Study: European Muslim population can only grow

[The Barbarian]

For now let's focus on the two that I mentioned. The point is that Muslims in America tend to be more like other Americans than they are like Muslims in other cultures.

That shouldn't be a surprise; that's been true of almost all ethnic groups coming to America.

 

[jsanford108]

Great. Allow us to dive in.

First, the two points from Mr. Doug Saunders:

5. Muslim immigrants in the West hold the same backward views that Muslims do in the Middle East and Pakistan

Actually, Muslims change their cultural views dramatically when they emigrate. For example, 62% of American Muslims say that “a way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights of Palestinians are addressed” — a rate barely lower than that of average Americans (67%), and vastly ahead of the miniscule response among Middle Eastern Muslims — for whom between 20% and 40% agreed with that statement.

Similarly, 39% of American Muslims and 47% of German Muslims say they tolerate homosexuality, compared to single-figure responses in most Islamic countries — and those rates are rising with each immigrant generation. On these important questions, Muslim immigrants are converging with Western values fast.

Immediately, a single phrasing should stand out. "Muslim Immigrants in the West," but then all statistics given are about "American Muslims." These are two very different groups of people. "American Muslims" denotes any Muslim, naturalized, due to being a n>1 generation. "Muslim Immigrant" denotes any Muslim not born in the US, yet seeking refugee status, or citizenship, in the US. Thus, from the onset, we see a disparity in the claim and the information presented.

And surely, no logical person would argue that Americans (which includes Muslims) are more liberal than persons in the Middle East. Thus, the argument presented in this point is not even addressing the views of Islamic Immigrants, rather, it is addressing American Muslims; this is a slight of hand trick, used to disprove a point, without actually doing so. No fault towards you, but towards Mr. Saunders'.

6. Muslims in America are more loyal to their faith than their country
True, 49% of Americans from Muslim backgrounds say they consider themselves “Muslim first and American second” and 47% claim to attend a mosque on Friday. But you have to compare that to American Christians, 46% of whom say they identify themselves as “Christian first and American second” (that number rises to 70% among Evangelicals). And 45% of American Christians attend a church service every Sunday.

In other words, Muslims have adopted exactly the same rate of religious observance as the people around them in their host country. We see this just as strongly in France, where a fifth of Muslims are atheist and only 5% attend a mosque regularly – almost the same rate as French Christians.
http://dougsaunders.net/2013/09/10-myths-about-muslim-immigrants-in-the-west/

So, less than half of Muslims in the US put Islam before American ideals, great. That is good to know, and is actually supported by Pew Poll research (which I assume both of us will consider the most accurate polling statistics commonly available/used). But, let us consider the points presented in this argument.

Most people who identify as "Christian" or "Muslim" are not even remotely close to good examples of these religious beliefs and systems. If one doesn't attend the religious gatherings associated with the label, then they are not even "moderate" religious, rather "liberal" religious. Would you not agree? A conservative Muslim will always hold to the five pillars of Islam, as the conservative Christian will hold to the doctrines of Christianity. So, using liberal Americans as a means of proving or disproving entire religious radicalism is faulty and disingenuous. Again, not your fault, but Mr. Saunders'.

Now, to address the issue with both points overall: there are no sources cited.

A good argument or claim will have sources from which various points are derived from. Otherwise, one is simple asserting that the information presented is accurate, on their own authority. We would agree that this is a fallacy. Good sources are usually unbiased, peer reviewed, testable, and have a vast amount of research and (if a poll) number of individuals tested.

Yet, a source can also be disingenuous. For example, if I polled 1,000 American Muslims, and asked five questions: Who is Allah, What are the Five Pillars, What is an Imam, How do you view the Qu'ran, Do you support sex slavery? I could say, "No persons said that they supported Sharia Law." This is true, but it is disingenuous, as that was not even asked. This is why sources, as well as reputable information and conclusion, are necessary when discussing topics such as this.

For now let's focus on the two that I mentioned. The point is that Muslims in America tend to be more like other Americans than they are like Muslims in other cultures.

No disagreement. A majority of American Muslims are liberal in their faith. American Muslims are not coming from the Middle East. But even then, it should be concerning that 49% of American Muslims still put the ideals of Islam above American ideals.

Facts about some of the crazier misconceptions Islamophobes have about Muslims:

What makes an "Islamophobe?" (which is not even a real word, for the record)

 

[The Barbarian]

Great. Allow us to dive in.

