35% of Canadian Muslims Do Not Repudiate Al-Queda

[East of Eden]

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-goo ... in-canada/

"Almost two-thirds (65%) repudiate absolutely this Islamist terrorist organisation. On the other hand, a significant minority of respondents do not. As Winn and Leuprecht note, From a security perspective, it is difficult to know if a 65% rate of repudiation [of Al Qaeda] is re-assuring or a 35% failure to repudiate troubling.

Also troubling is the news that only a small minority of Muslim newcomers surveyed unequivocally reject Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian regime. Support for the Muslim Brotherhood was stronger than expected, and not limited to Muslims who emigrated from the Middle East. In findings that will reverberate in both immigration and security policy, support for extremism was found to be just as high among Muslims born in Canada or other industrialized countries as among those coming from oppressive dictatorships, and the most radical political views tended to be expressed by relatively secular people, often equipped with higher education in the social sciences"


Question for debate: Whatever your beliefs, how is this not really bad news?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Just so we're all aware of where this is coming from:

The Institute professes to be strictly non-partisan and points to its name as a prime indicator of this intent. However, as a think tank directed by high-profile businesspeople with an emphasis on lowering business taxes, reducing government spending, privatizing the healthcare system and "working toward a common security perimeter with the United States" the institute's sympathies are on the right wing of the political spectrum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald- ... ontroversy

That aside, some issues that I have noticed with the report:

It seems quite misleading. Under the heading "Approval or Disapproval of Terrorist Organizations" it makes a big deal about 24% giving "total support" for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a recognized terrorist organization in Canada.

Also the questions appeared to not be terribly specific. How is it meaningful to say that 35% do not "repudiate absolutely"? We do not know the specifics of the respondents between "repudiate absolutely" and "total support." For all we know those in the middle ground reject the violent actions of these organizations completely. The report appears to skew the data in favour of a particular narrative.

This is not to say that support for terrorism is nonexistent among Canadian Muslims, obviously if that were the case we would not have things like the foiled 2006 terrorist plot in Ontario. But these are extremely rare cases, it seems irresponsible to blow out of proportion the support for terrorism among Canadian Muslims based upon such limited data, or to follow it to the potential implication that our Muslim population poses some significant threat to Canadian society.

[McCulloch]

Question for debate: Whatever your beliefs, how is this not really bad news?

From where I sit, this is bad news, but not surprising. The numbers, while alarmingly bad, could conceivably be worse.

[East of Eden]

Just so we're all aware of where this is coming from:

The Institute professes to be strictly non-partisan and points to its name as a prime indicator of this intent. However, as a think tank directed by high-profile businesspeople with an emphasis on lowering business taxes, reducing government spending, privatizing the healthcare system and "working toward a common security perimeter with the United States" the institute's sympathies are on the right wing of the political spectrum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald- ... ontroversy

What does that have to do with the poll results? Your comment is an meaningless as if I were to say that because you are left of center, your comments are suspect.

That aside, some issues that I have noticed with the report:

It seems quite misleading. Under the heading "Approval or Disapproval of Terrorist Organizations" it makes a big deal about 24% giving "total support" for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a recognized terrorist organization in Canada.

It is clearly an extremist group, whose goals are completely at odds with Western human right values.

Also the questions appeared to not be terribly specific. How is it meaningful to say that 35% do not "repudiate absolutely"? We do not know the specifics of the respondents between "repudiate absolutely" and "total support." For all we know those in the middle ground reject the violent actions of these organizations completely. The report appears to skew the data in favour of a particular narrative.

Would you be OK if 35% of Christians did not repudiate absolutely the killer of an abortion doctor?

This is not to say that support for terrorism is nonexistent among Canadian Muslims, obviously if that were the case we would not have things like the foiled 2006 terrorist plot in Ontario. But these are extremely rare cases, it seems irresponsible to blow out of proportion the support for terrorism among Canadian Muslims based upon such limited data, or to follow it to the potential implication that our Muslim population poses some significant threat to Canadian society.

If 35% of Canadian Muslims harbor some level of support for Al-Queda, how is that not a threat to Canadian society?

