Gallup Center for Muslim Studies

[Richard]

Some interesting readings under the Core Learnings From The Muslim World documents.

http://www.gallup.com/consulting/wor...m-Studies.aspx

Richard's $.02

[SF-TX]

At least two of their members have been previously discussed in other threads.

* Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director
* Richard Burkholder, Director of International Polling
* John Esposito, Senior Scientist
* Eric Nielsen, Senior Director, Media Strategies
* Magali Rheault, Senior Analyst
* Ahmed Younis, Senior Analyst
* Mohamed Younis, Senior Analyst

[Richard]

Reading the actual findings might prove worthwhile.

Richard's $.02

[blue902]

Which part? It's written by Muslims; how can that be unpartisan? You would think the Gallup Corp. could find someone who is actually neutral, or more neutral.

The questions were interestingly written and the interpretations were acrobatic in their attempts to cast data as proving a point as well. They were really trying to put across the whole "Muslims won't choke on the sweet air of freedom, see?! This is science!" idea.

It wasn't all leading and miscasting, but there was enough in the extremist, the democracy, and the ordinary muslim to throw the whole thing out and look somewhere else for data.

The writer(s) started with an agenda and sought to prove it. Seems like a bad method of 'obtaining scientifically rigorous data', and of retaining a reputation for reliable survey data.

Maybe they should rename the source "The Gallup Center for Lysenkoism- Muslim Branch"

[JJ_BPK]

Gallup just completed a random pole in the UK.

They surveyed everyone in line for their weekly dole payments.

Almost 95% of the Brit responded, see attached results..

[akv]

Originally Posted by Blue902

Which part? It's written by Muslims; how can that be unpartisan? You would think the Gallup Corp. could find someone who is actually neutral, or more neutral.

I found the readings interesting, while the efficacy of polls and statistics can be questioned, discounting for bias, studying Muslims is probably the best way to learn about Muslims? Perhaps plumbers have some profound insights on Islam's views on the west, but while possibly neutral how credible is their experience. It doesn't seem all of these writers are Muslim.

Lysenkoism can cut both ways. At the end of the day all these debates on Islam and the West boil down to three choices.

1) We kill every Muslim
2) Muslims kill every non Muslim
3) Evolution, education, and co-existence

While there are certainly Islamic terrorists who simply need to be killed, on the whole choice three seems most logical to me...

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by akv

I found the readings interesting, while the efficacy of polls and statistics can be questioned, discounting for bias, studying Muslims is probably the best way to learn about Muslims? Perhaps plumbers have some profound insights on Islam's views on the west, but while possibly neutral how credible is their experience. It doesn't seem all of these writers are Muslim.

Lysenkoism can cut both ways. At the end of the day all these debates on Islam and the West boil down to three choices.

1) We kill every Muslim
2) Muslims kill every non Muslim
3) Evolution, education, and co-existence

While there are certainly Islamic terrorists who simply need to be killed, on the whole choice three seems most logical to me...

Can we get them to choose 3, when some of them are pursuing 2?

Can we take select any option unilaterally, other than 1?

TR

[akv]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Can we take select any option unilaterally, other than 1?

TR,

Sir, I see your point , option 1 would be easier were we the Mongols, Nazis, or Soviets, but aren't we supposed to be as Richard says , " the men in white hats" ?

[Grey Ghost]

from "Moderate vs. Extremist Views":

Classified as political radicals were those who met
the following criteria: 1) they felt the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were
“completely justified”, and 2) they indicate that they have an “unfavorable” or
“very unfavorable” opinion of the United States. Those who did not say the
attacks were completely justified were termed moderates. The “radical” group
represents about 7% of the total population across the 10 countries included in
the study.

So someone who considered the 9/11 attacks "largely justified" would be classified as moderate. We don't know how many, if any, would fall in such a category but it certainly brings into question the survey design.

I found it interesting that in 2005 the % having an unfavorable view of the US was:
Saudi Arabia 79%
Pakistan 65%
Iran 52%
I'm guessing the ranking would have been reversed if the leadership of each country had been polled. Should we be thankful that Saudi Arabia is not a democracy?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by akv

TR,

Sir, I see your point , option 1 would be easier were we the Mongols, Nazis, or Soviets, but aren't we supposed to be as Richard says , " the men in white hats" ?

You cannot unilaterally pursue any other option as far as I can tell.

Otherwise, they have to want to change.

TR

[Grey Ghost]

Originally Posted by akv

I found the readings interesting, while the efficacy of polls and statistics can be questioned, discounting for bias, studying Muslims is probably the best way to learn about Muslims? Perhaps plumbers have some profound insights on Islam's views on the west, but while possibly neutral how credible is their experience. It doesn't seem all of these writers are Muslim.

Lysenkoism can cut both ways. At the end of the day all these debates on Islam and the West boil down to three choices.

1) We kill every Muslim
2) Muslims kill every non Muslim
3) Evolution, education, and co-existence

While there are certainly Islamic terrorists who simply need to be killed, on the whole choice three seems most logical to me...

What about a 4th - Kill every Muslim that is trying to kill every non Muslim.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

Gallup just completed a random pole in the UK.

They surveyed everyone in line for their weekly dole payments.

Almost 95% of the Brit responded, see attached results..

Well,there you go........... Can't argue with the polls can we?

Big Teddy

[blue902]

Lysenkoism can cut both ways.

How's that? The practitioner sounds like an idiot in addition to being a liar?
Or we mistake the neutrality of

* Magali Rheault, Senior Analyst
* Ahmed Younis, Senior Analyst
* Mohamed Younis, Senior Analyst

for being biased unfairly? I don't know any unbiased Muslim. Probably plumbers are not the first place to look for neutral statisticians. Maybe Canada could do a better job, or we could just look at the bias and account for it ourselves.

At the end of the day all these debates on Islam and the West boil down to three choices

1)...
2)...
3)...

While there are certainly Islamic terrorists who simply need to be killed, on the whole choice three seems most logical to me...

Disagree. Well - maybe it does seem logical to you. It doesn't to me and those are not the only options. Seems to me we can feed with the one hand and smash with the other.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by blue902

Disagree. Well - maybe it does seem logical to you. It doesn't to me and those are not the only options. Seems to me we can feed with the one hand and smash with the other.

Definition: u·ni·lat·er·al (yn-ltr-l) adj.

1. Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: "a unilateral advantage in defense" (New Republic).
2. Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
3. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.
4. Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
5. Having only one side.


You can not feed if they do not want to eat..

and

Men in white hats are targets of opportunity.

In 1300 years the religion of islam has not wanted nor attempted to do anything that was not unilateral (ONE SIDED)..

It is the only religion I know of that teaches unilateral fellowship.

Be one or be dead.

[Sigaba]

There is another option—containment.