Citação de: Pasteur em 15 de Março de 2015, 13:43:25

...
Os dados da PEW são reais , inclusive o livro até usa algumas pesquisas PEW, só que a metodologia Gallup é melhor e não há má intenção como o da PEW achar que quem apoia o hudud é candidato a terrorista. O Gallup não cita o hudud porque este faz parte da Sharia (não tem nada a ver apoio hudud com apoio a terroristas).

Onde a PEW faz essa relação??

O Hudud é importante sim..

O que disse sobre o Gallup se encaixa bem nessa crítica à pesquisa
Citar

Book Review
Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think
by John L. Esposito & Dalia Mogahed

Authors:
Who Speaks for Islam? is a book co-authored by two prominent scholars within Muslim studies. Dr. John L. Esposito identifies himself as a Roman Catholic in his personal life, yet in the academic realm he is a leading expert on the Muslim world. Esposito is a prolific author of over 35 books including What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam and Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam. His co-author Dalia Mogahed is a senior analyst and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Mogahed has led the analysis of Gallup’s unprecedented study of more than 1 billion Muslims worldwide. In fact, the book under review is primarily based on this very Gallup’s World Poll, which took place between 2001 and 2007 with more than 35 nations that are predominately Muslim. They claim that their research represents more than 90% of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims.

Audience & Purpose:
Their implied audience seems to be the American population. Their main purpose is to challenge American presuppositions about Muslims in a post-9/11 culture. In a word, they aim to dismantle the common Islamophobia in the West. . They hope to show that “the conflict between the Muslim and Western communities is far from inevitable” (p. xi). In many respects they are trying to present a palatable vision of Islam as a whole. Their stated means of accomplishing this persuasive end is, “Let the data lead the discourse” (xv). Hence the title that suggests this book presents the logical conclusions of the raw data from the Gallup’s World Poll. Listen to their description of the book, “The concept of this book is simple: With these questions in hand, we let the statistical evidence- the voices of a billion Muslims, not individual “experts” or “extremists”- dictate the answers” (xi). Noble as it is, however, is such a task even possible and if so have they achieved the presentation of brute facts?

There are no brute facts, only interpreted ones:
I was very impressed with the introduction of this book and the methodology that the authors claimed to use for the construction of it. For the most part the book provides persuasive research that illuminates what many Muslims in the world actually think. For example, the statistics reveal that many Muslims are not opposed to democracy per se as some might think. However, most support some kind of civil legislation based on Muslim Sharia law, which is slightly troubling (I would liken this to the Christian minority who are in favor of theonomy). Other interesting facts they raise are: “The majority of respondents in predominantly Muslim countries condemn the events of Sept. 11, 2001,” and “the minority (7%) who condone the attacks and view the United States unfavorably are no more religious than the general population” (p. 98-99). With statistics like these they conclude that diagnosing terrorism as a symptom, and Islam the root problem is a straw man and an ad hominen. They rather suggest, by means of statistics from the polls, that the main cause of terrorism is political not religious. They also strive to show how Muslim women find no inherent problems with Islam as a religion, yet the majority does long for more rights such as voting, driving cars, and employment.
For these findings and others, this book is quite valuable. However, after careful analysis I became skeptical of the research process and the presentation of the results. Of course, as Cornelius Van Til says, there are no brute facts, only interpreted ones. Therefore, as soon as the authors claimed to provide unadulterated facts to allow the Muslims to speak themselves, I was naturally skeptical. The authors had the goal of presenting a sympathetic and palatable view of Islam. They wanted to serve Islam on a silver platter to America and for good reasons. The global tension between Islamic nations and the West is not desirable by any. Yet, with such strong presuppositions, it is inevitable that the coauthors have skewed the “facts” to one degree or another. In the following section I will raise some suspicious occurrences in the book.

