This must be kept in mind when interpreting the results. Another problem is the risk of respondents considering what they think is socially acceptable or wise when answering the attitude questions. Here, it is an advantage that the interviews were done by means of a self-completion questionnaire, thus avoiding an interviewer effect.
According to attitude theories, one can differentiate between three dimensions of attitudes: the affective or emotional dimension, the cognitive dimension, and the conative or behavioural dimension. To measure mutual feelings, respondents were asked if they had a particular sympathy or a certain dislike of the other group.
Dislike of Muslims Percent. Due to a sampling error, this question was only asked of respondents in the Jewish sample.
In both cases, the Jews less often show negative feelings and more often positive feelings towards Muslims, while the Muslims more often show negative feelings and less often positive feelings toward Jews compared to the attitudes of the general population.
However, when both minorities are compared directly, Muslims less often express negative feelings toward Jews 9. The fact that someone feels no particular sympathy towards a group does not necessarily mean that he has an antipathy, but only that his sympathy may not be very pronounced. Both groups seem to follow approximately the same tendencies as the general population: Jews are generally seen less negative and more often positive than Muslims — that is, Muslims reject Jews only a little more frequently 9.
Muslims show only a little less sympathy for Jews To get information about the social relationship between groups, one can try to measure the social distance or proximity between them.
The respondents were asked to give their opinion on having Jews or Muslims as neighbours or in their circle of friends. Contrary to the expectation that respondents would rarely accept Jews or Muslims as friends, i.
The finding that the general population and Jews would like Muslims more often among their friends than as neighbours may be explained by the fact that one can choose socially similar persons as friends, while this is not the case with neighbours. In the case of rejection as a neighbour, apart from ethnic or cultural differences, social status also plays an important role.
Since Muslims in Norway are immigrants, it is possibly assumed that they have a different lifestyle and more often belong to a lower social class.
With regard to the emotional components of antipathy and social distance, one can conclude, that the responses of the two minorities are not very different from those of the general population. Muslims show dislike and social distance towards Jews only slightly more frequently than the general population; Jews show this towards Muslims even less compared to the attitude of the population. However, Jews are more likely to show dislike and social distance to Muslims than vice versa.
While the differences between the attitudes of Muslims and the general population towards Jews are quite small with respect to the emotional and social dimension of prejudice, they become larger in the cognitive dimension, as the following figures 7.
Muslim respondents agree clearly more often than the general population to all negative items. See Antidefamation League, Global Concerning the three positive items Jews are family-oriented, artistically gifted and more intelligent , there is no clear pattern.
That is, those who consider Jews to be particularly intelligent often do so against the background of an antisemitic prejudice. Table 7. In the Muslim sample, statements about the international influence of Jews are the most important. The ancient topos of Christian theology that Jews have to attribute their visible misfortune and persecution to themselves as punishment for the denial of Jesus as the Messiah and their killing of Christ may be not so important for the Muslims.
Another reason could be a feeling of a common fate: as a minority in Norway and in other European countries Muslims also see themselves confronted with prejudice and discrimination see below. Figure 7. Index on prejudice against Jews Percent. Population and Muslim samples. With six out of seven negative items in Table 7. This results in a scale ranging from 0 to Opinions on stereotypes of Muslims Percent.
See footnote 6. Turning to the list of statements about Muslims, we can see that in this case the general population agrees more often to the negative statements and less often to the positive ones than the Jewish respondents. But both groups agree more often to the Islamophobic prejudices compared to the prevalence of anti-Jewish prejudices among the general population and the Muslims.
Since the scales of prejudice against Jews and Muslims consist of different items, one cannot, of course, compare the results directly. Nevertheless, in this case one can at least say that they point in the same direction as the emotional rejection and social distance, which are higher with respect to Muslims than to Jews. Looking at the eight negative statements, one can see that the general population and the Jews differ most in those statements, which formulate doubts about the ability or the will of Muslims to adhere or to integrate into Western society and in particular into Norwegian culture and society, while both groups are closer together in statements dealing with Muslim violence, the oppression of women and the fear that Islam might want to take over Europe.
