| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
In "Just Like Us! Really?: Gallup says only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are political radicals. Yet 23 percent think the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified" in The Weekly Standard, Robert Satloff exposes yet more that is wrong with the Saudi-funded Islamic apologist John Esposito's soothing "No Extremists Here" survey of the Islamic world:
Mogahed publicly admitted they knew certain people weren't moderates but they still termed them so. She and Esposito cooked the books and dumbed down the text. Apparently, by the authors' own test, there are not 91 million radicals in Muslim societies but almost twice that number. They must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes. To paraphrase Mogahed, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but their neat solution seems to have been to redefine 78 million people off the rolls of radicals.The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents--300 million Muslims--who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don't utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.
And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of "who is a radical." Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not "completely" justify 9/11 is . . . "moderate."
Read it all.
More here, here, here and here.
Posted by Robert at May 5, 2008 5:50 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Please stop beating around the bush, I mean the circumlocution is getting old. Tell the truth of what Islam is about, what the Koran is about and what MoHAMtheMUD was really about. History shows what atrocities were committed and continue to this day by this ideology. It is violent and contrary to human value, dignity and freedom. The devastation against Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Christians all in the name of Allah is a known fact. All this comes from the teachings of the Koran. Its pretty ugly, and facing those facts seems rather hard for these people. Islam is a failure lets face it, as far as uplifting humanity. But as far as destruction of non Muslims it has succeeded, at times, unfortunately.
Posted by: savsiv![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 5, 2008 6:22 PM
Do we really need a poll to tells us about the attitudes of Muslims? History, common sense and actions, tell us very clearly that when push comes to shove, most Muslims have little moral problems with terrorism -- so long as non-Muslims are the targets.
Posted by: rational at May 5, 2008 6:22 PM
Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women . . . is . . ."
Or, more accurately, just "Muslim."
Posted by: Amillennialist at May 5, 2008 6:35 PM
Check out the purple hijab:
http://www.onenationforall.org/component/option,com_deeppockets/task,contShow/id,60/Itemid,87/
At the end of the article, you read that her husband's name is "Mohamed." What else, LOL!
Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2008 6:49 PM
Keep shining the light on Islam, and turn up the heat. Watch them scurry like millions of cockroaches. This is what we need to do, and do it without let up until....
Until what? ... Serious question. Keep shining the light until we find out.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at May 5, 2008 6:52 PM
Why the outrage? Esposito and Mogahed are genuinely moderate liars.
Posted by: Lex at May 5, 2008 7:02 PM
"Gallup says only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are political radicals."
From the article.
Oh really? Someone apparently forgot to tell the Pakistanis. Maybe the weasel word "political" is meant to distract us from the far greater numbers who are "social radicals"...
As a reminder about what this means, check out the latest update on the percentage of Pakistanis calling for killing the Danish cartoonists:
http://www.jamatdawah.org/poll_results.php?poll_id=12
Posted by: Eastview at May 5, 2008 7:15 PM
"Take the very definition of "Islam." From Karen Armstrong to Bernard Lewis--and that's a pretty broad range--virtually every scholar of note (and many who aren't) has translated the term "Islam" as "submission to God." But "submission" evidently sounds off-putting to the American ear, so Esposito and Mogahed offer a different, more melodious translation--"a strong commitment to God"--that has a ring to it of everything but accuracy." --from the article linked above (The Weekly Standard).
Man, talk about Taqiyya! They must think we're stupid or something!
at May 5, 2008 7:15 PM
"300 million Muslims--who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified"
This suggests that the method for estimating we once used (for estimating project time, in my case) still applies.
Figure out everything that can go wrong and assume that it will go wrong. You think you have your worst case scenario but then you DOUBLE it.
Gallup said 91 million (7 percent).
The authors found double that or about 180 million. Assume that Esposito and Mogahed got their worst case scenario but even their survey couldn't account for everything, so double their number and you have more than 360 million. (And that's probably low!)
at May 5, 2008 7:56 PM
Leftist intelligentsia cooking the books to "prove" their point?
I'm shocked, shocked!
I think the reasoning of these over-educated idiots must run thus-wise:
"Perception is reality. If we can change perception we can change reality. If the great unwashed majority of the West can be convinced that the great unwashed majority of Islam does not buy into Jihadi doctrine, the West will cease its bellicose actions toward Islam and Islam, perceiving less of a threat from the West, will quit trying to destroy the West and we can all keep our phony baloney jobs."
The fact that reality does not give a rat's rump for their perceptions is the dark demon of their worst nightmare.
Posted by: USBeast at May 5, 2008 8:06 PM
Okay, I get that Esposito is a major kapo-dhimmi-quisling, as well as incapable of processing information logically, but I'm still at a loss as to why Georgetown, a Catholic University, would hire this quack. Was it just for the 20 million Saudi bucks that went along with him? That seems awfully shallow and at lethal odds with its Catholicism. Maybe at secular, anti-American Harvard, by why Georgetown? Are they that lost as well?
http://www.bravenewsworld.blogspot.com
Posted by: Max Publius at May 5, 2008 8:10 PM
"Radical" Muslims are the ones with ammunition.
