Yes we can, Obama!

Re: # 129
The card carrying members !

masadi: i am on your side on this issue, you idiot.

dost mittar: you chose to look at the conclusions of some rinky-dink indian journal (elevating it to the status of "famous" in the process) that points to some "research" by indian sources in some indian province to take make broad-brush judgements on the factors underlying high fertility. in doing so, you merely illustrate that it is not just the internet that is littered with hindu propaganda posing as science, history etc. but also paper journals and institutes dishing out this bs in india.

if you are really interested in looking at the facts (rather than quoting studies to support your preconceived anti-muslim biases), then i suggest you do read up from some internationally recognized sources, not just made in india rubbish. look up fertility rates and studies on the demographic transition from some recognized international source like the world bank? to get started, just google "fertility rates" and see how many muslim countries have lower fertility rates than india. then come talk to me about how you tell it like you see it.

dost writes "[but pole climbing at my age is somewhat risky unless I climb on someone's shoulder.:-)]

tahmed would be your perfect partner....

tahmed writes "All the more reason to thank Jinnah"

Jinnah had a part to play in the higher fertility rate by enhancing mortality among Muslims of India due to his shenanigans and ensuring that Pakistan remained dependent on the colonials and therefore underdeveloped.

Have a nice day and go climb a pole,
TNI Masadi

masadi:

I certainly urge the chowk staff to publish your study which would show light on an important subject. [but pole climbing at my age is somewhat risky unless I climb on someone's shoulder.:-)]

anil writes "Poor you, Masadi sahib.."

Anil mian find another day job rather than follow me around as a chaprasee...

Thank you kindly,
TNI Masadi

"For example, in predominantly Muslim countries, Hindu minorities tend to have lower fertility than Muslims..."

Those Hindu minorities are usually implants from another society or their numbers are so small so as to defy comparison.

Have a nice day and keep it real
TNI Masadi

Dost writes "11% higher in urban areas and 20% higher"

It was cross national using secondary data. If you can convince chowk staff to publish it on the FP, I will submit it to them otherwise they and you can climb a pole. The higher fertility of an internally oppressed and colonized group will be higher due not to religion but to perceived and actual mortality and other structural causes. Islam has no part to play in this....

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

tahmed:

If analysing trends from census figures and quoting studies from well established scholarly journals is propaganda, then what is calling other people names without refuting that analysis?

Here is the deal tahmed saheb: I believe that religion is a factor, both in population growth as well as discrimination against Muslims in India. My friends on the Right, the Hindutva brigade, will accept that relgion is a factor in population growth but would claim that the inferior performance of Muslims in jobs is due to other factors, such as education; my friends on the Left will say the opposite, namely, that religious discrimination is a factor in jobs but the differences in population growth are solely due to socio-economic factors.

As I said, I am not in agenda-based analysis and will call the shots as I see them, regardless of name calling from either side.

#149 Masadi: For once I agree with you. It is appalling that one of the most mature and sensible indians on chowk - Dost Mittar - so happily falls into this hindu propaganda against religious minorities. All the more reason to thank Jinnah...

HP:

This article was published in Arth Vijnan in September 1984 and was authored by one K. Subramanium. Incidentally, Arth Vijnan is the official journal of the famous Institute of Economics and Politics, Pune.

Masadi#149:

Welcome to the discussion. Could you please tell us a little more about your study? What was the sample population? Where was the study conducted? Who were the non-muslim groups in the study? Any other interesting findings of the study?

HP#145:

I think that you ignored what I said, which was that it was the first article that appeared when I plugged in those words. Well, I tried to plug in the same words and, guess what, this time I got another study as the first article. This one is from a very well established academic journal of India, called "Arth Vijnan", which is perhaps more than a hundred years old. Here, the study is a little more recent but it is based on a much larger data base. Here is the abstract of its findings;

"In India, Hindu and Muslim differentials in fertility were examined using census data and the findings of 11 surveys. An explanation of the fertility differences was offered. The proportion of Muslims in the population increased and the proportion of Hindus decreased, both before and after partition of the country. After partition, and between 1951-71, the proportion of Muslims increased from 9.9%-11.2% while the proportion of Hindus decreased from 84.9%-82.7%. An examination of mortality and migration data suggests that these proportional changes cannot be attributed to differences in migration or mortality; therefore, they must be due to differences in fertility. Census and survey data provide considerable evidence that fertility is higher among Muslims than among Hindus. According to the 1971 census data, the total marital fertility rate for Muslim women was 11% higher in urban areas and 20% higher in rural areas than the rate for Hindus. Even when education was controlled, the Muslim rate remained higher. The findings of 11 demographic surveys consistently revealed higher fertility rates for Muslims compared to Hindus. Several studies demonstrated that these differences narrowed but remained significant when education and socioeconomic factors were controlled. Investigators generally offer 1 of 3 hypotheses to explain the differences. The 1st hypothesis attributes the fertility differences to differences in the background or socioeconomic characteristics of the 2 populations. This explanation is not supported by studies which have introduced socioeconomic controls. The 2nd hypothesis states that minority status itself is a sufficient cause of high fertility. There is considerable evidence with which to refute this hypothesis. For example, in predominantly Muslim countries, Hindu minorities tend to have lower fertility than Muslims. The 3rd hypothesis attributed the fertility differences to religious beliefs concerning reproduction. Both Islam and Hinduism are pronatalist religions; however, the 2 religions differ in regard to their beliefs concerning marriage, reproductive behavior, and fertility control, and these differences may have a different impact on the intermediate variables which influence fertility. These intermediate variables include age at marriage, marriage stability, and contraceptive use. For example, Islamic beliefs, in contrast to Hindu beliefs, support polygamy, allow for easy divorce in case of infertility, and allow widows to remarry. These beliefs tend to increase exposure to the risk of pregnancy for Muslim women. Hindu women are more likely than Muslim women to return to their family of orientation for a period of time following the birth of their 1st and 2nd children, and this practice reduces exposure to the risk of pregnancy for Hindu women. Muslim women are also less receptive to family planning than Hindu women. A national survey indicated that 17% of Hindu women compared to 13% of Muslim women ever used contraception. Sterilization rates are also higher among Hindus than among Muslims. As the modernization process unfolds in India, the impact of religious beliefs on the intermediate variables will decrease, and religious differentials in fertility will decline"

Url: http://www.popline.org/docs/0686/031762.html


As regards to whether they measured how religious women were, I very much doubt that they would have done that. The purpose is solely to measure the effect of nominal religious affiliation and not to measure the effect of religiosity.

Re: # 149

Masadi sahib:

" I did a paper on it much more recently (The Secularization Hypothesis and Muslim Fertility Levels) and religion is not the causation factor..."

Poor you, Masadi sahib had to do a paper on it. You could have just read what I wrote and have gotten more, but then again your comprehension is questionable.

DM writes "The variable that has emerged as the most influential in causing differentials in the fertility performance of these women was religion, which might be primarily responsible for the higher fertility among Muslim women."

That is BS, I did a paper on it much more recently (The Secularization Hypothesis and Muslim Fertility Levels) and religion is not the causation factor.

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi