Interesting survey on American Muslims

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You probably heard about this survey about American Muslims, likely in the context of certain scary stats like "51% of American Muslims want Sharia law!" and things like that. Well, when you look at the full results, the survey actually paints a pretty moderate view of the American Muslim. Taking just a few results out of the poll can be misleading. For example, most American Muslims believe Sharia should be thought of as a personal moral code, rather than something that should be forced on someone, so obviously, a big chunk of that 51% isn't saying what the news headlines are claiming they are saying.

Anyway, that's not what I wanted to bring up. I've been browsing the crosstabs, and noticed something fascinating. American Muslims who are giving the most extremist answers are largely white (although blacks and Asians topped in a few categories), conservative and Republican. Muslims giving the most "moderate" answers are much more likely to identify as Middle Eastern, liberal/moderate and usually Independent, but sometimes Democrat.

Just as an example 24% of white American Muslims strongly agree with the statement that it is okay to commit violence against people who insult the Prophet. 7% of Middle-eastern American Muslims also strongly agree. Among political affiliation, Ind. was 9%, Dem 16% and Repub 24%. These numbers are similar to other questions.

I'm not sure if all of that really means anything (of course the extremists will consider themselves more "conservative", for example), but I do still think it's interesting that the picture of the extremist Muslim most of us have in our heads seems to be quite different from what the actual extremist (American) Muslim looks like.

 

[toastedbread]

You probably heard about this survey about American Muslims, likely in the context of certain scary stats like "51% of American Muslims want Sharia law!" and things like that. Well, when you look at the full results, the survey actually paints a pretty moderate view of the American Muslim. Taking just a few results out of the poll can be misleading. For example, most American Muslims believe Sharia should be thought of as a personal moral code, rather than something that should be forced on someone, so obviously, a big chunk of that 51% isn't saying what the news headlines are claiming they are saying.

Anyway, that's not what I wanted to bring up. I've been browsing the crosstabs, and noticed something fascinating. American Muslims who are giving the most extremist answers are largely white (although blacks and Asians topped in a few categories), conservative and Republican. Muslims giving the most "moderate" answers are much more likely to identify as Middle Eastern, liberal/moderate and usually Independent, but sometimes Democrat.

Just as an example 24% of white American Muslims strongly agree with the statement that it is okay to commit violence against people who insult the Prophet. 7% of Middle-eastern American Muslims also strongly agree. Among political affiliation, Ind. was 9%, Dem 16% and Repub 24%. These numbers are similar to other questions.

I'm not sure if all of that really means anything (of course the extremists will consider themselves more "conservative", for example), but I do still think it's interesting that the picture of the extremist Muslim most of us have in our heads seems to be quite different from what the actual extremist (American) Muslim looks like.

Converts are always the most radical. 1. It usually takes a nut to convert into anything. 2. They are trying to "prove themselves".

"More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts."

So they don't wish to impose Sharia on outsiders, but you aren't troubled by the fact that they wish to have their own court system outside of our system?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Converts are always the most radical. 1. It usually takes a nut to convert into anything. 2. They are trying to "prove themselves".

"More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts."

So they don't wish to impose Sharia on outsiders, but you aren't troubled by the fact that they wish to have their own court system outside of our system?

I didn't say it wasn't troubling. I said it was misleading. For example, a later question asked what should be done if the Constitution and Sharia contradict. 43% said Constitution should rule, and 33% said Sharia should rule. Obviously, I think those 33% are wrong, and they are going to be sorely disappointed if they think such a thing could ever happen here, but it does highlight that the 51% mentioned in the article means something very different than what the people reporting the story want you to think it means.

I agree with your point about converts.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Converts are always the most radical. 1. It usually takes a nut to convert into anything. 2. They are trying to "prove themselves".

"More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts."

So they don't wish to impose Sharia on outsiders, but you aren't troubled by the fact that they wish to have their own court system outside of our system?

Doesn't it depend on the court system? I would never accept a different criminal court system. But I could care less if two people in a civil suit go before a Muslim court, Judge Judy, or anything else as long as both parties agree to it. It might even save the regular court system money. So I would need to know the full context of what is meant by that question. If they are just talking civil, similar to the rabbinical courts already in existence, that should be their right. Can't both parties of a civil case seek mediation outside the court at any time?. If not, wouldn't Judge Wapner been out of business long ago.

 

[Rockfish1]

Doesn't it depend on the court system? I would never accept a different criminal court system. But I could care less if two people in a civil suit go before a Muslim court, Judge Judy, or anything else as long as both parties agree to it. It might even save the regular court system money. So I would need to know the full context of what is meant by that question. If they are just talking civil, similar to the rabbinical courts already in existence, that should be their right. Can't both parties of a civil case seek mediation outside the court at any time?. If not, wouldn't Judge Wapner been out of business long ago.

