Okay, your concern about the procedures of polling has merit, but that's not to say that these surveys are flawed beyond belief, which is something we should be able to agree upon. Perhaps 75 million of Indonesian Muslims don't believe in death to apostates, maybe the number is more like 40 million, hell, maybe it's only a couple of dozen million, the point is the same regardless- there is a problem of intolerance within Islam because of the nature of the ideology. Yes, there are other factors, I'm not saying there are not.
They're not flawed at all--they do what they're intended to do. But we have the social sciences for a reason. There is a proper way of going about trying to interpret the human mind, and polls don't really do that.
For example, a social scientist would have to have an operational definition. What do we mean by "believe" in death to apostates? Does it mean they want to live in a society that kills apostates? Does that mean they think every society should kill apostates? If a team of female researchers ask me if I'm a male, I would say yes. Now what if their next question is, "Do men want power more than women?" Am I answering for all men or just for myself? "Are you a Muslim?" Yes. "Do you believe in death to apostates?" Are you asking me based on my Muslim belief or my personal belief?
Ask Muslims how many of them believe alcohol should be banned. Now ask how many of them drink alcohol. Which one is the correct "belief"?
These are the sorts of problems a good social scientist would eliminate that these pollsters didn't. I see this problem here on the forums all the time and shows why scientific training is important for everyone. People use words however they want. They don't define terms before discussing. Then these same people try to read journalist summations of complex studies and come to ridiculous conclusions.
If hundreds of millions of Christians around the world not only believed in death to apostates, but actually practiced barbaric tenets, I would not hesitate to call it out. It wouldn't affect my own faith
The two most barbaric, whatever that means, continents in the world are Christian. Are you saying that Christians in Africa and South America don't support the laws of the Bible? Or that they may support these laws, but don't actually practice any of the barbarism?
I think part of the problem is that when people make the statements I'm making here, it's often (especially on here) followed by some pretty unreasonable statements, and this makes people disagree with the original premise that Islam in it's current form has serious problems to address.
Agreed.
I've never disagreed that Islam has serious problems. But my goal, if any, is to prevent the sort of attacks that frequently happen and I think trying to go after "Islam," which is itself a poor, nebulous target, doesn't actually fix anything. It's empty. No serious martial artist would give such nonsensical advice. "Hey coach, I just got knocked out again. Why?" "Your striking has serious problems."
In the last two months, I have been less than a mile away from two (one attempted) terror attacks. I have friends in (or from) Pakistan and Saudi and Israel and Iraq that I contact weekly, people I care about. I have family all across Nigeria. About every time I hear about an explosion, I have to check whether someone I love is dead. I have a vested interest in seeing these attacks end and that requires detailed understanding and a willingness, rather than an aversion, to examining specific information and rejecting easy conclusions.
Most of the people who rail against Islam don't actually give a shit about ending terrorism. It doesn't affect them. They have no stake in its end. So they just say whatever they want.
