Does Poll Show Islam Not Religion of Peace?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You need to lighten up Francis. Not every statement in the world is a bigoted slam against homosexual lifestyles.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Spiffor

"Which of these views comes closest to your own?
A: ‘Western society is decadent and immoral, and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by violence’ - 1%
A: ‘Western society is decadent and immoral, and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, but only by NON-VIOLENT means’ - 31%
A: ‘Western society may not be perfect, but Muslims should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end’ - 56%
Don’t know 11%"

[:) Smiley]

This poll could use an inverse, administered to the rest of the population.

Q: Do you think the invasion of Iraq was justified or not?
A: On balance justified -
A: On balance not justified -
A: Not at all justified -
Don’t know

Q: "Which of these views comes closest to your own?
A: ‘Muslim society is violent and intolerant, and Westerners should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by violence’ -
A: ‘Muslim society is violent and intolerant, and Westerners should seek to bring it to an end, but only by NON-VIOLENT means’ -
A: ‘Muslim society may not be perfect, but Westerners should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end’ -
Don’t know

Chances are the hate is mutual, in which case it'd be easy to understand why Muslims may harbor such attitudes.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Smiley
This poll could use an inverse, administered to the rest of the population.

Q: Do you think the invasion of Iraq was justified or not?
A: On balance justified -
A: On balance not justified -
A: Not at all justified -
Don’t know

Q: "Which of these views comes closest to your own?
A: ‘Muslim society is violent and intolerant, and Westerners should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by violence’ -
A: ‘Muslim society is violent and intolerant, and Westerners should seek to bring it to an end, but only by NON-VIOLENT means’ -
A: ‘Muslim society may not be perfect, but Westerners should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end’ -
Don’t know

Chances are the hate is mutual, in which case it'd be easy to understand why Muslims may harbor such attitudes.

As both an opponent of the Invasion of Iraq, and as a target of Jihadists, I don't see what the Iraq War has got to do with the London Bombings. There has been no statement from the killers saying why they did it, and certainly no evidence that the killers got answers to any poll about the Infidels attitude to Islamic Society.

Jihadists will use any excuse for their massacres.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Only a minority of Americans are reported to believe Europe exists.

then some of us are "deists" wrt Europe. It exists, but it doesnt actually do anything.

[Az]

Chances are the hate is mutual, in which case it'd be easy to understand why Muslims may harbor such attitudes.

You don't see people who hate islamic societies moving to Saudi Arabia now, do you?

[lord of the mark]

i think the 6% shows

A. The majority of muslims dont support jihadist terror
B. The number who do is large enough to be matter of great concern.


Once again we're harmed by binary reasoning = either "Islam IS the problem", OR "Islam is a religion of peace, and the terrorists are a tiny minority with no real connection to Islam"

Islam is a large and diverse religion, with a long history -BOTH the moderates AND the Jihadists have roots in Muslim tradition - it is of course true that this kind of split is true of other religious traditions as well - the question is why such a large proportion of THIS one has remained so extreme - personally I dont believe its EITHER something intrinsic to muslim texts OR a mere matter of victimization (other traditions have violence in their texts, and plenty of other people have been victimized as bad or worse) I think it has to do with certain long cycles of history, and with the humiliations associated with the relative decline of Islam from its former periods of greatness (see Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong) I think Islam can be fixed, but what the West can do to advance that is by no means simple.

[Bereta_Eder]

Since the exploitation has started long before that stupid/criminal Iraq war I agree that Iraq has little to do with the attacks on London. However it made recruitement much easier and put London squarely on target.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think Islam can be fixed, but what the West can do to advance that is by no means simple.

With regards to Muslims living in the West ...

1. We can't stop the Jihadist message by banning lunatic clerics, as they'll use other methods anyway.

2. Democratic opponents of anti-western Theocracy need to be able to speak openly about the value of western democracy and defend it. This means saying one or two things about Islam that both muslims and non-muslims-afraid-of-upsetting-muslims might not like.