First, the two points from Mr. Doug Saunders:

Immediately, a single phrasing should stand out. "Muslim Immigrants in the West," but then all statistics given are about "American Muslims." These are two very different groups of people.

You have a point. From all evidence, American Muslims assimilate much more quickly and completely than Muslims in some other nations. This is perhaps because American society has become adapted to taking in new groups of people and making Americans of them. The schools for example, are organized to help new arrivals to understand and accept American values. This is not true in all nations, and some European nations have only recently experienced large influxes of different people.

"American Muslims" denotes any Muslim, naturalized, due to being a n>1 generation.

My former asst. coach is a Muslim and an American citizen, an "n=1" American. He'd be pretty upset if he knew someone thought he wasn't a "real" American. He came here from the Middle East, because he wanted to build a business, and America seemed the best place to him.

"Muslim Immigrant" denotes any Muslim not born in the US, yet seeking refugee status, or citizenship, in the US. Thus, from the onset, we see a disparity in the claim and the information presented.

See above. It is true that while there are differences in each succeeding generation (new immigrants and their children tend to be more law-abiding than native-born Americans, but they tend to become more like the rest of us in succeeding generations.

And surely, no logical person would argue that Americans (which includes Muslims) are more liberal than persons in the Middle East.

My Muslim friend thinks so. His particular sect was persecuted and abused in many places there. Hasn't happened here.

Thus, the argument presented in this point is not even addressing the views of Islamic Immigrants, rather, it is addressing American Muslims;

"American Muslims" refers to any Muslim living here legally. But again, it is certainly true that each succeeding generation becomes more American in their outlook and values. One reason might be that in America, Muslims tend to be more prosperous and well-educated than Muslims in some other nations, and this would likely mean they assimilate more easily.

So, less than half of Muslims in the US put Islam before American ideals, great. That is good to know, and is actually supported by Pew Poll research (which I assume both of us will consider the most accurate polling statistics commonly available/used). But, let us consider the points presented in this argument.

About the same ratio of American Christians put their religious beliefs ahead of American ideals.

Most people who identify as "Christian" or "Muslim" are not even remotely close to good examples of these religious beliefs and systems. If one doesn't attend the religious gatherings associated with the label, then they are not even "moderate" religious, rather "liberal" religious.

I would think "Liberal religious" would require regular attendance. "Conservative" or "moderate" would be something like "cultural (whatever)", without as much commitment.

A conservative Muslim will always hold to the five pillars of Islam, as the conservative Christian will hold to the doctrines of Christianity.

That's not been my experience. For example, a lot of conservative evangelicals are Trump supporters, and Trump has lived his life in defiance of everything God has told us to do.

Now, to address the issue with both points overall: there are no sources cited.

As you know, the Pew surveys have found these to be true. Would you like to see that?

Yet, a source can also be disingenuous. For example, if I polled 1,000 American Muslims, and asked five questions: Who is Allah, What are the Five Pillars, What is an Imam, How do you view the Qu'ran, Do you support sex slavery? I could say, "No persons said that they supported Sharia Law." This is true, but it is disingenuous, as that was not even asked. This is why sources, as well as reputable information and conclusion, are necessary when discussing topics such as this.

I think the Pew findings that most Muslims don't think Sharia should be legally established supports the fact.

No disagreement. A majority of American Muslims are liberal in their faith. American Muslims are not coming from the Middle East. But even then, it should be concerning that 49% of American Muslims still put the ideals of Islam above American ideals.

If so, we should be far more worried about American Christians, who have about the same feelings about their religion, and they are a majority, while Muslims may eventually rise to 3% of the population.

What makes an "Islamophobe?"

An irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims.

(which is not even a real word, for the record)

If it's not a real word, how did you type it? Words are what use them to mean. Might not be an "official" word (whatever that is in a nation with no official language or dictionary).

Thanks for your reasonable and well-stated arguments.

 

[jsanford108]

There is going to be a lot we agree upon, so I will begin by pointing all of these things out from your reply. Sorry if it seems tedious, but I want to highlight areas of agreement.

My former asst. coach is a Muslim and an American citizen, an "n=1" American. He'd be pretty upset if he knew someone thought he wasn't a "real" American. He came here from the Middle East, because he wanted to build a business, and America seemed the best place to him.

If he is a citizen, then he is an "American." No debate there.

