I recently published an article entitled Gallup Poll: Jews and Christians Way More Likely than Muslims to Justify Killing Civilians. The poll found that Muslim-Americans (21%) were far less likely than their fellow Jewish (52%) and Christian (58%) countrymen to think it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians. (For the record, these numbers were 64% in Mormons and 43% in people with no religion/atheists/agnostics.)
Islamophobes didn’t like the results of this poll and quickly protested. LibertyPhile, an anti-Muslim bigot who spends his free time spreading hatred of Muslims (one wonders how empty his personal life is that he kills his spare time doing this?), whined:
…The survey is of American Muslims, who are unlikely to be representative of Muslims in Muslim countries or of Muslims in Europe.
LibertyPhile is among a select group of Islamophobes who have compiled various poll results which portray Muslims in a negative light. The operative logic is usually as follows: x% of Muslims believe it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians, and x% is a lot!
I agree that x% is a lot. Even the 21% of Muslim-Americans who think it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians is unacceptably high. Yet, the point that Islamophobes intentionally fail to mention is that this number is less–far less in this case–than the general public (including Jews and Christians). So while it’s absolutely atrocious that 21% of Muslim-Americans would think so, more than twice that percentage of Jewish- and Christian-Americans think so! This fact “steals their (the Islamophobes’) thunder,” so to speak.
With regard to LibertyPhile’s comment, the data we have from Muslim and European countries confirms that Muslims in general are less likely to justify the killing of civilians as compared to Jews and Christians in America. Interestingly enough, LibertyPhile himself links to a site that references a poll that proves this!
LibertyPhile links to a website citing the Populus for Policy Exchange, a British study that found that between 7-16% of British Muslims think that it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians. This means that Jewish- and Christian Americans justify targeting and killing civilians 350% more than British Muslims.
LibertyPhile cites Pew Research Center. Yet, Pew found the same results for French-Muslims: once again, only 16% of Muslims in France believe it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians. Pew notes that this is the case for the Muslims in all the European countries they polled; says Pew (emphasis added):
Like Muslims elsewhere in Europe only a tiny minority of French Muslims (16%) say that suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets in defense of Islam can often or sometimes be justified.
Indeed, for Muslims in Germany that number is only 17% (according to a Pew poll), far less than the whopping 52% and 58% among American Jews and Christians, respectively. According to the same poll, the percentage of Muslims in Spain is significantly higher, at 31%–which is still almost half of what it is for Christians in the United States.
The conclusion we draw from this is that Muslims in Western countries (such as United States, the U.K., France, Germany, and Spain) are far less likely than Jews and Christians in America to justify the targeting and killing of civilians. This is quite the opposite of the picture that Islamophobes such as LibertyPhile paint.
What about Muslims in the Muslim-majority world? Do they support the targeting and killing of civilians? Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch published an article from CNS News, formerly called the Conservative News Service, which cited a Pew poll to prove that a sizable portion of the population did indeed support this.
Yet, even this source shows that support for the targeting and killing of civilians among Muslims in the Muslim world is still lower than what it is among Jews and Christians here in the United States. The article cited by Spencer reads:
In the Pew Global Attitudes Project poll released on Thursday, 68 percent of Palestinian Muslim respondents said suicide bombings against civilians were justifiable “to defend Islam from its enemies.”
That view was shared by 43 percent of respondents in Nigeria and 38 percent in Lebanon, where 51 percent of Shi’ites held the view compared to 25 percent of Sunnis.
Elsewhere, the proportion of Muslim respondents supporting suicide bombings against civilians was 15 percent in Egypt, 13 percent in Indonesia, 12 percent in Jordan, seven percent in Israel (Muslim Arab citizens), five percent in Pakistan and four percent in Turkey.
The Palestinians are split in between those inside of Israeli proper (1.5 million) and those in the Israeli Occupied Territories (4 million). Using simple math (1.5×0.07+4×0.68)/(1.5+4)=0.51, we find that 51% of Palestinians overall think its sometimes justified to target and kill civilians. On the the other hand, according to a Gallup poll 52% of Israelis think it is OK to target and kill civilians.
What we have then is:
Percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians:
Mormon-Americans 64%
Christian-Americans 58%
Jewish-Americans 52%
Israeli Jews 52%
Palestinians* 51%
No religion/Atheists/Agnostics (U.S.A.) 43%
Nigerians* 43%
Lebanese* 38%
Spanish Muslims 31%
Muslim-Americans 21%
German Muslims 17%
French Muslims 16%
British Muslims 16%
Egyptians* 15%
Indonesians* 13%
Jordanians* 12%
Pakistanis* 5%
Turks* 4%
*refers to Muslims only
Therefore, Muslims in every country are less likely than U.S. Jews and Christians (and Israeli Jews) to believe that it is sometimes justified to target and kill civilians.
