They Cooked the Books

The Gallup-approved science and research foundation, has fraudulently underreported the number of Islamic Radicals, the lie has surfaced.

By de Andréa

The ‘tail’ of deception is the end of truth:

In the several years that I have been studying and writing about Islam, I have repeatedly stated the question-- “ If there are only a very few terrorist Muslims among the reportedly 1 billon plus Muslims in the world, I wonder why we never seem to run out of them?” Here is why…

But before I begin I want you the understand that this so-called research is the entire foundation for the belief that there are “only a very few radical terrorists Muslims” as few a seven percent, which leaves a whopping 90 plus percent as warm fuzzy people that want to live their lives as benevolent and charitable as Christians. This is a tale of lies perpetuated by a Muslim named Dalia Mogahed and a brain-washed academic of Middle Eastern studies John Esposito and blessed by the integrity of the Gallop research foundation.

In a stunning illustration of how apologists for militant Islam have totally distorted the truth, it is now beginning to leak like a wire boat. This is how John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in a book called “Who Speaks for Islam” a Gallop Press book, made their own data appear to show that there were only a small percentage of “radical” Muslims worldwide. The world depends on the accuracy and integrity of Gallop science and research, and with that trust they deceived the entire Western world using the supernatural doctrine of Muslim Taqiyyah (true lies).

Esposito and Mogahed make the claim that only 7 percent of Muslims worldwide are “radical.” That amounts to about 91 million Muslims. Even though this is no small number, a closer examination of their data however, reveals that the number of those who are “radical Muslim terrorist Wahhabists” is actually more than 450 million, as much as 40 plus percent world wide. This is a long way from the measly 7 percent that the West has been deceptively led by the rein of terror, to believe.

On the inside back cover of books published by Gallup Press there is the following statement:
Gallup Press exists to educate and inform the people who govern, manage, teach and lead the world's six billion citizens. Each book meets Gallup's requirements of integrity, trust, and independence and is based on a Gallup-approved science and research.

Thanks to an admission by a coauthor of Gallup's new bestseller Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, we are now able to know precisely what Gallup's "requirements of integrity" really are.

Who Speaks for Islam? is written by John L. Esposito, founding director of (the once Christian, now Muslim) Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Understanding, and Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. As the authors state at the outset, the book's goal is to "democratize the debate" about a potential clash between Western and Muslim civilizations by shedding light on the "actual views of everyday Muslims"--especially the "silenced majority" whose views Esposito and Mogahed argue are lost in the din about terrorism, extremism, and Islamofascism.

In the Gallop research report, they contend, the majority are warm and fuzzy, just like us. They pray like Americans, dream of professional advancement like Americans, delight in technology like Americans, celebrate democracy like Americans, and cherish the ideal of women's equality like Americans. In fact, the authors write, "everyday Muslims" are so similar to ordinary Americans that "conflict between the Muslim and Western communities is far from inevitable."

All Muslims are terrorists or they support terrorism
If in fact, the approximately 60 percent majority of the self described Muslim population is as the previous paragraph says, warm fuzzy teddy bears, then this 60 percent majority of self described warm fussy Muslims are not Muslims at all. If they identify themselves with Western Christian culture rather than the Muslim culture, then they are anything but Muslims, or they are liars. And because of the doctrine of Taqiyyah (Islamic deception) taught in the Quran I would rationally have to choose the later.

This means that if one is truly a Muslim then one believes in the Quran, this is the foundation of Islam. Moreover, if one believes in the Quran then one is truly a radical terrorist Wahhabist Muslim. This in turn means that all Muslims are “Terrorist Jihadists” and are our enemy. This incidentally is exactly what I have been saying for twenty years and very few have listened. I hate people that say I told you so, but I told you so. So hate me if you want to, I don’t tell the truth to become popular.

The real debate about the "clash of civilizations" is about whether a determined element of radical Muslims could, like the Bolsheviks, take control of their societies and lead them into conflict with the West. The question often revolves around a disputed data point: Of the world's 1.3 or so billion Muslims, how many are real Muslims? If the number is relatively small, then the fear of a clash is inflated; if the number is relatively large, then the nightmare could mean the demise of Western Culture.

One could also take a lesson from Lebanon who from the time of their independence from French Colonialism in the 1940’s was a Democratic Christian nation, that is until these same lies and the infiltration of Cultural Jihad by Islam took control in the 1970’s

What gives Who Speaks for Islam? its aura of credibility is that its answers are allegedly based on hard data, not taxi-driver anecdotes from a quick visit to Cairo. The book draws on a mammoth, six-year effort to poll and interview tens of thousands of Muslims in more than 35 countries with Muslim majorities or substantial minorities. The polling sample, Esposito and Mogahed claim, represents "more than 90 percent of the world's more than 1.3 billion Muslims.” To back up the claim, the book bears the name of the gold-standard of American polling firms, “Gallup”.

The answer to that all-important question, the authors say, is 7 percent. That is the percentage of Muslims who told pollsters that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were "completely" justified and who said they view the United States unfavorably--the double-barreled litmus test devised by Esposito and Mogahed to determine who is radical and who isn't. The fundamental problem here is that either Esposito or Mogahed obviously know nothing about Islam, the Quran or their basic ideology, or they purposely cooked the book, so to speak. Dalia Mogahed herself is a Muslim, another classic case of the deceived deceiving the world.

