<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Economist&#8217;s comment on Muslim Attitudes&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/27/economist-on-muslim-attitudes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/27/economist-on-muslim-attitudes/</link>
	<description>Dedicated to "Bharat" and "Dharma"</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 14:46:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shefaly</title>
		<link>http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/27/economist-on-muslim-attitudes/comment-page-1/#comment-847</link>
		<dc:creator>Shefaly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:59:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/economist-on-muslim-attitudes/#comment-847</guid>
		<description>The most encouraging thing about the article?

That, with the exception of Britain (2.7% Muslims), Italy (14% Muslims) and Russia (6% Muslims), India (20% Muslims) seems to have the smallest percentage - of a very large number - who thinks a violent conflict is inevitable.

And call me naive, but 92% of Muslims who are not in favour of terrorist acts is something not to ignore either.

That is the problem with statistics. It can be interpreted either way, depending on the lens. Also since we do not know what questions were asked, how do we know how to interpret the answers?

But interesting to see some interest in the matter.

Back in late 1990s, all Asians in the UK were just that - Asians. Around early Noughties, the FT started to recognise Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. What prompted that segmentation? Perhaps it is worth exploring, knowing and using again.

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most encouraging thing about the article?</p>
<p>That, with the exception of Britain (2.7% Muslims), Italy (14% Muslims) and Russia (6% Muslims), India (20% Muslims) seems to have the smallest percentage &#8211; of a very large number &#8211; who thinks a violent conflict is inevitable.</p>
<p>And call me naive, but 92% of Muslims who are not in favour of terrorist acts is something not to ignore either.</p>
<p>That is the problem with statistics. It can be interpreted either way, depending on the lens. Also since we do not know what questions were asked, how do we know how to interpret the answers?</p>
<p>But interesting to see some interest in the matter.</p>
<p>Back in late 1990s, all Asians in the UK were just that &#8211; Asians. Around early Noughties, the FT started to recognise Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. What prompted that segmentation? Perhaps it is worth exploring, knowing and using again.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 3/8 queries in 0.037 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 205/209 objects using disk: basic

Served from: satyameva-jayate.org @ 2012-05-23 14:00:23 -->