“Fishy” Facts:
Appendix A helpfully provides the Methodological Design and Sampling of the Gallup Poll used as the basis for this book. One of the key aspects of poll survey philosophy is listed as “The sample represents all parts of each country*, including all rural areas.” A footnote qualifies this statement with three exceptions to this rule for the survey. The first of these is the following: “Areas that threaten the safety of interviewing staff are excluded.” It’s impossible to know how much this exception affected the results of the survey. However, considering the fact that one of the major questions asked throughout the survey was regarding Islam and its connection to violence, it is feasible to assume that this exception good have significantly altered findings.
Likewise, local officials in surveyed countries requested the adjustment of questions regarding terrorism. “In Saudi Arabia, a country crucial to the study because of its status as the spiritual center of the Muslim world, officials were especially resistant, insisting that key questions be changed or dropped.”
Another fishy fact presented in the section on “What Do Women Want?” the coauthors show how a German man dedicated to fighting female genital mutilation that affects 100 million to 140 million girls has argued that the practice violates Islamic principles, not one caused by Islam (p 117). However, the case seems to be one of a divided kingdom. That is, this individual and others is pitting Islamic Sharia law against derived Islamic principles. This one of many cases throughout the book that employs the opinion of an individual to present a palatable view of Islam, as opposed to the stated methodology of letting the Gallup Poll statistics do the talking.
Similarly, I found that on a few occasions the statistics were selective of which countries that they pooled the survey from. This seems unprofessional, especially since I had to look at the endnotes to figure this out.
Most significantly on page 19 the authors attempt to justify verses in the Quran that call for violence against infidels, yet their efforts fall desperately short. They claim that such verses are not read in context; however the condition for violence they provide is lack of submission. Therefore, far from dismissing violence the Quran permits it in all cases except a person “repent and… agree to submit” (Quran 9:5, 29).

Conclusion:
In the end this book provides valuable insights into the Muslim world yet the results at times are suspect to erroneous conclusions and interpretations. They have successfully presented a palatable view of Islam as a religion and I’m sure that it would ease many fears of Americans. However, have they really let the statistics lead the discussion? Does this book give us the voice of Islam’s Silenced Majority? It is hard to say. Cleary this book is a collection of interpreted facts. Therefore, if one desires to pick of this book they should recognize this from the outset and be aware of the strong presuppositions of the authors who compiled the research and composed this book.

Citação de: Pasteur em 15 de Março de 2015, 13:43:25

Quanto o Bahadur cita especialistas ele se esqueceu dos autores desse livro...

Que livro?

E porque esse especialista (é islâmico ou é daquele livro citado) teria mais credibilidade que os estudiosos islâmicos que citei?

Exato. Pense no seguinte cenário dos países majoritariamente islâmicos onde, como bem mostrado na PEW, 4/6 clusters (justamente os maiores) adotam a sharia e o hudud.

Agora pense que o congresso vai por em pauta "casamento dos gays".. Sendo que a lei provém da Sharia. Qual a margem de manobra? O que você colocou acima que os Estados islâmicos ainda não trilharam o caminho do ocidente é real e um desses caminhos é a separação entre estado e religião

Mas como fazer isso se a população deles demanda a sharia? Esse é um dos pontos que os especialistas que citei pautam.

A principal ideia do livro é classificar os que apoiaram o ataque de 11/09 de radicais, aqueles que dão campo fértil aos terroristas e de onde se originam. E eles, pasmem, são MENOS religiosos que os moderados e sua motivação é POLÍTICA e admiram mais o Ocidente que os moderados. Isso significa que o grande vilão não é a religião e sim a política. Nada a ver com reinterpretar o Islã...aliás reinterpretar é o que os terroristas fazem.

Pois é e como eu havia dito além da crítica que coloquei da pesquisa , e você deveria concordar porque é auto evidente, isso é apenas uma citação sem base em fatos..

Você viu a crítica ao livro que coloquei na página anterior citando a metodologia e como países simplesmente tiravam da lista perguntas ofensivas ou como lugares considerados críticos não entraram na pesquisa? Veja Pasteur precisa levar isso em consideração. Eu desde o momento zero acusei essa questão da Gallup que era uma pesquisa praticamente sem dados, com um destino manifesto e interpretativo. Nem se compara com a PEW.

Gostaria que respondesse ao meus posts.