* * * * *
The recent Gallup poll shows us how important context is when it comes to statistics. For several years, the Islamophobes such as LibertyPhile have been peddling statistics showing that an inordinate number of Muslims in various countries believe it is justifiable to target and kill civilians. For example, they would say something along the lines of:
16% of British Muslims believe it is justified to target and kill civilians. There are over 2.5 million Muslims in the U.K. Sixteen percent of 2.5 million is a lot! That’s how many Muslims there are who believe terrorism is OK.
This number of 16% is certainly alarming, but the Islamophobe needs to prove that Muslims are more accepting of violence than people of other faiths, especially their own Judeo-Christian faith. In order to draw such a conclusion, there must be another value from the other group to compare it to. That’s what the recent Gallup poll gives us: a number to compare the 16% to. And certainly, 58% and 52% are far greater than 16%.
The need for context–and something fair to compare a statistic to–is reflected in other such Muslim-bashing “factoids” that Islamophobes like LibertyPhile peddle. For example, the site LibertyPhile links to notes that x% of Muslims want Sharia. Aside from the fact that Muslims have a whole variety of views about what Sharia means and entails, we need to compare x% with the percentage of Jews and Christians who want Halacha and Biblical law in Israel and America. For the Islamophobes, doing so would steal their thunder.
Ranting and raving about how many Muslims think it’s sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians while your own religious group is worse really is a case of throwing stones living inside a glass house. Throughout the Understanding Jihad Series, I have repeatedly harped on the overwhelming hypocrisy and double-standard Jewish and Christian Islamophobes use when they attack Islam. More often than not, whatever they vilify in Islam is also found in their own religious faith.
* * * * *
The only worthwhile conclusion that we can draw from all this is that an unacceptable number of people in general–whether they be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or even atheist/agnostic–think it’s OK to sometimes target and kill civilians. This is a sobering thought, and should remind us that we should all work together to end war and bring peace to this earth. The hateful and violent state of humanity–egged on by Islamophobes like Robert Spencer and LibertyPhile (as well as their counterparts in the Muslim world)–is truly disturbing. Something is truly wrong when so many people–of every faith (as well as those of no faith)–believe it’s sometimes justified to take the life of an innocent human being.
My intention here is not to vilify Jews and Christians (see here). It is only to prevent the line of thinking that has become endemic among us Americans: Those Foreign-Looking Moozlum People Over There are Evil and Wicked, Whereas We White Judeo-Christian People are Good and Holy. Once it is acknowledged that we too have the same problem as they, we can draw not only a more accurate conclusion, but a more sensitive, tolerant, and helpful one.
Of course, it would be worthwhile to consider actual results on the ground: we Americans have (at minimum, using conservative numbers) killed 30 times as many Muslim civilians as Muslims have killed of ours, whereas Israelis have killed many-fold the number of civilians as Palestinians have killed of theirs. Clearly, what people and states do is far more relevant than what they merely believe.
August 7th, 2011 at 2:24 am
You never fail us Danios
.
August 7th, 2011 at 3:32 am
I wonder which news channel actually showed this survey. Maybe Al Jazeera. PBS showed that 92% of Muslims are loyal to the USA.
August 7th, 2011 at 3:35 am
Danios, thank you for this, and for making LibertyPhile a laughing stock for his outrageous claims.
As a separate subject, it may be worth considering why Americans like LibertyPhile are not asking questions about their huge military budget (used to kill mainly Muslims) when the nation’s credit rating has been downgraded.
Isn’t it time for Americans to question why they have expensive military bases stationed around the world, when the coffers are empty?
August 7th, 2011 at 3:45 am
Israel is constantly improving it’s weapon technology to reduce civilian casualty. I can’t say the same about Hezbullah and Hamas though.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/08/up-close-and-personal-video-of-tammuz.html
August 7th, 2011 at 3:45 am
I really can’t wrap around my brain under the concept of targeting civilians for killing ever being justified. The way the question is phrased doesn’t mean collateral damage, or unintentional casualties while conducting a war, but about specifically targeting and killing.
I don’t see how anyone, regardless of religion, could support that.
August 7th, 2011 at 4:28 am
Hehe love the pic-very appropriate. As for the topic, I am glad I am not in the percentage that thinks it’s agood thing-we should try to kill legit combatants, NOT innocent people.
August 7th, 2011 at 4:34 am
Mormon-Americans 64%
Christian-Americans 58%
Jewish-Americans 52%
Israeli Jews 52%
Palestinians* 51%
No religion/Atheists/Agnostics (U.S.A.) 43%
Nigerians* 43%
Lebanese* 38%
Spanish Muslims 31%
Muslim-Americans 21%
German Muslims 17%
French Muslims 16%
British Muslims 16%
Egyptians* 15%
Indonesians* 13%
Jordanians* 12%
Pakistanis* 5%
Turks* 4%
Honestly, this was enough to settle the argument. The article was a bit overblown in my honest opinion.