In fact, contracting parties routinely stipulate to a system of private arbitration outside the formal judicial process. If they wish the rules in that system to be based on Sharia law, that's fine with me. Apart from the resolution of private disputes, though, I'm very skeptical of claims that religious faith allows people to opt out of generally applicable law.

 

[toastedbread]

I didn't say it wasn't troubling. I said it was misleading. For example, a later question asked what should be done if the Constitution and Sharia contradict. 43% said Constitution should rule, and 33% said Sharia should rule. Obviously, I think those 33% are wrong, and they are going to be sorely disappointed if they think such a thing could ever happen here, but it does highlight that the 51% mentioned in the article means something very different than what the people reporting the story want you to think it means.

I agree with your point about converts.

Even if it's not 51%. 33% is a huge minority for an issue like that. That is a significant # of people. And I believe that Muslim Americans are the fastest growing group in this country per capita?

 

[toastedbread]

Doesn't it depend on the court system? I would never accept a different criminal court system. But I could care less if two people in a civil suit go before a Muslim court, Judge Judy, or anything else as long as both parties agree to it. It might even save the regular court system money. So I would need to know the full context of what is meant by that question. If they are just talking civil, similar to the rabbinical courts already in existence, that should be their right. Can't both parties of a civil case seek mediation outside the court at any time?. If not, wouldn't Judge Wapner been out of business long ago.

It's naive to not see how this starts with civil issues and extends beyond. There is plenty of evidence of that happening in Europe. Secretly perhaps. And even in this country there have been numerous honor killings. And about your point about Rabbinical courts... They are terrible for women. And women will also be horrific victims in these Sharia courts. It's a form of slavery for women.

 

[toastedbread]

In fact, contracting parties routinely stipulate to a system of private arbitration outside the formal judicial process. If they wish the rules in that system to be based on Sharia law, that's fine with me. Apart from the resolution of private disputes, though, I'm very skeptical of claims that religious faith allows people to opt out of generally applicable law.

I find the idea of shadow courts and vigilante justice to be inherently dangerous. In all of these religious institutions it's obvious that women are getting shafted.

 

[toastedbread]

Doesn't it depend on the court system? I would never accept a different criminal court system. But I could care less if two people in a civil suit go before a Muslim court, Judge Judy, or anything else as long as both parties agree to it. It might even save the regular court system money. So I would need to know the full context of what is meant by that question. If they are just talking civil, similar to the rabbinical courts already in existence, that should be their right. Can't both parties of a civil case seek mediation outside the court at any time?. If not, wouldn't Judge Wapner been out of business long ago.

Another point... what will be the reaction of that crazy 33% goat highlighted when they want more and the govt. won't allow it? Violence? Suicide bombings?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It's naive to not see how this starts with civil issues and extends beyond. There is plenty of evidence of that happening in Europe. Secretly perhaps. And even in this country there have been numerous honor killings. And about your point about Rabbinical courts... They are terrible for women. And women will also be horrific victims in these Sharia courts. It's a form of slavery for women.

I don't understand why women would be Islamic in the first place, but it is their right. In our current system, if I decide to sue you we could both agree to leave the court system and have it mediated by you. I'd be an idiot for doing that, but there is nothing to prevent that. If both parties agree to have an Islamic court decide, a Jewish court, or a Catholic court; they have that right. But both have to agree. I think it would be wrong to put into law that people are allowed to seek mediation through whatever means they want EXCEPT an Islamic court. I believe if we are going to bar that, we are going to have to bar just about anything/everything else that isn't official US government.

 

[toastedbread]

I don't understand why women would be Islamic in the first place, but it is their right. In our current system, if I decide to sue you we could both agree to leave the court system and have it mediated by you. I'd be an idiot for doing that, but there is nothing to prevent that. If both parties agree to have an Islamic court decide, a Jewish court, or a Catholic court; they have that right. But both have to agree. I think it would be wrong to put into law that people are allowed to seek mediation through whatever means they want EXCEPT an Islamic court. I believe if we are going to bar that, we are going to have to bar just about anything/everything else that isn't official US government.

Well religion is simply brainwashing. I'm not familiar with this mediation. Tbh, I always thought it was "off the books" so to speak. I find that to be a terrible idea and a way for women in particular to face extreme persecution.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It's naive to not see how this starts with civil issues and extends beyond. There is plenty of evidence of that happening in Europe. Secretly perhaps. And even in this country there have been numerous honor killings. And about your point about Rabbinical courts... They are terrible for women. And women will also be horrific victims in these Sharia courts. It's a form of slavery for women.

You're being alarmist. People already have a right to agree to have their disputes adjudicated by an independent body. Any decision by that body which violates law or public policy is going to be overturned by the courts. Any arbitration panel - whether Rabbinical, Sharia or Wiccan - is going to have to operate within the law.