Taken together, the need to maintain the democratic tradition of free speech is paramount. This might sound counter-intuitive to the notion of silencing the opponent in time of need, but silencing is the way of the mullahs. We must have the confidence in our selves and our democratic society to win the arguments, which can range wide and deep, to show that modern western democracy can provide a better life for ordinary people than 7th century theocratic feudalism. Those muslims and non-muslims who prefer the latter are of course welcome to take their chances in Saudia Arabia

To this end, we need to stop doing down our own society and achievements, stop accusing ourselves of being 'Islamophobes' every time we say "Sharia Sucks!", and demonstrate how much better off Muslims in the West actually are / can be compared to under despotic islamic regimes in Arabia and Asia.

Then we are in a position to request to Islam that if it wishes to live side-by-side with us in our western culture, it must constitutionally define itself in terms that there can be no ambiguity where the line between the secular and non-secular lies. So, no Sharia Law, no Jihad, no Dhimmitude, no convert-or-die, no murder of critics, no "smite the infidel" stuff at all, and no recycled nazi anti-semistism.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
You're not at all worried by A THIRD OF THE PEOPLE wanting to change european society to muslim laws????!!!!

I am very much worried about that, but it doesn't belong to a terrorism thread. If the thread was about intolerance among Muslims, I would be singing a vastly different tune.

This thread is about the torygraph misrepresenting a poll in order to make too many Muslims appear as potential bloodthirsty murderers. The ones who are ready to kill because they "hate our freedom" are one percent. That's one percent too many, but it shows that the immense majority of British Muslims don't feel like it.

I have the feeling that, if you asked the same question to the Muslims living in Saudi Arabia, or even in a relatively progressive Arabic country like Morocco, you'd have much, much more worrisome figures.

[Wiglaf]

I think Islam can be fixed, but what the West can do to advance that is by no means simple.

It's probably impossible. The Iraq war shows that there is no room for Western democracy among these extremists, and the slowness/refusal of Islamist clerics to condemn acts of terrorism leads me to believe that the only way to win the "war on extremism" is to fight fire with fire.

Since the exploitation has started long before that stupid Iraq war I agree that Iraq has little to do with the attacks on London. However it made recruitement much easier and put London squarely on target.

BS...I guess the "exploitation" you are referring to is western incursions on muslim holy sites, which a) is not exploitation and b) does not , in any way, justify in a rational human being terrorist violence. Take the easy way out and blame the west for all your problems...right.

This thread is about the torygraph misrepresenting a poll in order to make too many Muslims appear as potential bloodthirsty murderers. The ones who are ready to kill because they "hate our freedom" are one percent. That's one percent too many, but it shows that the immense majority of British Muslims don't feel like it.

The statistic showing support for terrorism seems more pertinent than one showing willingness to kill...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well just to feed the troll, it does indicate a portion of the population that would be willing to materially support such actions be it through providing the explosives to simply providing them a place to plan and make the bombs.

I don't know. If a poll shows that 98% of the British population feels that Doctors Without Borders' humanitarian action is "on balance justified", would it mean that 98% of the population would be willing to give them money?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Spiffor


This thread is about the torygraph misrepresenting a poll in order to make too many Muslims appear as potential bloodthirsty murderers. The ones who are ready to kill because they "hate our freedom" are one percent. That's one percent too many, but it shows that the immense majority of British Muslims don't feel like it.

Looked at another way, 77% were unambiguously opposed (Not at all justified). The other 23% - just under a quarter either have to balance it out in their minds, or are unsure. For all this group the bombings were not unthinkable. They might say no on balance or be undecided but not the automatic no than any genuine opponent of the terror would respond with. So almost a quarter of British Muslims actually have to think about whether or not the bombings were justified.

Seemingly, violence is permissable for nearly a quarter or the surveyed Muslims. Whether it was permissable in these circumstances maybe up for reflection, but it appears to an option for a significantly higher proportion than 1%.

(Polls from Sky News and another paper (possibly the Guardian) indicated similar results, I gather.)

[Bereta_Eder]

_I don't know. If a poll shows that 98% of the British population feels that Doctors Without Borders' humanitarian action is "on balance justified", would it mean that 98% of the population would be willing to give them money?


No. Just sympathy

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
edit:

This is why Bush is changing the name from "War on Terror" to "War on extremism." It is a struggle of ideologies more than a criminal investigation, but no one wants to wake up to that...

Don't worry we are waking up much quicker than the perpetrators can imagine. We will make a better world than their hateful vision intends