The reason why Jews believe in the ability of Muslims to integrate more often than the general population lies probably in the historical experience of the Jews, whose ability to integrate and belong to European society had similarly been doubted for a long time.
The very high education level among the Jewish sample may also have exerted an influence here. Due to a sampling error only of the total Jewish sample were asked this question, which was answered by respondents 7 missings.
The high level of approval may be an indicator that the respondents evaluate this as a kind of common knowledge with a certain basis in reality. Index on prejudice against Muslims Percent. Population and Jewish samples. Prejudices against Muslims are less widespread among Jews than among the general population, which may be due to the higher level of education of the Jewish respondents and possibly also to a form of minority solidarity see section 3.
While In case of the anti-Muslim prejudice, the general population and the Jews differ less When we compare the number of high scorers in both minorities, i. In a last step, we build combined indexes of antisemitism and Islamophobia by linking up the three indexes we build to measure dislike, social distance and prejudice. Combined index on antisemitism Percent.
Population and Muslim sample. When the cut-off point is determined between 1 and 2 points between low and high scorers, one gets not only a small proportion of high scorers among the population 5. Therefore, one can say that antisemitic ideas are quite widespread, especially among the Muslims, but that the number of hard-core antisemitic respondents is rather small.
Combined index on Islamophobia Percent. The picture is not as good when we look at the combined index on Islamophobia, where we count a much higher proportion of respondents who are among the hard-core Islamophobes — despite the low approval on the dislike dimension and the social distance dimension.
One has to keep in mind that both indexes of prejudices against Jews and against Muslims consist of different statements, so the results cannot be compared one to one. Nevertheless, negative attitudes are much more prevalent towards Muslims than towards Jews. One can assume that an emotional rejection dislike of a group will be closely connected with negative opinions towards them.
But given the clearly smaller proportion of those who declared having a certain dislike of Jews or Muslims compared to those agreeing to one or more antisemitic or Islamophobic statements, both dimensions of prejudice seem only partly to overlap. Dislike of Muslims by Prejudice against Muslims Percent. Jewish sample. The Jewish respondents answered on both dimensions of prejudice in a coherent way. For the Muslim respondents, the emotional and the cognitive dimensions of antisemitism seem not to be very closely connected.
Therefore, we can say that the correlation between the emotional and the cognitive dimension of prejudices differs greatly between the two groups. An important question for the relationship between Jews and Muslims in Norway concerns the attitude towards the Holocaust, whereby here, too, the attitude of the Norwegian population as a benchmark is important.
On the subject, three questions were included in our survey. Muslim respondents who have never heard of the Holocaust Only It is no surprise that Jewish respondents almost completely disagree that Jews exploit the Holocaust Half of the Muslim respondents cannot answer the question of whether Jews exploit the Holocaust; after all, almost a third Nevertheless, a quarter of the latter cannot answer the question, while Especially among Muslim respondents, this opinion may be based on the general view that in Norway and other Western countries, Jewish victims of the past are acknowledged more than Muslims in the present Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, etc.
The impression that as an obligation from the consequences of the Holocaust, the United States especially, but also Western European states tend to support the side of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or, for example, do not sufficiently criticise its settlement policy, may also play a role here.
Concerning the question about the importance of knowing about the Holocaust, almost none in the three samples contest the assumption that this would help in preventing oppression of minorities.
However, while a large majority of the Jews and the general population is convinced that the knowledge of the Holocaust is a suitable means of prevention, the Muslim respondents are less likely to believe it. Concerning the question of whether Jews today are entitled to their own state because of the Holocaust, there are no clear-cut answers in either group; even It is, however, likely that there are different reasons for this refusal.
While Jews may feel they have a right to their own state regardless of the Holocaust, Muslims and a part of the general population could contest that Jews are entitled to their own state in spite of the Holocaust. In the face of the conflict over land between Israelis and Palestinians, it is surprising that Muslims reject this opinion less frequently than the general population and agree with it as often as the population. Both among the Muslims and among the general population, it is striking that a large proportion cannot answer this question, or did not answer.