August 7th, 2011 at 5:04 am
@Danios
I haven’t seen so much smoke and mirrors for a long time. I had a quick look at the links you gave but can see no support for your claims. I don’t have time just now but will look again as soon as I can.
And I recall a survey of students in the UK which addresses this question but I haven’t yet found my copy or the reference.
@cynic
Does that table include non-American non-Muslims?
August 7th, 2011 at 5:57 am
@LibertyPhile
If you have that kind of (reliable) data, then bring it forth, no need to ask condescending rhetorical questions. Either way, those polls disprove the notion that the Islamophobes make their livelihood off of, and shifting the goalposts to Europe or elsewhere doesn’t change that.
August 7th, 2011 at 7:07 am
Excellent refutation of Islamophobic nonsense.
August 7th, 2011 at 7:42 am
So were the Muslim respondents asked if killing civilians was justified in the context of suicide bombings/terrorism ?
August 7th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Of course, it would be worthwhile to consider actual results on the ground:
Good point. I’m happy to compare the killings of Christians in Egypt or Pakistan to the killing of Muslims in any of the Western nations.
I’m sure we’ll find several instances in the West where thousands take part in the lynching of Muslims for building a Mosque without a permit or repairing a staircase.
LoL @ Pakistan’s results. Do you actually expect anyone to believe that only 5% of Pakistanis support killing civilians (when hundreds of thousands openly marched for the bodyguard who killed a politician for ‘blaspheming against the blasphemy law, to name but one actual example)?
August 7th, 2011 at 8:31 am
So were the Muslim respondents asked if killing civilians was justified in the context of suicide bombings/terrorism ?
Why, you think they’d react differently? Last I checked, suicide bombings still counted as ‘killing civilians’. They were asked if killing civilians was justified, period. Your question is irrelevant, because only those who answered yes would even go into the method of killing.
Good point. I’m happy to compare the killings of Christians in Egypt or Pakistan to the killing of Muslims in any of the Western nations.
Wtf? You sound like a broken record. Why do you waste your time like that?
August 7th, 2011 at 8:57 am
I’m happy to compare the killings of Christians in Egypt or Pakistan to the killing of Muslims in any of the Western nations.
Does Islam encourage any of this violence? No. Those people who do that are thugs and criminals who just happen to live in a Muslim country, and their countries are subject to aggressive, invasive policies that Western nations are not. Context, Bob, I know you are allergic to it. Not to mention the right-wing exaggerates these matters for political gain anyway.
“And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned.” (Quran 22:40)
August 7th, 2011 at 8:57 am
@ JengaBob
You can scoff at the statistics all you want, but if the results had Muslims at the top, you probably won’t question it.
August 7th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Why, you think they’d react differently?
Uhm, no. I’m asking for the original polls Danios took his %’s from. The %’s from Muslim countries sound awfully similar from polls surveying Muslim support for suicide bombings against civilians. Did Danios take those %’s and compare them to Westerners who were asked *different* poll questions about killing civilians – one that did not specifically ask Westerners if it was ok to kill civilians in suicide attacks?
August 7th, 2011 at 9:26 am
LibertyPhile is referring to a poll of British Muslims done by the right-wing “Centre for Social Cohesion” whose results were greatly misinterpreted by the Daily Mail.
The poll and the way it was reported was taken apart by the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/dec/22/1
But the main problem is, as Danios said, that these polls mean nothing on their own. They must be compared with the general population and when they are, the results look pretty bad for the Islamophobes.
Even if we accept the Daily Mail’s headline that 30% of British Muslims support “killing in the name of religion” (as the Guardian showed, the actual question was much different), then that makes Christian Americans look even worse as 58% believe it is acceptable to kill civilians.
August 7th, 2011 at 9:33 am
“And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned.” (Quran 22:40)
Bob Spencer once insinuated that this verse “didn’t count” because the Reliance of the Traveller didn’t say that you couldn’t destroy churches (i.e. that it didn’t mention churches in the context if war). Of course, the same book said that a Muslim couldn’t kill civilians, but Spencer ignored that inconvenient caveat.
August 7th, 2011 at 9:39 am
Of course, the same book said that a Muslim couldn’t kill civilians, but Spencer ignored that inconvenient caveat.
So RotT didn’t say male inhabitants of cities taken by force couldn’t be executed at the discretion of the Imam/Caliph?
August 7th, 2011 at 9:46 am
“So were the Muslim respondents asked if killing civilians was justified in the context of suicide bombings/terrorism ?
Yes. Did you even read the article? The Pew Poll said:
“Like Muslims elsewhere in Europe only a tiny minority of French Muslims (16%) say that suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets in defense of Islam can often or sometimes be justified.”
The poll for Muslims covers suicide bombing as well as violence that could kill civilians.
