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Lone Star Patriot
reply to post by earthman4

 

Well you don't really know me but you could change that number to two.

I'm Christian but I'm also Native American. I've been scoffed at by some Christians b/c I still practice Native American religion and rituals i.e. smudging. I of all people understand what it's like to worship in a certain way and have others call you a savage.

I respect all religions. I may not agree with them but I respect them. I have no right to tell them they are wrong in their beliefs. I don't like it when people tell me that.

Are all AMericans not native

Humm I didn't realize that all Americans are Cherokee, Sue, Creek, Comanche... (and so on.) I thought some were comprised of Irish, Italian, German... (so on) heritage. Cool we're all Indians!!

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by The Oak

 

What complete and total malarkey, you are clueless. The U.S. soldiers who fought the revolutionary war declared war against the greatest power in the world at the time, and they fought them toe to toe like men. They didn't hide behind their womens skirts like these Muslim terrorists do. They didn't indiscriminately bomb market places randomly killing women and children like these low life Muslim terrorists do. Our forefathers went toe to toe with the best army in the world, and won.

I would say more about how disgusting your statements are, but I would like to see this post stay on the board.

your response to my post just shows how "clueless" you are about our founding fathers. They did not go toe-to-toe against the most powerful nation in the world (Britain). They in fact waged a guerrilla (non-conventional) war against the red-coats. The British were trained to fight a "gentleman's" war where they fought in tight formations in open fields. We learned from our native Americans to hide behind trees, hit and run to fight another day. It is classic guerrilla warfare, Toe-to-toe is a vast misstatement. Any people who are oppressed by a larger power resort to guerrilla warfare and terrorism. It is their only option to combat a superior opponent. Next time review your history before you make yourself look like a fool again.

And to say that Islamic terrorist are the only ones in History to indiscriminately bomb civilians (women, children, etc..) further shows how ignorant you are of our own History. We were responsible for the largest killing of civilians ever when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. talk about indiscriminate killing. If that wasn't an act of terror then I don't know what was. Granted it accomplished its purpose and arguably saved more lives by ending the war, but it was a terrorists act none the less. Try to be objective when trying to debate History.

The ONLY and I repeat ONLY way to solve terrorism is to understand WHY it happens. It will take a lot of introspection to see our own faults and CORRECT them. until we do that, we will remain under threat of an attack.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by The Oak]

[edit on 21-5-2008 by The Oak]

I am Malik Shabazz, from Atlanta, Ga saying muslims are always taught to never be the problem starter but the problem solver. Islam promotes togetherness in which the US Government wants to dismantle destroy(the same thing they are doing to us black people in america). Its too much damn religion in the world(even though I'm muslim)! We need to find a good common goal and achieve it.

reply to post by Rasobasi420

reply to post by The Oak


WRONG

U.S. Revolutionary troops fought British troops in battles. There were several battles between the two armies, look it up. We didn't always fight by the rules of the British army, but there were times we marched the troops out onto the field, and fought Britain in the fashion of the day.

www.multied.com...

The Battle of Bunker Hill

The Americans occupied Bunker Hill overlooking Boston on the evening of June 16th. The British, commanded by General Gage, had no choice but to attack the Americans. On the afternoon of the 17th, Gage's forces attacked. In a hard fought battle, the American were forced to withdraw. While the British were victorious, they suffered heavy losses. The battle shocked the British who were expecting an easy victory.

List of other battles U.S. Revolutionary troops fought against the British.

www.multied.com...

U.S. forces certainly did use guerrilla war tactics, which they didn't have to learn from the Native American tribes, more anti-U.S. propaganda, but that is a far cry from terrorism. What the revolutionary troops used most often were hit and run tactics combined with ambushes.

Got any examples of U.S. revolutionaries blowing up market places filled with women and children?

I don't know were you went to school, but you were robbed.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Muslims captured the Christian holy city in 1076. Christian pilgrims to the holy city were badly abused by the Muslim soldiers when they tried to visit the city. This is why the Crusades were fought. Muslim Armies conquered Jerusalem and took it away from the Christians first. The Muslims were not being tolerant, they were being abusive. What a surprise.

reply to post by poet1b


Jerusalem is a holy city for Islam, Christianity and Judaism alike. Islam historically has been much more peaceful and tolerant of a controller than any of the other Abrahamic religions.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by The Oak

 

Got any examples of U.S. revolutionaries blowing up market places filled with women and children?

I don't know were you went to school, but you were robbed.

I gave a classic example of blowing up market places filled with women and children. No wait, we didn't blow up the market, we blew up the whole damn city. wait make that cities. Not during the revolution, but an act committed by americans regardless.

Believe me when I say that I love this country. I am not saying I am not thankful for what our founding fathers did. I am just trying to make the analogy that one person's patriot is another's terrorists. I could argue this point further, but I can see it would be useless.

reply to post by The Oak


No it isn't useless. Keep going. Everything you said was correct. You see most people who indiscriminately excuse horrible Acts(Just because it's America) don't care for facts, they politicize history as if history was a debatable subject.

reply to post by The Oak


You said the Revolutionary war, what! is George Washington the living dead kept in the basement of the white house, still giving orders in 1945?

