February 06, 2006

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Islam

Dean Esmay has a pretty good post about whether or not Islam compatible with democracy or not. Go read it.

Also, after you have read it you should probably read my essay Marx, Communism, Totalitarianism; Muhammed, Islam, Terrorism, in which I argue that Islam is a socio-political ideology every bit as much as it is a religion. It is much like Marxism in that the core ideology itself leads is incompatible with Western liberalism.

Now, let's return to Dean's post. Unfortunately, the data he provides is a classic example of what statisticians call selection bias. That is, you use data which supports your hypothesis and then exclude data which nullifies it.

Another problem is that the data do show that Muslim nations are becoming more free. A good sign, no doubt. But becoming more free does not make one free. One might argue that China is becoming more free, or that the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was becoming less authoritarian, yet there is no doubt in my mind that Communism is somehow intertwined with the fact that freedom was so scarce. Becoming more or less of anything is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

Further, Indonesia has been a terrible ally in the war on terror. See this, this, this, this, and this. They have not cracked down on radical Muslims any more than has suited their own national interests. It is in no way a liberal democracy. Freedom House is simply wrong in this respect. I would point out that it is a crime for a Christian to give a Bible to a Muslin in Indonesia. And much of the Indonesian culture itself is not tolerant in any liberal sense of the word. And is a country truly a liberal democracy if a pictureless version of Playboy is banned?

Last, he gives the example of Senegal and Mali as the only nations on earth that have a Muslim majority and which are listed by Freedom House as liberal democracies (excluding Indonesia). Given that Freedom House gets it dead wrong on Indonesia, I suspect that there may be problems with their coding of Senegal and Mali as well. But I could be wrong. I don't know enough about these countries to speak on whether or not Freedom House correctly codes them.

However, statistically speaking two examples do not a falsification make. There are always exceptions to rules. My original point was that the Left loved to use Yugoslavia as an exemple of a 'free' Communist country. Even if we were to grant them that Yugoslavia was 'free' during the Cold War, to claim that there was not a causal relationship between Communism and totalitarianism based on a single outlier is an example of poor analysis (or poor operationalizing skills).

If one were really interested in seeing whether or not there is a relationship between Islam and liberalism, I would suggest the following. In fact, I dare any one to run the following analysis.

Hypothesis: there is a strong correlation between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.

Null Hypothesis: there is no relationship between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.

Plot a simple OLS regression model with the two variables. The first variable would simply be % Muslim. The second variable would be the Freedom House numbers. Since the Freedom House Numbers are coded negatively the following results should be found.

If Dean is right, and there is no relationship between Islam and freedom, then obviously the plots should be completely randomly distributed.

If I am right, and there is a relationship between Islam and freedom, then a positively sloping line should emerge. That is to say, as the percentage of Muslims in a country goes up, the Freedom House numbers should also go up.

The third alternative, of course, is that there is a positive correlation between Islam and liberal democracy, in which case one would find a negatively sloping line.

If we are agreed that the above is a moderately fair way of empircally testing the relationship between Islam and tyranny, then the gauntlet has been thrown. I personally do not have the time to run the numbers, but perhaps some enterprising blogger with moderate experience using SPSS would like to give it a go? PS-Dean offers a spreadsheet, but since I don't know what exactly it represents, I'm not sure how to interpret those data.

Also, Dean and I are on very good personal terms. Please do not misunderstand my criticisms of his analysis as anything more than friendly. I consider Dean and Rosemary Esmay personal friends (in the blogging sense of the word) and will not tolerate any talk of Dean being a 'dhimmi' or other such nonsense.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:00 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 835 words, total size 6 kb.

1 that looks like a lot of reading Rusty.....ill set aside an hour for that later.

Posted by: ian uk at February 06, 2006 11:21 AM (GhCfc)

2 I must say that I do see most countries with a Muslim majority as not truely "free" in any sense of the word, however the one country in the above article that always draws in my interest is Turkey. The Turks seemed to have done a much better job of integrating the freedoms of the West with the teachings of Islam. Using the cartoon fiasco as an example, I have not heard of any mass rioting in Turkey in response to these cartoons. While it is not yet fully integrated with the teachings of a true democracy, and I will not be happy until it does, Turkey may be a good country to look at as to where to start "converting" a nation from Islam to a true democracy.

Posted by: Geoff at February 06, 2006 11:28 AM (QOljS)

3 Geoff, the Turks already shot a Christian priest dead over the cartoons, I guess they are not as liberal as they would like to be seen as. Can read the story here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/05/news/turkey.php

Posted by: dave clarke at February 06, 2006 11:33 AM (V8wjL)

4 The interesting thing about Turkey is it is an experiment in 'forcing one to be free'. Turkey has had to ban many religious expressions precisely because past leaders believed they had to force secularism down the throats of the Turkish people.

Posted by: Rusty at February 06, 2006 11:42 AM (JQjhA)

5 Let's see. I have had two death threats made against me by people from Turkey over this cartoon issue. I would not allow Turkey to enter the EU for any reason. Europe will be flooded with radical Muslims, who make up between 25-40 per cent of the Turkish population. Geoff, the people of Europe need to study Turkey very carefully. The trends are not encouraging, as the radicals and even jihadists are seeing gains in power and influence. I would never let Turkey enter the EU. The power of Islam is just too great a risk. Of course, that is just my opinion, but I urge caution.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 12:15 PM (rUyw4)

6 Well Rusty I believe YOU failed to mention the two best models for muslim democracy Afghanistan and Iraq. LOL

Posted by: john ryan at February 06, 2006 12:21 PM (TcoRJ)

7 Thank you all for the enlightning posts and comments. Although I have heard about what I thought were remote instances of abuse against freedom, I was much more misinformed than I would have thought.

