Pew Poll: Sharia Law and Afghanistan

[BarakzaiAbdali]

So in the past, I've cited this landmark study from the University of Maryland on the Muslim world and what sort of governance system it seeks:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Apr07_rpt.pdf

I noted that the key conclusion, against which some here advocate rabid interventionalism, to the detriment of their adopted countries was as follows:

"Most respondents express strong support for expanding the role of Islam in their countries—consistent with the goals of al Qaeda---but also express an openness to outside cultural influences. Large majorities in most countries support the goals of requiring a strict application of sharia, keeping out Western values, and even unifying all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state. On the other hand, majorities in all countries regard the increasing interconnection of the world through trade and communication as positive and strongly support democracy and religious freedom. Majorities or pluralities also reject the idea that violent conflict between Muslim and Western culture is inevitable and say that it is possible to find common ground"
(page 3)

So the fair response that Afghan colleagues here had was that the polling did NOT include Afghanistan, but includes Northern Pakistan, which cannot be used as a surrogate for Pashtun views on the other side of the durand line.

So now, a far more POWERFUL study in terms of sample size (and I am not taking about Farhat Andersen size sample sizes) was released by Pew.

Its power outweights that of the Maryland group and INCLUDES Afghanistan.

There were 38,000 interviews done face to face with methodology explained in detail in the original paper:

Lest the guffawing and snorting begin here by our local interventionalists, the criticism is going to be very limited about this report since Afghanistan per the appendix

http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-w...iety-appc.aspx

is one of the countrys with a higher sample size of data.

When graphs are exampled in all the subcategories, there are no caveats to Afghan data.

Here is the whole study:

http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-w...s-society.aspx

And CNN does a nice job summarizing the 5 take home points.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...lam/?hpt=hp_t3

For the Karzai Kleptocracy crowd, the conspiratorial communists become capitalists overnight and secularists, and all other comers... Mike Scheuer's assessment continues to prove true and Afghanistan is addressed directly:

"A whopping 99% of Muslims in Afghanistan told Pew that they favor sharia law – a Muslim code that dictates everything from dietary laws to morals – as the official law of the land.
Though Afghanistan is by far the most supportive of sharia,majorities in countries like Iraq (91%), Palestinian territories (89%) and Malaysia (86%) favor applying sharia to everyone in their respective countries. Support for this viewpoint was particularly strong in Southeast Asia, South Asia, Middle East-North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Analysis of the survey results by Pew found 'most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God.'"

Regarding the perception that Robert Pape discusses, his data is also buttressed INDEPENDENTLY:

"While a majority of Muslims, according to Pew, in all countries surveyed said 'suicide bombing in defense of Islam' was rarely or never justified, 'there are some countries in which substantial minorities think violence against civilians is at least sometimes justified.'
For example, in the Palestinian territories, 40% of Muslims said suicide bombing was often or sometime justified. In Afghanistan that number was 39% and in Egypt that number was 29%.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

What does all this mean?

1. It generally means that the nonsense spewed here about the ISI forcing sharia down the throats of Afghans who want a secular democratic government is a view utterly bereft of both evidence and common sense.

2. The fact of the matter is that what is going on is interventionalism in Afghanistan and the Muslim world at the behest of a few elites (both in and outside of Afghanistan) and the war industry) is obviously suppressing the will of the Afghan people.

3. Secular democracy as we see it in the West is not the flavor of government desired by the majority of the Muslim world and Afghanistan specifically being the foremost country against that particular system of governance.

4. Those supporting enforcement at the barrell end of a gun of such governmental systems have a major ethical quandry now as the people's sentiments are not in line with the their own.

5. The mass conspiracy of Pakistani data somehow confounding Afghan Pashtun views appears to be blown clear out of the water.

6. Interestingly, the poll shows that we Western Muslims have rather dramatically different views on governance and theological ideologies.

So now, how can one justify, as the data builds, support of rabid interventionalism? The common argument here has always been that secular democracy ala Western interventionalism must be supported in Karzai's grand strategy of strategic balancing... i.e. that Wahab creep or Pakistani influence was somehow "desecularizing" Afghans who were secretly all waiting for Mr. Karzai to swoop in with his merry band of Afghan technocrats to save the day.