[nursebenjamin]

According to Osama bin Ladens 1998 Fatwa against the West, the reason why America was to be attack was because of three facts: First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula Second reason was the continued sanctions against Iraq. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres. The third reason was Americas unequal support of Israel over the Palestinians. Third, the aim [of America] is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.[1]

Back in 1998, I know that I would have been in complete agreement with facts one and three, (Im not so sure about the second fact.) However, does this mean that I fail to repudiate absolutely this Islamist terrorist organization?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

What does that have to do with the poll results? Your comment is an meaningless as if I were to say that because you are left of center, your comments are suspect.

Just pointing out that this is a partisan think tank. I like to know where my information comes from.

It is clearly an extremist group, whose goals are completely at odds with Western human right values.

Some parts of it are, some aren't. It's a huge organization with varied view points. It isn't a terrorist organization in Canada. The report says that it is. This strikes me as problematic if the report intends to accurately represent the viewpoints of Canadian Muslims.

Would you be OK if 35% of Christians did not repudiate absolutely the killer of an abortion doctor?

I do not know, this is a meaningless question if "did not repudiate absolutely" is not defined. If a significant portion of that 35% "did not repudiate absolutely" the killer because while denouncing the murder they agree that abortion is wrong then that's a whole different story, isn't it?

If 35% of Canadian Muslims harbor some level of support for Al-Queda, how is that not a threat to Canadian society?

The report does not say that 35% of Canadian Muslims harbor some level of support for Al-Qaeda. This is a ridiculously inflated number that is only arrived at by including those who responded "I don't know" to the question as Al-Qaeda supporters.

Yes, there are potential radical elements among Canadian Muslims. They exist, we've seen them in the news. I don't see how blowing the problem out of proportion with questionable methodology accomplishes anything other than scaremongering and division in our society.

Frankly I am more concerned that with the high level of support Canadian Muslims had for the Harper government at the time.

[chris_brown207]

What does that have to do with the poll results? Your comment is an meaningless as if I were to say that because you are left of center, your comments are suspect.

I would think this is fairly obvious - but statistics can easily be swayed in either direction based upon how a question is phrased. The statistics then can be presented in a way that reflects the ideology of the statisticians - thus it is always a better indicator to have a non-biased entity perform any authoritative study on a topic.

For example - I was highly suspicious of the rosy statistics that the National Association of Realtors use to display on their website in the months leading up to the crash. It is hard for anyone to provide unbiased information when their pocket books are at stake.

It is clearly an extremist group, whose goals are completely at odds with Western human right values.

This is a matter of opinion. The IRA was viewed as a terrorist organization because of the extremists in their ranks. However, they also had enough legal and respected members within their community to become a sanctioned political party that went on to win major elections.

One person's terrorist group is another person's freedom fighters.

Would you be OK if 35% of Christians did not repudiate absolutely the killer of an abortion doctor?

I wouldn't be okay with it, but I also wouldn't be surprised. There are extremists within the Christian ranks as well - it all depends on how you define what a "Christian" is.

One example is the organization that this thread is about in Africa - a self-proclaimed Christian organization that has carried out many vile acts.

If 35% of Canadian Muslims harbor some level of support for Al-Queda, how is that not a threat to Canadian society?

Again, you would have to show how this statistic was derived, and how "support" was defined. Does support mean "I feel bad for them"? Or does support mean "I provide bombs to them"?

[JohnPaul]

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-goo ... in-canada/

"Almost two-thirds (65%) repudiate absolutely this Islamist terrorist organisation. On the other hand, a significant minority of respondents do not. As Winn and Leuprecht note, From a security perspective, it is difficult to know if a 65% rate of repudiation [of Al Qaeda] is re-assuring or a 35% failure to repudiate troubling.

Also troubling is the news that only a small minority of Muslim newcomers surveyed unequivocally reject Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian regime. Support for the Muslim Brotherhood was stronger than expected, and not limited to Muslims who emigrated from the Middle East. In findings that will reverberate in both immigration and security policy, support for extremism was found to be just as high among Muslims born in Canada or other industrialized countries as among those coming from oppressive dictatorships, and the most radical political views tended to be expressed by relatively secular people, often equipped with higher education in the social sciences"


Question for debate: Whatever your beliefs, how is this not really bad news?

It is curious and a little frightening to me that many Christians seem to identify and divide people by religion, rather than political allegiance or ethnic origin. A few years ago, it was estimated that 40 percent of Americans were of German ancestry. I don't know how the massive influx of uncounted Latinos has affected that statistic now, but people of at least partial German ancestry are still the largest single ethnic group in America.