So, our founding fathers didn't commit acts of terrorism as you claimed, so now you have changed your story.

The bombing of cities in Japan was not done readily, and has been very controversial ever since, something the western world as a whole still struggles with. Of course you ignore the raping of Nanking, and what the Japanese did in the Phillipines. You ignore how many lives were saved by avoiding an invasion of Japan, U.S. soldiers as well as Japanese, but it is far easier for you to throw cheap shot accusations that do not approach the truth.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


So Muslims showed their respect for the Holy City of Jerusalem by conquering it and invading it?

Islam is the least peaceful, least tolerant religion in the world from what I have learned. Muslims kill their own children and siblings for daring to embrace beliefs outside of Islam. It doesn't get more intolerant than that.

reply to post by projectvxn


It is correct to claim the founders of the U.S. were terrorists when they weren't?

It is correct to say that bombing cities two hundred years later proves that the Americans at the time of the U.S. revolution were terrorist?

So essentially, anyone who fights in a war and bombs other nations is a terrorist. Nice 1984 speak, completely destroy the definition of the word.

It is pathetic, that is what it is.

reply to post by poet1b

U.S. forces certainly did use guerrilla war tactics, which they didn't have to learn from the Native American tribes, more anti-U.S. propaganda, but that is a far cry from terrorism.

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

The British thought little of the colonials considering them uncultured, uncivilized brutes who would not stand up to a fair fight.

The Boston Tea Party is a textbook example of terrorism:
"An attack on non-combatants or unrelated infrastructure to inspire fear into a nation or people for a political purpose or motivation."

Blowing up that merchant ship full of tea was essentially the Colonial reply to the British Tea Tax, and was aimed at forcing them to stop taxation.

Like it or not, it was terrorism; it may hard for you to accept your forefathers were actually guerrillas who engaged in asymmetrical warfare (terrorism) but in hindsight, that's exactly what they did.

Christian pilgrims to the holy city were badly abused by the Muslim soldiers when they tried to visit the city. This is why the Crusades were fought.

Your ignorance and lack of general knowledge shines through yet again.

The Muslims allowed Christian pilgrimages and free worship for all the "People of the Book" inside Jerusalem:

Jerusalem was conquered about 638 by the Caliph Umar (Omar) who gave his protection to its inhabitants. Muslim powers controlled the region until the early 1900's. The rulers allowed Christians and Jews to keep their religions.

www.mideastweb.org...

The Crusades were fought for one reason alone: European prejudice combined with jealousy of the expansion of the Muslim armies, and fear they would become ultimately too powerful.

It was 'pre-emptive' military action; the same kind of attitude used as a justification to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

The First Crusade started essentially because the Seljuk Turks got a little too close for comfort and the Byzantine Empire seeked help from the Pope to issue a religious decree for all Christians to come and intervene.

Hell the Crusaders were probably the most intolerant of the all the factions in the Middle East at the time, when they took control of Jerusalem they massacred everyone, including fellow Christians: www.historynet.com...

You ignore how many lives were saved by avoiding an invasion of Japan, U.S. soldiers as well as Japanese, but it is far easier for you to throw cheap shot accusations that do not approach the truth.

Again: The mass killing of civilians (non-combatants) to instill fear into a nation (Japan) in order to further a political purpose (the Japanese Surrender).

Twist it, turn it, spin it any way you want, the outcome is the same. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are probably the two most glaring examples of terrorism in modern history.

So Muslims showed their respect for the Holy City of Jerusalem by conquering it and invading it?

As did the European Christians when they came down from France, massacred anyone along the way, besieged Jerusalem, burnt it to a crisp, and then proceeded to massacre anyone they though "collaborated" with the Arabs: Siege of Jerusalem

Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning.

According to Raymond of Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." The chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi states the Jewish defenders sought refuge in their synagogue, but the "Franks burned it over their heads", killing everyone inside. The Crusaders circled the flaming building while singing "Christ, We Adore Thee!".

san.beck.org...

Sound very compassionate or tolerant to you?

Don't try to paint the Christians as being any more merciful or tolerant than the Muslims were at the time. They were far from it.
The Crusades were the Christian equivalent of a Jihad against Islam.
The Pope issued a decree, much like a Fatwa, that stated all Christians must strive to return Jerusalem under Christian control.
He gave his blessing to the armies that left Europe.

The Crusaders were religious fanatics of greatest degree.

It is pathetic, that is what it is.

The only thing I find pathetic here is someone trying so hard to defend America's past actions and vilifying Muslims for doing the exact same thing the Americans did, and the Christian Crusaders did in the past.

So when Americans and Christians fight dirty and attack civilians, it's "Fighting for Freedom", but when the Muslims do it oh that's just plain terrorism.
The double standard you make when you fail to make the distinction between terrorism & resistance IS PATHETIC.