Posted by: Geoff at February 06, 2006 12:21 PM (QOljS)

8 Yes, John, you may laugh, as the present situation has shown that there is no hope for any Muslim country.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 12:25 PM (rUyw4)

9 If you look at Jesus' and Paul's philosophy, you would expect all Christian countries to be pacifist communes. Fortunately, for most of Christianity's history the masses were unable to read the Bible, so the West was mercifully spared these ideas. By the time it was translated into the vernacular, a firm tradition of not taking inconvenient portions of the Holy Writ seriously had been established which continues to the present day. The modern Christian can bomb people and get rich while he imagines he follows the Prince of Peace who despised wealth. On the other hand you have the Muslims. They have been cursed with a Holy Book that they can read. Worse still, the text actually makes sense--not that it's *good* advice, mind you, but at least it sounds like something other than what you'd find scrawled in purple crayon by a schizophrenia patient. Worst of all, it actually sounds good. No kidding. By all accounts Koran is spellbinding poetry to native speakers of Arabic, and of course they believe every word because it's beautiful. The entire Middle East has been enthralled for 1300 years by an uncommonly good MTV rotation. Imagine if all U.S. domestic and foregn policy had been founded on the lyrics of Tracy Chapman and Madonna! We hope that the Muslims will follow in the spiritual footsteps of the West so we won't have to blast the whole lot of them to bits. We hope that Mohammed and the Koran will become revered yet disregarded figures for Islam as Jesus and the Bible are for Christianity. In blunt language we hope that the Muslims will grow a pair of nuts and learn to thrust their moral opinions into the mouth of God like Christians have been doing since the Enlightenment. I'm not confident that they will. These people love their poetry and they're not all that brave.

Posted by: ShannonKW at February 06, 2006 12:26 PM (dT1MB)

10 Amusing snippets from this post/thread: "Becoming more or less of anything is kind of irrelevant to the discussion." Er, no it's not. What part of trend analysis do you not grasp? All of it? "Geoff, the Turks already shot a Christian priest dead over the cartoons, I guess they are not as liberal as they would like to be seen as." The Turks? Like, all of them/i> and stuff? Hey Dave Clark - "the Americans" torture and eat young boys! I guess they're not as into vegetables as they'd like to be seen as. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 06, 2006 12:28 PM (yZMsp)

11 There is no muslim nation that is not our enemy, some just pretend not to be so as to benefit from a relationship with us.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 01:42 PM (0yYS2)

12 No, many Muslim nations are our allies. But alliances are formed over mutual interests, and not necessarily mutual ideologies. Just because they are less repressive than, say, the Taliban does not mean that they are not repressive. Bill, Trend analysis only matters based on assumption that the trend line continues in one direction. But as you well know there is such a thing as a plateu. Also, to say Islam is the root cause of Muslim theocratic tyranny and the vast majority of terrorism in the world is not to say we should not support regimes like the ones that are emerging in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should be remembered that Afghanistan does not allow freedom of religion, even post Taliban. Nor in Iraq. Yet, we support them because their brand of tyranny is far better than the tyranny they replaced. That is to say, it is in our interests that what passes for a democracy in an Islamic country be established in Iraq and Afghanistan but it is folly to imagine that Afghanis might ever be free spread the good news of Krishna.

Posted by: Rusty at February 06, 2006 02:33 PM (JQjhA)

13 Very depressing, Rusty, but this shows that the number one priority of the US should be to become energy independant. If we need to do something akin to the Manhattan Project, so be it, but let's do it now.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 03:39 PM (rUyw4)

14 Who said that there is anything in history is called holocaust, who said that it is true who said that it happened. Ask yourself before others why is it important to us to accept a big lie in history that this matter took place during a second world war. Facts millions and millions of people were killed no one till today knows where there graves are. On the soviet side alone (Russia) lost 20 million people whom were killed during war, so how they are calling for the holocaust that it is a fact if many millions were also killed. How can any one prove that those so called concentration camps were not for Jews but for troops during the war? It is the biggest lie in history and today leaders in Europe are supporting the Jews not for any thing but to stay in the power. Jews are black milling Europeans to pay for a big lie. People in Europe are illiterate of history it is the second generation who are living in Europe and those who were alive during the war days they were kidnapped by the allies during the war to write history the way new comers want it. It is not clearer than today that nothing in history took place was called the holocaust. This is a real fabrication done by liars in Europe received money by rich Jews to be either silent or supporter for the big lie. We and every body know that the gas rooms, concentration camps are all false incidents to collect long-term benefits through all European governments. No one knows the true of the lie except the fabricators from the Jews who took all the advantages from Europe. Do I dare in Europe to express this idea in the media do I dare to talk in the TV do I dare to announce this in the newspaper. Where is freedom to talk about the biggest lie in history? In addition, till when we should accept the false history I will say the truth.

Posted by: sim at February 07, 2006 10:06 AM (Zl2Qs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
31kb generated in CPU 0.0609, elapsed 0.1852 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1751 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.