See above. It is true that while there are differences in each succeeding generation (new immigrants and their children tend to be more law-abiding than native-born Americans, but they tend to become more like the rest of us in succeeding generations.

Successive generations of immigrants are more "American" each generation. Agreed.

My Muslim friend thinks so. His particular sect was persecuted and abused in many places there. Hasn't happened here.

I misspoke when I said that no one would argue that America wasn't the most liberal, my bad.

About the same ratio of American Christians put their religious beliefs ahead of American ideals.

Again, no contesting this.

I would think "Liberal religious" would require regular attendance. "Conservative" or "moderate" would be something like "cultural (whatever)", without as much commitment.

This part here is where we disagree. Liberals tend to not be religious. They may claim a "religion," but they lack the devout aspirations as more conservative types do. Granted, there are outliers, such as fundamentalist Christians. But these are the fringe, not the norm. In order for any statistic to be relevant, it is usually reflective of generalities, not the fringe.

That's not been my experience. For example, a lot of conservative evangelicals are Trump supporters, and Trump has lived his life in defiance of everything God has told us to do.

This is irrelevant to the topic. Often, I see that more left leaning participants in discussions find some way to insert a negative view of Trump. We aren't discussing Trump, nor who voted for him. I am neither supporting nor attacking Trump. But why mention it, when it is not the topic of conversation?

As you know, the Pew surveys have found these to be true. Would you like to see that?

I would like to see the Pew surveys which support your/Doug Saunder's points.

I think the Pew findings that most Muslims don't think Sharia should be legally established supports the fact.

Could you also link or find these pew findings? I, myself have searched for the Pew results on various Sharia law/Islam polls, but the ones that I have used in the past seem to have disappeared. I have cited them before, but I cannot find them now. So, please, if you can, by all means, link them.

I ask for this specifically, because the polls by Pew that I always referenced showed that a majority of Muslims, the world over, support various ideals that we would call "radical."

If so, we should be far more worried about American Christians, who have about the same feelings about their religion, and they are a majority, while Muslims may eventually rise to 3% of the population.

Why should we be more concerned about Christians who place their religious beliefs above that of the nation? No Christian belief calls for the destruction of anti-Christian peoples or nations. No Christian belief subjects women and children to sex slavery. No Christian belief calls for death for those who leave the faith. Please, give arguments and reasons that we should fear Christians more than Muslims.

An irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims.

False. Islamophobia is, by definition, an "irrational fear of Islam/Muslims." A hatred of a particular group of people gets the suffix of "-ist." And, how can someone have an irrational fear of a religion which persecutes any person outside of their faith? Irrational by definition means that it lacks logic or reason.

If it's not a real word, how did you type it? Words are what use them to mean. Might not be an "official" word (whatever that is in a nation with no official language or dictionary).

I typed the word, but there was a red squiggle below it. My point is that modern words, found in heated political debates these days, tend to be made up within the last five years. For "Islamaphobia," look at the word's usage. Notice the exponential spike in usage? That is due to its sudden application to various people who discuss Islam in a manner that is unpleasing to liberals and Muslims.

Thanks for your reasonable and well-stated arguments.

Same to you.

 

[The Barbarian]

This part here is where we disagree. Liberals tend to not be religious.

My experience is otherwise. Conservatives generally want to be conventional, but faith is not going to church on Sunday.

(Barbarian notes that conservatives supported a president whose life contradicts everything Christ taught.

This is irrelevant to the topic.

It's just evidence as to what is most important to them. Not all conservative Christians, of course. But the majority of them.

I would like to see the Pew surveys which support your/Doug Saunder's points.

I'm out of town, an without a computer now. But I'll see what I can find.

 

[jsanford108]

My experience is otherwise. Conservatives generally want to be conventional, but faith is not going to church on Sunday.

Like a fundamentalist. Again, fringe group, not the norm.

(Barbarian notes that conservatives supported a president whose life contradicts everything Christ taught.

Versus Clinton, whose life contradicts everything Christ taught, as well as the Constitution.

Again, not supporting Trump here, but trying to maintain focus on the topic of Islam.

It's just evidence as to what is most important to them. Not all conservative Christians, of course. But the majority of them.

So, the support of a particular candidate, or even law, reflects values of a group (not all, but a majority). Glad we agree on this.

I would like to see the Pew surveys which support your/Doug Saunder's points.

I'm out of town, an without a computer now. But I'll see what I can find.

