Almost half of U.S. Muslims favor Hamas 41%

By Greg Richter55%

7/13/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Fundamental Attribution Error, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.6% saturation with 135 hits. Analysis detected 767 faulty-reasoning hits from 369 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.7% and a BS Rank of 41% (12,918 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.00% of the article peer group.

According to a Pew survey , 44% of American Muslims recently surveyed expressed a favorable opinion of Hamas. 
The United States designated Hamas a foreign terrorist organization long before it killed 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, raped women, burned families alive, tortured civilians, and kidnapped children and elderly grandparents. 
Its leaders have repeatedly declared that Israel should cease to exist. 
Yet nearly half of Muslim Americans surveyed said they view the group favorably. 
Many Muslim Americans have publicly condemned terrorism while backing the rights of Palestinians. 
But 44% support is significant. 
Imagine if a comparable percentage of any other religious or ethnic group expressed favorable views toward a different U.S.-designated terrorist organization, such as ISIS. 
Discussion of Hamas is softened by the political context. 
Excuses include "occupation," historical disputes, or resentment over the war in Gaza. 
Those issues may help explain why some people sympathize with Palestinians, but they do not transform Hamas into something other than what it is: a terrorist organization whose charter, actions, and rhetoric have centered on violence and the destruction of Israel. 
There is an important distinction between supporting the Palestinian people and viewing Hamas favorably. 
Millions of Palestinians themselves have suffered under Hamas' brutal rule. 
The organization has redirected resources from civilians to military infrastructure, suppressed dissent, and embedded fighters and weapons among civilian populations, increasing the suffering of the very people it claims to defend. 
This goes past a poll. 
When a terrorist organization is viewed through a political lens rather than a moral one, terrorism itself risks becoming normalized. 
Instead of asking whether deliberately targeting civilians is evil, people begin asking whether the perpetrators were sufficiently aggrieved. 
No political grievance justifies the massacre of concertgoers, the murder of children, the rape of women, or the kidnapping of civilians. 
Those acts should be condemned regardless of who commits them or what cause they claim to represent. 
Pew's survey doesn't tell us why respondents answered as they did. 
Some may have interpreted "favorable" differently from others. 
Some may see Hamas primarily as a resistance movement despite rejecting its methods. 
Public opinion surveys have limits, but the results cannot simply be dismissed because they are uncomfortable. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.6%Greg Richter: 3.5%American Thinker: 10.6%Confirmation Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 2.1%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 1.7%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.5%Greg Richter: 1.4%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic6.5%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.7%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.3%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Greg Richter: 5.2%American Thinker: 7.1%Framing Effect1.4%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 1.3%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.6%Greg Richter: 1.1%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.3%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Greg Richter: 0.8%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias5.4%This article: 36.6%Greg Richter: 12.4%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias36.6%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.7%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Greg Richter: 3.7%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error16.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 1.5%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 1.1%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.1%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.4%American Thinker: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.7%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Greg Richter: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.8%American Thinker: 5.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 5.0%American Thinker: 4.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.9%Greg Richter: 0.8%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority7.9%This article: 8.7%Greg Richter: 4.2%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma8.7%This article: 11.9%Greg Richter: 2.2%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope11.9%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.0%Greg Richter: 4.7%American Thinker: 16.8%Hasty Generalization7.0%This article: 1.4%Greg Richter: 5.6%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring1.4%This article: 3.5%Greg Richter: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon3.5%This article: 25.2%Greg Richter: 9.4%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion25.2%This article: 7.0%Greg Richter: 0.7%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question7.0%This article: 8.4%Greg Richter: 0.8%American Thinker: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.4%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 3.7%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.7%Greg Richter: 7.1%American Thinker: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.7%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.3%Greg Richter: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading3.3%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.7%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.5%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.9%Greg Richter: 12.0%American Thinker: 22.9%Biased Writer Voice11.9%This article: 8.4%Greg Richter: 2.0%American Thinker: 5.9%Indoctrination8.4%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 1.5%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 1.8%American Thinker: 14.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Greg Richter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

369 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.