"Moderate" Muslims are those waiting for a reload.
"Reasonable" Muslims are apostates who lie because want to stay alive.
I would guess 20%, 50% and 30%, repectively.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 5, 2008 8:34 PM
Since the court of informed public opinion on the matter of Islam is not a court of law, I think it safe to maintain that Professor Esposito should be considered guilty until proven innocent. Wouldn't it be the height of foolishness to assume otherwise?
Posted by: Wellington at May 5, 2008 8:49 PM
Well Documented Opinion-say hello to reality!
The truth Saddled up and Gallup'ed off.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 5, 2008 9:46 PM
darcy,
given that the witness of a Muhammedan female is worth less than that of a man, I wonder why anyone in his right mind afford them the light of day.
Why, for heavens sake, do we provide them with a soapbox when the bearded clowns think women should be admonished and locked up in their quarters??
(No offence Mr Spencer!)
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 5, 2008 11:03 PM
Max Publius,
It could be argued that sexual liberation theology killed Georgetown's once Catholic identity. See: Is Georgetown Catholic? Read it and weep.
Speaking of endowments, it occurs to me that the Church never really got out of the business of selling indulgences; it just got better at marketing.
BTW, One way to stick it to Esposito is by studying under him. See: Georgetown Launches New PhD in Islamic Studies
at May 5, 2008 11:07 PM
Normally we would say a scholar should be ashamed to have committed such as massive fraud, but the Saudi-funded activist John Esposito--if his track record of sophistry and brazen propaganda is any guide--will not be ashamed by any of this. he writes this way as a living and I imagine he will keep on doing so until proper academic standards are reasserted in his field of study. Remember that it was such pro-Islamic activist-"scholars" who advised the American administration before 9/11. Is Islam a threat? The Islamo-Christian Esposito said no back then, and still says no today.
This Gallup poll data is sufficiently important that our intelligence agencies and governments should have access to it. But will they read it? And if they read it, what will they find? What will they interpret? How will they present the information to the public? Will they be frank and honest, showing a good summary of all important aspects of the data, or will they try to cover up and finesse it to avoid enraging Muslims?
Apparently, one has to pay in excess of $20,000 to obtain the data, making it practically impossible for most private citizens to obtain it. News organizations would be able to pay for this, but which major news organization would want to present something that might be negative about Islam and Muslims?
Of course, the sorts of questions asked by Gallup, PEW, and most other organizations are so imprecise as to be nearly useless. It is as though they are asking primarily softball questions designed to make Muslims look good (or at least to avoid offending them), vaguely worded so that responses can be interpreted with great flexibility by the researchers. Rarely do polls or surveys ask Muslims specific questions about approval of specific aspects of jihad and sharia--though from the few polls that have actually asked such precise questions, it turns out that most Muslims support at least some major aspects of sharia that are contrary to the laws and constitutions of western societies. Indeed, in supporting these aspects of sharia, most Muslims support at least some behaviors that are major crimes in western countries.
What additional frauds and fallacies can we expect in the forthcoming "updated" version to which Mogahed refers? Only access to the actual data--which Esposito and Mogahed never present--will permit us to answer that question. As it is, we are at the mercy of Islamic activists who are doling out cherry-picked and modified summary statements that are vague yet tailored to minimize concerns about Islam and Muslims. On top of that, we have the additional filter of a mainstream media that follows explicit guidelines that prohibit anything potentially offensive to Muslims.
If the results really did suggest that the vast majority of Muslims were truly "moderate" (as non-Muslim westerners understand the term), wouldn't the Islamic activists, Esposito and Mogahed, be presenting that data up front and center, instead of hiding it in layers of ambiguous verbiage?
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at May 5, 2008 11:08 PM
"Moderate"
Militant
Occult,
Deadly and
Evil,
Ready
And willing
To
Eradicate Your Life.
"Myth"
Posted by: champ at May 6, 2008 12:05 AM
From above:...but the Saudi-funded activist John Esposito--if his track record of sophistry and brazen propaganda is any guide--will not be ashamed by any of this. he writes this way as a living and I imagine he will keep on doing so until proper academic standards are reasserted in his field of study...
He does this for a living...Thats probably the bottom line. How good a living it is, is reflected by the strength of his attempts to defend it.
at May 6, 2008 12:07 AM
Moderate Muslim
Moderate Christian
Moderate Jew
Moderate Buddist
Moderate Hindu
Moderate Baha'i
Moderate ______________
Gee, the term "Moderate" doesn't make any sense, does it? That's because there's NO SUCH THING.
Posted by: champ at May 6, 2008 12:39 AM
I'm married to a statistician who has been both designing and analysing surveys for some thirty years - he has done so for national and state civil service, and also, for many years, for a MAJOR market research company.
Hearing him talk about his work exposed to me just how important it is to be very, very careful how you conduct the survey, if you really do want to get a representative sample of a given population; and the critical importance - if you are honest - of being very careful in how you word the questions. If the survey is badly designed (for example, if the questions are ambiguously worded or actively anticipate a certain type of answer) the results are worthless.