The reality is far different as we see and I think the data continues to build for Mike Scheuer's prior work discussing how this interventionalism is creating the platform for large amounts of blowback in the future and is to the DETRIMENT of both adopted and native societies.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Finally, it appears that our American academics are also aligning, per the data, in their support of non interventionalism proposed by Pape and Scheuer. Here is a summary statement that I have pitching here from day one from Dr. Steve Kull who has headed up these massive projects:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=361&lb=btvoc

"This is not simply imagined. Currently in Congress there are efforts to ensure that U.S. funding of democracy promotion in Egypt only benefits liberal, secular parties and does not in any way benefit Islamist parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
To most Muslims this American perspective on Muslim society is simply incorrect and American efforts to choose the winner is really about America seeking to impose its Western secular model of governance and to eradicate the role of Islam in the public sphere. Since to Muslims Islam is, by definition, meant to be in the public sphere, American efforts are seen as seeking to undermine Islam itself."

And for those that claim they want a safe stable and progressive Afghanistan, Dr. Kull notes:

"By intervening in ways that have enhanced the polarization of secular and Islamist forces the United States has also made it more difficult for Muslims to build a political space within which they can find a middle ground that integrates these elements into a more coherent whole. As America begins to gradually disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan there is the potential for negative feelings toward the United States to begin to abate. Muslims generally perceive U.S. military forces in the region as a threatening presence designed to keep the region the way America wants it to be. Any lightening of America's military footprint will further mitigate this sense of being coerced."

So I propose, based on the data that the secular fundamentalists explants be called the irrational war mongers since they seek to deluge their native nation and their adopted nation in a war that is detrimental to innocents in the West and East based on their NON EVIDENCE based perception of how the world should be run.

[Admin Khan]

BA,

Could that opinion be because perhaps they haven't tried other flavors?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I would say that even if that were an inference, the notion that a bunch of white people with guns, themselves being forced, to in turn force Afghans of a completely different creed - also because Karzai and his sympathizers mask their goal for material benefit.... Is dubious and very negligent. It basically means that the war Mongers think the average Afghan is too stupid to make autonomous decisions.

The abundance of history (especially recently) shows that nations have to want to "try the secular democratic flavor" internally for any traction. Otherwise what emerges is oppression and blowback induced by radicalization.

BA,

Could that opinion be because perhaps they haven't tried other flavors?

[Talal]

Even the new middle class emerging in pakistan shuns secularism and is increasingly conservative. Our societies cannot be secular anymore because years of wars on muslim societies have pushed them to be conservative.

Even in the biggest secular country in the world i.e India, muslims want their communities to be governed by sharia law ( First sharia court has just been formed in mumbai )

We as muslim societies are better off with being good conservatives than having the west shove secularism down our throats and that too at gun points. Why do we muslims in west shy away so much from true islamic values as a society? we believe in them do we not ? yet some of us fear by advocating them we are being extremist loyalists.

I think there is true peace to be had in sticking to our roots which are truly Islamic and not some twisted version of the sharia that these taliban practice and nor the Utopian secularism that the west keeps shoving down our throats. Our identity is Islamic and we have to reform our societies based on that.

[Badlun]

Few questions and comments on the report

1. Do you think this study really represents the real situation and opinion of billions of Muslims in more than 55 countries?

2. Why so readily we believe in a study conducted by infidels about Muslims? Why Muslims do not have their own think tanks to conduct such research? Do we have such system to analyze our own situation and may not depend on out siders? Why we doubt other initiatives of infidels but quickly believe in them when they talk about the things dear to us to push Muslims in a stone age system of so called Sharia?

3. Have you read that even in this limited study people differ on the definition of Sharia. Very few are in favor of cutting of hands, stoning to death and other barbarous punishments and few in favor of veil and converting women in living corpses.

4. Why countries on top for Sharia like Afghanistan is one of the most backward countries of the world? For them Sharia is not only law but also applicable on individual and family where state is not involved. Why this Sharia on personal level could not transform the lives of these people for the last 1400 years. Why these people who are totally for Sharia do not have a complete Sharia based state with development, prosperity , education and health?

5. Where does appear the term Sharia in Quran or Hadith? Why Muslims are required to follow Sharia? Is Islam the name of the religion of Muslims not Sharia. Role of Islam is limited to person and family and here what Muslims want Islam or its new name Sharia but not on state or societal level. This is what the study says that for family laws most of them want Sharia but many against the harsh punishments. I do not have any problem with Islam on individual or family level but not on society or state level. And this is what Islam remained implemented through out history. Otherwise we could have Sharia based states today and in the past.

[randolph85]

1. why do you ask so many stupid and ridiculous questions?



a reputable institution conducted the largest study of its kind and not only do u doubt it, u have the nerve to even ask such stupid questions like "where is shariah in the quran and hadith?"

really?

[asad71]

1.Muslims want to be governed by and live with their own laws. And that is Shariah which is a tested and tried system we followed for centuries before the Western Christian Civilization (WCC) colonized or semi-colonized most of us.