Overall, the opinions on Holocaust-related issues are clearly divergent between the Muslim and the Jewish sample, with the population taking a middle position that is, nevertheless, closer to Muslims than to Jews — with the exception of the item about the importance of knowledge about the Holocaust for the prevention of racism. As we have seen, antipathy and social distance between Jews and Muslims in Norway are not very widespread, despite the existence of mutual prejudice.
It is therefore not surprising that a large majority in both groups, as minorities in the country, want to cooperate in the fight against prejudice and discrimination. Only a small minority in both groups does not believe that Jews and Muslims can cooperate in this respect. Do you think that Muslims and Jews can cooperate on combating prejudice and discrimination? Muslim and Jewish samples.
Do you think that Muslims and Jews as minorities in Norway have any common experiences? The distribution of the answers in Tables 7. A majority sees the possibility for cooperation based in common experiences as religious minorities. Jews are here more often optimistic than Muslims, although their proportion is also a little bit larger among those who disagree with both statements.
Do the attitudes towards the other group have an influence on the answers to the question of common experiences? In the case of the Jews, a clear relation can be seen between the answers to this question and the level of Islamophobia, measured by the combined index on Islamophobia. In contrast to the distribution of responses in the Jewish sample, about half of the Muslim interviewees, regardless of whether they have an antisemitic attitude or not, also see common ground between the experiences of Jews and Muslims.
An important point for the readiness to cooperate concerns the question of equal treatment of both groups. In this case, a majority of the respondents of both samples seem to have no clear idea about how the authorities treat the other group.
Do you think that Norwegian authorities treat Muslims and Jews equally? In voicing our concern, we hope to bring the Muslim community together to publicly denounce calls for genocide against other faiths.
In voicing a deeply passionate call to end using mosque pulpits, or any pulpit, for advocating violence that could ultimately lead to genocide, Wasatia aims to create a more humanistic future. Policy Analysis Fikra Forum. Sep 5, Also available in Arabic. About the Authors. Mohammed Dajani. Brief Analysis. September 5, Recently, another controversy erupted over a one-hour sermon delivered at the Islamic Center of Davis in California by Imam Ammar Shahin.
The vast majority of U. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research.
Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Newsletters Donate My Account. Research Topics. Religions and Violence Majorities or pluralities in the U. Banning Head Scarves The decision by some countries to ban the wearing of head scarves by Muslim women in public places — including schools — draws a uniformly negative reaction in the Muslim world. Demographic Differences in U. Next: II. Facts are more important than ever In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data.
Are you a Faith and Flag Conservative? Progressive Left? Or somewhere in between? Take our quiz to find out. But after the birth of Islam in the seventh century, Christian theologians came to see both Muslims and Jews as heretics - corrupters of religious truth; or, to put it another way, rivals within the same Abrahamic monotheistic world.
Jews and Muslims were regarded in similar fashion as obstinate, law-loving rejectors of Christ. In an era in which theology and ideas of temporal power were intrinsically linked, the perceived religious competition between Judaism, Islam, and, indeed, different forms of Christianity, was understood as a struggle for political authority.
Of course, the idea of Islam as an enemy of Christendom was not confined to theology. With the rise of the Islamic empires, the Ottoman expansion into Europe and their capture of Constantinople, the Eastern Christian capital, in , the military threat was quite real.
Yet theology was the underlying source of the potency of the Christian fear of the Jew and the Muslim as existential enemies. The conjoining of the Jew and the Arab Muslim in the European mind was made most explicit in the idea of "the Semites.
The creation of the term belonged to the scientific endeavor to classify human groups according to linguistic-racial characteristics. But the story of the Semites was not secular.
The term derived from the name Sem, the Latin for Shem, who, according to the Book of Genesis, was one of the sons of Noah, and the ancestor of Abraham. The descendants of Sem were thought to inhabit the desert lands of Western Asia, and included both Arabs and Jews. The Sem-ites were, according to the story, separate from the children of Japhet, who, many thought, became the peoples of Europe. Islam did not - and does not - hold the same significance for the Christian West.
Hence, within the notion of the Semites there was a fundamental imbalance, which made the idea of the Jewish-Muslim bond inherently vulnerable, if put under strain. This eventually happened, of course, with the conflict over Israel-Palestine that erupted in the 20th century.
0コメント