You CAN find real things out, with a good survey.
But even the plain honest data from a good survey - properly sampled, with nice clear unambiguous questions - can then be 'spun' by a dishonest analyst or reporter. Just read "How to Lie With Statistics" to see how it's done.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 6, 2008 12:40 AM
When the shiite hits the fan, Western apologists like Esposito, Armstrong and co, should be held accountable for their misinformation. They are knowingly putting civilisation as we know it, and millions of lives at risk.
Posted by: Dsinc at May 6, 2008 12:44 AM
In fairness to Mogahed and Esposito, aren't they only producing a product that the ideologues in Western academic, political, and religious life are in the market for? Mogahed and Esposito wouldn't produce such shoddy merchandise if they thought the ideologues would look to closely at it. They know that the ideologues are looking for the bottom line, and if it reinforces what they want to believe, there's no need to examine what went into the sausage.
7% sounds like a cozy enough figure (that's if you consider 100 million a cozy number, but, then, who's goung to mention raw numbers). 7% will sell better with the unsuspecting public, and there's no need to burden them unpleasant facts.
Mogahed's and Esposito's rediculous poll isn't a threat to anyone. It's their Western salesmen -- those that should know better -- that are the real enemy.
Posted by: rational
at May 6, 2008 1:27 AM
...and the ones who aren't radical are still Islamizing the Western world with creeping sharia.
More mosques, more halal, more Muslim voting blocks, more politicians begging Muslims for their votes and offering them political power, more veils, more segregation, honor killings, more underground sharia courts... more Islam.
Or, as Esposito puts it... more "moderation".
Posted by: Stefcho at May 6, 2008 4:43 AM
He does this for a living...Thats probably the bottom line. How good a living it is, is reflected by the strength of his attempts to defend it.
by duh_swami
I agree. Either the Saudi oil well that funds him has to stop producing or it has to become more advantageous for him to go the other way. When (if ever) that day comes we'll hear how things have changed in the Islamic world (not that Esposito was ever wrong - just that the facts on the ground are different) and he now sees the threat posed by Islam and is compelled by duty to inform the world.
Posted by: PMK at May 6, 2008 8:49 AM
7% will sell better with the unsuspecting public, and there's no need to burden them unpleasant facts.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving comes to mind. When did they ever see an "acceptable" level of drunk driving? The goal of zero might not have been attainable but they didn't let that deter them from pressing state legislatures to pass laws that would make driving while intoxicated more than just a traffic ticket.
Why is 7 percent (or 91 million) an acceptable level of jihadists? Divide that number by ten. Over 99 percent of all Muslims could be against jihad and you still have over nine million who support it. Even one jihadist is one too many.
Posted by: PMK at May 6, 2008 8:58 AM
darcy,
given that the witness of a Muhammedan female is worth less than that of a man, I wonder why anyone in his right mind afford them the light of day.
Why, for heavens sake, do we provide them with a soapbox when the bearded clowns think women should be admonished and locked up in their quarters??
Hi shiek. The West is not in it's "right mind" these days.
Posted by: darcy at May 6, 2008 8:58 AM
On the subject of surveys, and how they may be conducted, and the results that may be obtained...here you may find the transcript of a classic episode of "Yes, Minister": 'How to make a balanced survey'.
http://users.aims.ac.za/~mackay/probability/survey.html
The link goes to the website providing the transcript - I do not, alas, have access to the episode itself.
Since weblinks break, over time (I have discovered this while reading through the jihadwatch archives ), I post the transcript anyway:
How to make a balanced survey
Bernard (the junior civil servant) goes to see Sir Humphrey (the senior civil servant) and tells him that Hacker (the Prime Minister) is planning to announce his "Grand Design" (canceling Trident [Britain's nuclear weapon] and reintroducing conscription [National service]). The PM thinks it will be a vote-winner because a Party poll has shown that 64% of the population are in favour of reintroducing conscription.
Sir Humphrey advises Bernard to issue another poll to show the majority of the population is against reintroducing conscription. Bernard wonders how this can be done and Sir Humphrey explains it:
"Humphrey: You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you?
So she starts asking you some questions: " Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard: Oh...well, I suppose I might be.
Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told her you can't say no to that.
So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.
Bernard: Is that really what they do?
Humphrey: Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those.
So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.
Bernard: How?
Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
at May 6, 2008 5:55 PM
Even the name Mogahed sounds like Mujahid.
Posted by: Kepha at May 6, 2008 7:22 PM
Kepha
That's exactly what it is. It's just a variant spelling.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 6, 2008 7:38 PM
"Yet 23 percent think the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified..."
Just as many Canadians and Europeans (if not more) believe 9-11 was justified.
Posted by: The Ticklebug at May 7, 2008 2:53 AM
36.6%, eh? 36.6% of 1.4 billion is only 512.4 million, more than one of them for every person and illegal alien in the US. It is more, even, than every person and illegal alien in the US plus the entire population of Mexico.
Huston, we have a problem.
{o.o}
Posted by: jdow at May 7, 2008 6:52 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)