2. Plato and Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke and Hobbes, Adam Smith, Marx and Engels are all products of Western heritage and Christian tradition. Why should we adopt their ideals, values, morals and life style?

[Toramana]

This is at most a stupid survey --- I am sure few of those interviewed have any idea of what sharia is. Even if you ask those selling drugs in the suburbs of Kandahar they would tell you we want Shia. Sharia for them is the rural conservative life-style.

Afghanistan already saw Sharia under Taleban. And how were the people jubilant when they got rid of it in 2001. How did people flood barber shops to shave their beards and cursed Taleban; every body knows that.

Civilization must march on --- no return to the age of barbarism. If Barkzai want Sharia he can well migrate to some cave in Waziristan or Kandahar and start living the ideal life.

We want Sufi Islam.

[Khostai]

^you want sufi Islam.
I think there is difrence between a true sharia that those 99% of Afghans want and the barbarism of taliban.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Few questions and comments on the report

1. Do you think this study really represents the real situation and opinion of billions of Muslims in more than 55 countries?

Well, that is why polls and studies are done - to try and at least sample - via epidemiological and scientific means - the values and views of the population in an impartial way. I feel as if you are trying to reset goal posts whenever a study emerges that is fair, powerful, and contrary to your beliefs.

2. Why so readily we believe in a study conducted by infidels about Muslims? Why Muslims do not have their own think tanks to conduct such research? Do we have such system to analyze our own situation and may not depend on out siders? Why we doubt other initiatives of infidels but quickly believe in them when they talk about the things dear to us to push Muslims in a stone age system of so called Sharia?

Being an infidel or being a Muslim has nothing to do with accuracy of research or innate abilities or quality of products. I think that actually is a concept running counter to secular humanism. Morever, Dr. Kull and his colleagues are academicians who remain above the fray and have advocated in a general military industrial direction away from interventions harmful to their own people based on the data sets.

3. Have you read that even in this limited study people differ on the definition of Sharia. Very few are in favor of cutting of hands, stoning to death and other barbarous punishments and few in favor of veil and converting women in living corpses.

Caveat: BETWEEN nations, but generally within regions and subgroups the data accords with more localized uniform views. They may view this in a way that federated states view things. For instance - how connecticut punishes automobile theft versus texas is variant. The death penalty is illegal in some states and not others - based on local perceptions of justice though all accord to the federal underpinnings. In this same way - just as various jurisprudence schools of thought flourished for years and responded to the needs of the people - so too would a federated system emerge. Basically Scheuer's thesis proves true.

4. Why countries on top for Sharia like Afghanistan is one of the most backward countries of the world? For them Sharia is not only law but also applicable on individual and family where state is not involved. Why this Sharia on personal level could not transform the lives of these people for the last 1400 years. Why these people who are totally for Sharia do not have a complete Sharia based state with development, prosperity , education and health?

Well, that is their business and I think that is the key... THEIR CHOICE... THEIR BUSINESS... THERE LAND... THEIR RIGHT TO AUTONOMY. Regarding what sharia did or did not do for the people - some of the greatest expansion phases of the early empire and victories took place under the executor of sharia par excellance - Omar Bin Al Khattab. He illustrated the utilization of Islam's penal code and during his time the empire expanded into Aryana and Uthman Bin Affan picked up on these gains.

5. Where does appear the term Sharia in Quran or Hadith? Why Muslims are required to follow Sharia? Is Islam the name of the religion of Muslims not Sharia. Role of Islam is limited to person and family and here what Muslims want Islam or its new name Sharia but not on state or societal level. This is what the study says that for family laws most of them want Sharia but many against the harsh punishments. I do not have any problem with Islam on individual or family level but not on society or state level. And this is what Islam remained implemented through out history. Otherwise we could have Sharia based states today and in the past.

We discussed the use of the word in the Quran in the past. I respectfully request you look back at SXE and our discussions regarding the subject as I do not wish to take up unncessary space here regarding this.

x

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is at most a stupid survey --- I am sure few of those interviewed have any idea of what sharia is. Even if you ask those selling drugs in the suburbs of Kandahar they would tell you we want Shia. Sharia for them is the rural conservative life-style.

No, the survey is not stupid - but your commentary generally is. The authors, the esteemed Dr. Kull made sure to premeditate your subpar criticism and desire to subvert the data and he SPECIFIED the types of punishments in a subanalysis. Nice try though - may Farhat Taj Andersen can sneak 400 sample points by you - but not rigorous workers like Kull, Pape, Scheuer, Hoh, and others.

Afghanistan already saw Sharia under Taleban. And how were the people jubilant when they got rid of it in 2001.

The jiggalo named Karzai and a few remnant Najibiites are not really "the Pashtun people."

