General discussion


Moderate and radical Muslims -- are they very different?

By jardinier ·
I have repeatedly asserted here and elsewhere that the Muslim extremists do NOT represent true Islam. However the opinion poll given here suggests that I may be quite wrong.

Based on a new Gallup World Poll of more than 9,000 interviews in nine Muslim countries, we find that Muslim radicals have more in common with their moderate brethren than is often assumed. If the West wants to reach the extremists, and empower the moderate Muslim majority, it must first recognize who it?s up against.

Hence this poll which suggests that the extremists are difficult to identify as separate from the moderates because in many areas they appear to be the opposite of what we may have assumed, e.g. impoverished uneducated people who are brainwashed into hating the West and especially the USA.

My apologies for assuming that the intent of the post would be readily recognised.


Respondents who said 9/11 was unjustified (1 or 2 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is totally unjustified and 5 is completely justified) are classified as moderates. Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radicals. The data for this poll were obtained during 2005-06 from Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Approximately 1,000 in-home interviews were conducted in each country. The sampling mix of urban and rural areas is the statistical equivalent of surveying each nation?s adult population, with a statistical sampling error rate of +/- 3 percent.]/i]

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

The point being?

by rob mekel In reply to Moderate and radical Musl ...

You ask a question in the title, than you answer to this question in your posting.
Give insight on where your info came from.

Now what is the point to your posting other then letting us know that there is an Article on the subject(title).

Then you go on on "If the West wants to reach the extremists, and wants to empower the moderate Muslim majority, it must first recognize who it's up against.
Isn't this statement always the case?
So more in general: If you want "something" you must know who(or what) you are up against!

My question is: What's new in your posting?


ps Tnx for the link :)
Reading the article I get the meaning on what you try to say in your posting and where you would like to go with your posting. Unfortunatly you ain't getting there because you don't say it (type it). Which is a pity.

Collapse -

The point being

by jardinier In reply to The point being?

and I would have thought it would be obvious is that persons like myself who have repeatedly declared that the extremists are a small minority who DO NOT represent true Islam, are quite likely WRONG, whereas persons who have repeatedly asked why the moderates do not vocally dissociate from the extremists are RIGHT.

I will edit my post.

Collapse -


by rob mekel In reply to The point being

Don't edited it but add what you're point was about. In that way it stays clear on all the postings made before the edit. :)
That is, if it is possible.


ps As you say "... that persons like myself who have repeatedly declared ..." not all of us have read all the postings made on this subject. There for we can't all know who has what point of view on the subject.
edited for the ps

Collapse -

Too late, I have already edited it as you can plainly see.

by jardinier In reply to Jules

Because the discussion has just started, this will save other people asking what is the point of my post.


Collapse -


by rob mekel In reply to Too late, I have already ...

but the italic does the trick, maybe :)


Collapse -

I'll have to edit my reply now.

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Too late, I have already ...

It looks disconnected from the thread.

Collapse -

Juleian, I commend you!

by F4A6Pilot In reply to The point being

Sorry Julian, You are a better man than Sandy, Absolutely, or others whom I have clashed about issues. You admit your error.

You are to be commended for your repentance.

I am pretty hard headed about things too, but will admit my faults when I perceive them.

Collapse -

When I read articles like this following one

by jardinier In reply to Juleian, I commend you!

I would have to be an ostrich if I were not prepared to reassess my opinion.

This is a recent statement by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney who is a very level-headed guy.

AUSTRALIA'S most influential Catholic has said the Koran is riddled with "invocations to violence" and the central challenge of Islam lies in the struggle between moderate and extremist forces as the faith spreads into a "childless Europe."

The Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said reading the Koran, the sacred text of Islam, was vital "because the challenge of Islam will be with us for the remainder of our lives - at least."

But in a speech to US Catholic business leaders, Dr Pell said Western democracy was also suffering a crisis of confidence as evidenced by the decline in fertility rates.

Dr Pell said the September 11 terrorist attacks had been his personal wake-up call to understand Islam better. He had tried to reconcile claims that Islam was a faith of peace with those that suggested the Koran legitimised the killings of non-Muslims. While there was room for optimism in fruitful dialogue between faiths and the common human desire for peace, a pessimistic response began "with the Koran itself."

Errors of facts, inconsistencies, anachronisms and other defects were not unknown to scholars but difficult for Muslims to debate openly, he said. "In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages."

Last year, Dr Pell courted controversy when he drew a link between Islam and communism. His speech on Islam and Western democracies was delivered in Florida on February 4 but only appeared on the archdiocese's website on Wednesday.

Dr Pell said every nation and every religion, including Catholicism, had "crimes in their histories". In the same way, Islam could not airbrush its "shadows." Claims of Muslim tolerance of Christian and Jewish minorities were largely mythical and he wondered about the possibility of theological development in Islam when the Koran was said to come directly from God.

"Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited," he said. However, like Christianity, Islam was a living religion and the existence of moderate Islam in Indonesia was proof of the softening impact of human intervention.

Democracy and moderation did not always go hand in hand and an "anorexic vision of democracy and the human person was no match for Islam", he said.

Collapse -

The good Cardinal . . .

by drowningnotwaving In reply to When I read articles like ...

. . . brushes over much of his own church's past by admitting they had 'crimes in their history'.

What he doesn't acknowledge is that a review of some particular paragraphs in the Old Testament, as well as commentaries upon their application down through the years by various Popes, Kings and Cardinals, would make equally vile reading.

One thing that Pell did say is that the reaction of many Islamic people (and especially their leaders) to criticism is immediately intolerant and often violent (burn, kill or bash the critic). That's all too evident in the facts.

I don't know what the answer is, but I struggle to see that the criticism of the religious book by a leader of another religion is actually going to get us on the path to less people wanting to kill the other.

I think the Pope's visit to Turkey is much more on the path of doing something to build bridges.

Collapse -

The Old Testament, the Roman Catholic Church and the New Testament

by jardinier In reply to The good Cardinal . . .

Yes of course there is a lot of violence in the Old Testament, as there is also in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

However we are not comparing the OT and the RC Church with the Koran. We are comparing Christianity and Islam in the 21st century.

We are talking about Christianity as practised today, which derives mostly from the New Testament, and Islam today which still derives only from the Koran.

Related Discussions

Related Forums