Thank you. No rush. I have a busy couple of days, so I will be away from my computer, as well. And I do appreciate this conversation, as well as your willingness to discuss such topics honestly.

 

[musterion]

Like a fundamentalist. Again, fringe group, not the norm.

The doctrine of taquiyya precludes any outsider stating that as fact re: Mohammadans.

 

[The Barbarian]

Like a fundamentalist. Again, fringe group, not the norm.

A lot of those guys in the U.S. Hopefully not the norm.

Versus Clinton, whose life contradicts everything Christ taught, as well as the Constitution.

Bill Clinton was certainly close to being as big a slimeball as Trump. However, Trump has had far more collisions with the Constitution than Bill Clinton.

Again, not supporting Trump here, but trying to maintain focus on the topic of Islam.

So, the support of a particular candidate, or even law, reflects values of a group (not all, but a majority). Glad we agree on this.

Yes. I am concerned that for some religious political groups, politics have become more important than faith. And that's not limited to one side.

I would like to see the Pew surveys which support your/Doug Saunder's points. Thank you. No rush. I have a busy couple of days, so I will be away from my computer, as well. And I do appreciate this conversation, as well as your willingness to discuss such topics honestly.

 

[jsanford108]

Bill Clinton was certainly close to being as big a slimeball as Trump. However, Trump has had far more collisions with the Constitution than Bill Clinton.

I was talking about Hillary Clinton.

Yes. I am concerned that for some religious political groups, politics have become more important than faith. And that's not limited to one side.

I would argue that for Islam, they go hand in hand. Sharia Law is politics. Sharia Law is faith. There is no separation of church and state for Islam. (This will appear as somewhat of a tangent, but I assure you, I will bring it back to the topic at hand) This is one of the few times that I believe an issue with religion directly ties into politics, as Islam is a conquering religion. Politics is about the welfare of people of a nation and the world, and the economics that govern it. When you have a religion that wants to be the dominant power, then it becomes political.

In order to parade out my case, here are some links, and thus, the beginning of the tangent. (If you wish to discuss Islam in particular, then just skip all this and go to my final three paragraphs)

For example, this video by Ben Shapiro on the number of radical muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg&t=8s

Politifact calls Shapiro's video a false set of facts: http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...o/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/

But, I don't trust Politifact, as they are not an unbiased source. Here is a video which discusses this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1CNTG397kE

And, let us review the reasons given by Politifact as why these projections, despite being based on research, is false. One reason given is that "he used a broad definition of radical." Shapiro actually denoted what he considered "radical," with specifics provided. Add on to this, Politifact never provides a definition of radical, themselves.

Then, Politifact goes on to talk about Sharia Law, saying, "'Sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings.' "It is a moral code that covers marriage, crime and business. Different branches of Islam use different versions of the law." Sure, great point there Politifact; but you did not disprove Sharia as being moderate or liberal law. Sharia law, as I stated before, is directly tied into Islamic teachings from the Qu'ran.

Politifact also mentions Shapiro's specific percentages relating to Pakistan. "Shapiro looks at a place like Pakistan and says that 76 percent of Muslims want Sharia law in all Muslim countries. Pakistan has 179 million Muslims, therefore, "that is another 135.4 million radicals"(Shapiro)." Then, "we found that the picture is more complicated. Pew reported that 84 percent of Pakistani Muslims wanted Sharia law, but of those, nearly two-thirds said it should only apply to Muslims. Run those numbers through and you get about 54 million Muslims who think all Pakistanis should be subject to Sharia law. That’s about 60 percent fewer than Shapiro said. We are not saying that Pakistan has 54 million radical Muslims. Our point is that more detailed polling data changes the results a great deal." Notice how rather than give an accurate percentage or number, they simply say, essentially, that Shapiro conflated the percentages, ignoring specific statistics. But, that is not what he did. He gave a percentage on Sharia law, which was accurate, and classified that as "radical." Politifact merely suggests that the data is "more complicated."

Note, Politifact's conclusion: "Shapiro said that a majority of Muslims are radicals. To make his numbers work, he had to cherry-pick certain results from public opinion surveys." (Shapiro used Pew Poll Surveys) And, "Shapiro’s definition of radical is so thin as to be practically meaningless and so too are the numbers he brings to bear." Never is a different definition of "radical" provided, nor is Shapiro shown statistically to be false or in error.