Before America's entry into both World War I and World War II, there was widespread and loud support for Germany among large groups of Americans. This disappeared after America's entry into the wars, and these millions of Americans did not then rise up and attack Washington, DC.

My father's German ancestors came over about 1750 when America was still a British colony, and a couple of them served in the Revolutionary War. Still, when I think about it, I still think of myself as of German ethnic origin, although all the German language I know is what I learned in school. My mother told me that when she became a schoolteacher in 1915, although she spoke no German, several school boards in Michigan required her to learn the words to "Wacht am Rhein," (a German patriotic song), because that song was still traditionally used to start the school day in many small rural schools in Michigan. Of course, that custom ended when America entered the war in 1917, and these proud ethnic Germans were as good Americans as anyone whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower.

I am not sure what point I am trying to make here, but I am sure that not all 35 percent of Canadian Muslims, even if they may emotionally "support" Al Quada, are secretly plotting to overthrow Canada.

John

[micatala]

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-goo ... in-canada/

"Almost two-thirds (65%) repudiate absolutely this Islamist terrorist organisation. On the other hand, a significant minority of respondents do not. As Winn and Leuprecht note, From a security perspective, it is difficult to know if a 65% rate of repudiation [of Al Qaeda] is re-assuring or a 35% failure to repudiate troubling.

Also troubling is the news that only a small minority of Muslim newcomers surveyed unequivocally reject Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian regime. Support for the Muslim Brotherhood was stronger than expected, and not limited to Muslims who emigrated from the Middle East. In findings that will reverberate in both immigration and security policy, support for extremism was found to be just as high among Muslims born in Canada or other industrialized countries as among those coming from oppressive dictatorships, and the most radical political views tended to be expressed by relatively secular people, often equipped with higher education in the social sciences"


Question for debate: Whatever your beliefs, how is this not really bad news?

On the surface, these numbers are troubling. However, I think we need to look a bit at the methodology.

The actual report can be found here.

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pd ... 1-2011.pdf


Consider the table on page 13 that relates to attitudes on Hamas and other organizations. The question asks respondents to rate each organization on a scale from 1 to 7 with 7 = approval and 1 = disapproval.

They then add the responses from categories 5, 6, and 7 and 1/2 of the percentage of those responding 4 and call this "Total Support."

It seems to me to make no sense to take half of those who responded 4, which is really "neutral" and count them as "supporting" the given organization.


Note that only 7 out of 102 respondents in that table show the top level of approval to the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 3 give top support to Iran, 4 for Hamas. Fully a third of those the organization reports as part of "Total Support" for Iran are actually neutral.


Note that the Irish Republican Army has a higher ratio of Total Support to the strongest disapproval group as Hezbollah and Hamas. The ratio for the IRA equals the ratio for Iran (10 to 11).

Why would Muslims have about the same opinion of the IRA as Iran? Doesn't this suggest their 7-point scale and grouping methodologies are a bit flawed?



Given these problems, I am reluctant to call this "really bad news." I would say this is "troubling but ambiguous news."

[JohnPaul]

micatala wrote:

Note that the Irish Republican Army has a higher ratio of Total Support to the strongest disapproval group as Hezbollah and Hamas. The ratio for the IRA equals the ratio for Iran (10 to 11).

Why would Muslims have about the same opinion of the IRA as Iran? Doesn't this suggest their 7-point scale and grouping methodologies are a bit flawed?

Given these problems, I am reluctant to call this "really bad news." I would say this is "troubling but ambiguous news."

In addition to the faulty methodology, I am troubled by the tone and description of the report as "really bad news." This seems to imply that any emotional support for terrorist causes is in itself evil, while we are naturally good, pure and innocent.

I certainly do not support Muslim acts of terrorism against us. If someone points a rifle at me, I will shoot back and ask questions later. However, from the safety of my armchair, I can be a little more objective.

It seems natural to me that any people from poor and oppressed backgrounds would feel emotional support for anyone who stands up and fights in their name, regardless of methods used. Have the Muslims been oppressed by the West? My answer is yes, beginning with the Crusades and then the century of brutal and exploitative European colonialism.

Incidentally, since my mother was of Irish descent, I do emotionally support the CAUSE of the IRA, if not all their methods. This does NOT mean that I smuggle guns to them. It has been said that the only difference between the Irish revolution and the American Revolution is that America won theirs, while a large part of Ireland is still occupied and dominated by the British.

So, ERIN GO BRAGH!!! GUNS FOR IRELAND!!!

John