How did people flood barber shops to shave their beards and cursed Taleban; every body knows that.

In Kabul. Enough said.

Civilization must march on --- no return to the age of barbarism.

Or you will make it right? Because you cannot fight your wars you will be busy bussing off Tom and Susie to decimate the locals who you view as cattle for your social experiments.

If Barkzai want Sharia he can well migrate to some cave in Waziristan or Kandahar and start living the ideal life.

You missed the point - no wonder no one takes your or Taj Andersen's work seriously. Agenda blinds you. The survey has nothing to do with what Barakzai wants or doesnt want or where he lives. So and So in the village wants these things and ethical restraint demands that he be autonomously allowed to make this own decision and craft his own destiny. Thankfully, many western Patriots are realizing that you guys are the bloodthirsty sore losers and it is our sincere hope that they (NATO) tie you guys to some hellfire missiles and fire you into the militant camps.

We want Sufi Islam.

Nice try. You have already proven you have no grasp nor understanding of Sufi Islam. What you want is to do what Islam Karimov and others have done with Islam and its adherents which is to torture it out of the people.

x

[Admin Khan]

This is at most a stupid survey --- I am sure few of those interviewed have any idea of what sharia is. Even if you ask those selling drugs in the suburbs of Kandahar they would tell you we want Shia. Sharia for them is the rural conservative life-style.

Afghanistan already saw Sharia under Taleban. And how were the people jubilant when they got rid of it in 2001. How did people flood barber shops to shave their beards and cursed Taleban; every body knows that.

Civilization must march on --- no return to the age of barbarism. If Barkzai want Sharia he can well migrate to some cave in Waziristan or Kandahar and start living the ideal life.

We want Sufi Islam.

I didn't expect such nonsense from you Toramana.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I didn't expect such nonsense from you Toramana.

Admin Khan,

No need to respond since its below your station as moderator/administrator:
Toramana and I have a strange relationship. I secretly like the guy and respect his intellect but then he pretty much plays true to what is writtena and what I have written about the Pashtun Nationalists again and again.

A while back - Soldat made the same slip up about Afghans being backwards etc on that ExMuslims site and requiring brute force.

An even farther while back there was a site I would link to based on Jamestown Virginia called the Tribal Analysis Center that was nonpartisan and American funded and based. The CEO and chief officers are all Americans. He came up with some grand theory about how Jamiat Islami has infiltrated The TAC and he would demand an investigation of it from his partisan buddies.

Well, TAC recently summarized the way that the the ANP and others operate:
http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/...20Strategy.pdf

You will really enjoy that publication recently by the TAC and it contains a key quote:

"Pakistan’s Pashtuns may be attempting to maneuver the whole country in an entirely new direction and in the process gain primacy within
the country’s most powerful constituency, the military. If successful in this likely strategy, they may plan to snatch the old Durrani strategy of creating “Pashtunistan” out of Pakistan’s national territory by creating their version of Pashtunistan from Afghanistan’s Pashtun areas.1 A few wellinformed Pakistani-origin Pashtuns believe that some powerful fellow Pashtuns within Pakistan have a very chauvinistic belief in the superiority of Pakistan’s Pashtuns when compared to Afghanistan’s Pashtuns. Additionally, they appear to have adopted a plan to support and modernize their Afghan Pashtun cousins in an effort to recover their ethnic group’s lost primacy in South Asia.2 As with nearly all ethnic nationalist groups, recovering lost status, power, and territory often becomes a historic necessity of ethnic nationalists and Pakistan’s Pashtuns clearly appear to be on this sort of political and military trajectory."

And now he will cry foul and raise he-ll claiming this is dividing lar and bar etc etc. Its not dividing tit from tat... its a citation from this article that has been borne true in the sentiments expressed here from time to time. My point here is - trust no political party - even the supposed nationalist ones across the border. And its obvious its not every Pashtun there but a select group taht feels this way.

Look at what these thugs did in Swat the other day:

" ANP leader and workers inflicted violence on JI workers but also resorted to aerial firing after being refused to give vote to by a shopkeeper who was a JI supporter. The refusal by a shopkeeper was considered as an affront which highly disconcerted the ANP leader and with the help of his friends accompanying him at the time brutally beat the shopkeeper,” Muhammed Ameen told at the press conference. He further added that in spite of the high pitched claims of adherence to Bacha Khan’s philosophy of non-violence, the beating of a poor shopkeeper tells a completely different tale."
http://zamaswat.com/en/2013/05/02/cl...s-and-workers/

Then these had the aplomb to try and claim that the shop keepers were doing AK firing around them which is why they resorted to this.