So, why mention all of this? Well, it points to Shapiro's projections of radical Islam to be fairly close. Even if one uses the lesser percentages, "Radical Islam" is not a minority, rather a majority.

Also, here is a pew poll analysis on Islam that I found. It is 226 pages. But, if you comb through it, you will find that Shapiro is not far off the mark. http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

If you need further proof of Islam being a radical religion (not saying all Muslims are radical; just their religion/Prophet), read the Qu'ran. You cannot go ten pages without a call to violence, or an act of violence, against non-muslims.

 

[patrick jane]

I was talking about Hillary Clinton.

I would argue that for Islam, they go hand in hand. Sharia Law is politics. Sharia Law is faith. There is no separation of church and state for Islam. (This will appear as somewhat of a tangent, but I assure you, I will bring it back to the topic at hand) This is one of the few times that I believe an issue with religion directly ties into politics, as Islam is a conquering religion. Politics is about the welfare of people of a nation and the world, and the economics that govern it. When you have a religion that wants to be the dominant power, then it becomes political.

In order to parade out my case, here are some links, and thus, the beginning of the tangent. (If you wish to discuss Islam in particular, then just skip all this and go to my final three paragraphs)

For example, this video by Ben Shapiro on the number of radical muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg&t=8s

Politifact calls Shapiro's video a false set of facts: http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...o/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/

But, I don't trust Politifact, as they are not an unbiased source. Here is a video which discusses this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1CNTG397kE

And, let us review the reasons given by Politifact as why these projections, despite being based on research, is false. One reason given is that "he used a broad definition of radical." Shapiro actually denoted what he considered "radical," with specifics provided. Add on to this, Politifact never provides a definition of radical, themselves.

Then, Politifact goes on to talk about Sharia Law, saying, "'Sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings.' "It is a moral code that covers marriage, crime and business. Different branches of Islam use different versions of the law." Sure, great point there Politifact; but you did not disprove Sharia as being moderate or liberal law. Sharia law, as I stated before, is directly tied into Islamic teachings from the Qu'ran.

Politifact also mentions Shapiro's specific percentages relating to Pakistan. "Shapiro looks at a place like Pakistan and says that 76 percent of Muslims want Sharia law in all Muslim countries. Pakistan has 179 million Muslims, therefore, "that is another 135.4 million radicals"(Shapiro)." Then, "we found that the picture is more complicated. Pew reported that 84 percent of Pakistani Muslims wanted Sharia law, but of those, nearly two-thirds said it should only apply to Muslims. Run those numbers through and you get about 54 million Muslims who think all Pakistanis should be subject to Sharia law. That’s about 60 percent fewer than Shapiro said. We are not saying that Pakistan has 54 million radical Muslims. Our point is that more detailed polling data changes the results a great deal." Notice how rather than give an accurate percentage or number, they simply say, essentially, that Shapiro conflated the percentages, ignoring specific statistics. But, that is not what he did. He gave a percentage on Sharia law, which was accurate, and classified that as "radical." Politifact merely suggests that the data is "more complicated."

Note, Politifact's conclusion: "Shapiro said that a majority of Muslims are radicals. To make his numbers work, he had to cherry-pick certain results from public opinion surveys." (Shapiro used Pew Poll Surveys) And, "Shapiro’s definition of radical is so thin as to be practically meaningless and so too are the numbers he brings to bear." Never is a different definition of "radical" provided, nor is Shapiro shown statistically to be false or in error.

So, why mention all of this? Well, it points to Shapiro's projections of radical Islam to be fairly close. Even if one uses the lesser percentages, "Radical Islam" is not a minority, rather a majority.

Also, here is a pew poll analysis on Islam that I found. It is 226 pages. But, if you comb through it, you will find that Shapiro is not far off the mark. http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

If you need further proof of Islam being a radical religion (not saying all Muslims are radical; just their religion/Prophet), read the Qu'ran. You cannot go ten pages without a call to violence, or an act of violence, against non-muslims.

Good post.

 

[jsanford108]

Well, that went quiet.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[musterion]

This'll liven things up.

https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/status/939750039739686917

Any reference to Da Joooooz! brings out the anti-Zionist Jew-hate of the Left herebouts. It's like catnip to them...irresistible.

 

[musterion]

They're a little off on a few parts but accurate as far as Islam goes.

 

[musterion]

Fake Mossad does some darn funny trolling on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/status/937199343425204224

https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/status/936634548925890562

https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/status/936283717944868864