The authors don't actually call even these seven percent "radicals," however; the politically correct term they use is "politically radicalized," which implies that someone else is responsible for turning these otherwise ordinary Muslims into bin Laden sympathizers. By contrast, Muslims who said the 9/11 attacks were "not justified" they term "moderates.” A moderate by definition is one who avoids the truth, neither one side nor the other. Or, could they possibly be, a liar???

More than half the book is an effort to distinguish the 7 percent of extremist Muslims from the "9 out of 10," as they say, who are moderates and then to focus our collective efforts on reaching out to the fringe element. With remarkable exactitude, they argue: "If the 7 percent approximately 91 million of the “politically radicalized” continue to feel politically dominated, occupied and disrespected, the West will have little, if any, chance of changing their minds.” There is no need to worry about the 93 percent because, as Esposito and Mogahed have already argued, they are warm and fuzzy, just like us.

There is much here to criticize. The successful purpose of this book is to blur any difference between average Muslims around the world and average Americans, and the authors rise to the occasion at every turn. Take the very definition of "Islam.” From Karen Armstrong to Bernard Lewis--and that's a pretty broad range--virtually every scholar of note (and many who aren't) has translated the term "Islam" as "total submission to Allah. ” But "total submission" evidently sounds off-putting to the Western and American ear, so Esposito and Mogahed offer a different, more melodious translation--"a strong commitment to God"--that has a ring to it of everything but accuracy. This by the way is the doctrine of Taqiyyah (the deception of Islam) showing through the semantics.

Or take the authors' cavalier attitude to the word "many." How many is many? Thirty percent of the vote won't get Hillary Clinton nominated for president, but it would be a lot if the subject were how many Americans cheat on their taxes or beat their wives. At the very least, one might expect a book based on polling data to be filled with numbers. This one isn't. Instead, page after page of “Who Speaks for Islam”? contains useless and unsourced references. They list tiny states that don't even rank in the top 25 of Muslim majority countries. Twice they say their 10 specially polled countries collectively comprise 85 percent of the world Muslim population; in fact, the figure is barely 40 percent.

These problems would not matter much if the book gave readers the opportunity to review the poll data on which Esposito and Mogahed base their judgments. Alas, that is not the case. Neither the text nor the appendix includes the full data to a single question from any survey taken by Gallup over the entire six-year period of its World Poll initiative. We, the readers, either have to pay more than $20,000 to Gallup to gain access to its proprietary research or have to rely on the good faith of the authors.

Or, more accurately, we have to rely on Gallup's good name--the "integrity, trust and independence" cited above. Public comments by Mogahed at a luncheon at the Washington Institute on April 17 show exactly what that is worth. Here's the context: As the event was about to close, Mogahed was pressed to explain the book's central claim that radicals constitute 7 percent of the world's Muslim population. A questioner focused on the critical distinction between the 7 percent of respondents who said the 9/11 attacks were "completely justified" and the other 93 percent. How many of those 93 percent, Mogahed was asked, actually answered that the attacks were "partly," "somewhat," or even "largely" justified? Were those people truly moderates?

In her answer, Mogahed refers in pollster code to numbers ascribed to the five possible answers to the poll question about justifying 9/11. Although she and Esposito never discuss the details of this question in their book, they did expound on them in a 2006 article in Foreign Policy magazine, which described a five-point scale in which "Ones" are respondents who said 9/11 was "totally unjustified" and "Fives" those who said the attacks were "completely justified."

In that article, she and Esposito wrote: "Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radical." In the book they wrote two years later, they redefined "radical" to comprise a much smaller group--only the Fives. But in her luncheon remarks, Mogahed admitted that many of the "moderates" she and Esposito celebrated really aren't so moderate after all.

So, after the dust settled and the gun stopped smoking, there it was. Mogahed publicly admitted they knew certain people weren't moderates but they still termed them so. She and Esposito cooked the books and dumbed down the text. Apparently, by the authors' own test, there are not a hundred million radicals in Muslim societies but more than five times that number. They must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes. To paraphrase Mogahed, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but their neat solution seems to have been to redefine millions of people off the rolls of radicals.

The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents--300 million Muslims--who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed do not utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which Muslims operate.

And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of "who is a radical.” Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not "completely" justify 9/11 is .a "moderate."

Could the smart people at Gallup really believe this? Regardless, they should immediately release all the data associated with their world poll and open all the files and archives of their Center for Muslim Studies to independent inspection. With a dose of transparency and a dollop of humility, the data just might teach something useful to the world's six billion citizens. But probably not, who can now trust any of the data collected by these two incompetent frauds. Or…maybe they are not incompetent at all, just maybe it was their intention to deceive the world. After all, Ms. Mogahed is a Muslim isn’t She???

THE BOTTOM LINE: That being said, I could have saved the world from a lot of trouble and deception by suggesting that everyone in the West just buy a Quran and read it for themselves. This is the guidebook for Islam; this is their source document for their religious theocracy. It reads the same whether one is a Christian, a Buddhist, or a Muslim. At any rate, one would soon discover that if one calls themselves a Muslim, then one is compelled to join the Jihad of Islam to bring the world under the rule of the Caliph and Shariah law--- period… It would be clear to a third grader, or especially a third grader because he may not yet have been deceived. Or then again maybe they have, these days it would depend on what school they attended.

The point being, is that if one is a Muslim, then one is either a Jihadists terrorist who would kill you and your family and your friends and your neighbors if they got the chance. Or…one is a supporter in some way of one who will ---- or…one is not a Muslim. This is not rocket science as they say.

Wake up America…

de Andréa