August 7th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Wtf? You sound like a broken record. Why do you waste your time like that?
I accepted Danios’ offer to look at the reality on the ground. 95% of Pakistanis supposedly oppose killing civilians but 100′s of thousands are able to openly and defiantly march in support of bodyguards who murder civilians (politician) for speaking out against a Pakistani law or untold unruly mobs in the hundreds or thousands that are able to spontaneously form over any rumor of someone mistreating a Koran or speaking against the prophet Muhammad.
Even though 50%+ in the US support killing civilians, I’d rather take my chances attending a Mosque or speaking against Jesus here than doing the reverse in numerous Muslim nations.
August 7th, 2011 at 9:50 am
Yes. Did you even read the article? The Pew Poll said:
My question was asking about Muslims in Muslim countries.
Did you even read my question?
(And answering yes that the question specifically asked about suicide bombings does not help your argument when we see that European Muslims were asked differently worded questions than European non-Muslims)
August 7th, 2011 at 9:52 am
If that’s your best example to defend Spencer’s bizarre methodology and conclusion, then it’s actually proof of how weak Spencer’s case is. So, if Muslims capture a city after a siege, their imam or caliph may decide to kill the male prisoners? Shows how Spencer is using outdated texts to gauge the beliefs of Muslims — and only one text from one school at that.
August 7th, 2011 at 9:57 am
^ I also believe collateral damage and killing women and children who ‘speak out’ against the Muslim occupation of non-Muslim lands was accepted as well.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:06 am
“I also believe collateral damage and killing women and children who ‘speak out’ against the Muslim occupation of non-Muslim lands was accepted as well.”
Yes, quite odd at how Islamophobes are outraged at collateral damage considering what they spend their time advocating.
As usual, you’re misrepresenting the latter part. It was opined by Ibn Taymiyya whose concern was freeing Muslims from Mongol occupation, in direct contradiction to your claim. Furthermore, he was writing about propaganda and spying, not “speaking out.”
August 7th, 2011 at 10:15 am
But you originally said “[o]f course, the same book said that a Muslim couldn’t kill civilians, but Spencer ignored that inconvenient caveat.”
Which turns out you concede male civilians of besieged cities may be executed and women and children who spread ‘propaganda’ of Military forces may be killed as well.
But I see you nor anyone else responded to what I previously wrote – would you rather speak out against Jesus in the United States or Muhammad in Pakistan?
Danios challenged anyone to consider the actual results on the ground. I’m doing just that. I think I’ll take my chances speaking against Jesus or attending Mosque (or Protestant or Catholic churches) in the US than to enter the wrong kind of Mosque or any church in general in Pakistan and to speak out against Muhammad…or to promote a religion that the majority in my community does not subscribe to.
What about you?
August 7th, 2011 at 10:17 am
I think the best point made in the article is…that what we manifest in reality, not our beliefs, is what impacts people.
The people rebutting the article tend to indite Islam by ancedote. That is, using articles from the news, and then associating it with all of Islam, using mostly out of context ayats from the Qur’an, Hadidths without relevent Qur’an referances, and so on to make thier case.
I see it here too. In order to ‘disprove the findings’ of the article writer…the opposers…though they claim that on a global scale, and by nature…Islam is violent, and all Muslims support violence, they narrow thier proof to incidents where Muslims might defend themselves against an aggressor (Palistine and Iraq) or ethnic violence (Kashmir) or radical elements that use Islam as an excuse for violence (al Quid’a)
They seem to discount thier Christian nation’s roles in the oppression by supporting regimes that make laws to oppress the free expression of religion (blasphamy law in Pakistan…or laws to deny women food and drink if they dont come to the bedroom when the husband calls them) in order to preserve western interests…at the expence of the people who live there.
Notice too, that the article writer repeated, as all Muslims do, that ANY percent…even just one Muslim, who agrees that it is ok to kill an innocent person is “absolutely atrocious”
I agree with the article writer on this point. It is unacceptable that even ONE Muslim agree it is ok to kill innocent people.
None of the rebutters of the article have made any notion to denounce violence. They seem to simply justify it.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:20 am
“I accepted Danios’ offer to look at the reality on the ground.”
Yet you completely ignored the fact that Israel and the United States have killed far more Muslim civilians than vice versa. Israel itself has expelled hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homes, and continues to grab land. Incidentally, Islamophobes support these policies. As for the United States it has a rich history of (ahem) “securing” oil resources, as evidenced by its support of dictatorship in Iran. Again, we find Islamophobes supporting these policies.
Obviously the above went against your preconceived notions, thus you chose to ignore it. At least you’re not denying that Muslims died, as is the case of the Bosnian genocide (again, more Muslim civilians died than vice versa).
August 7th, 2011 at 10:20 am
It’s odd. You’d think that those who said no to killing civilians period would also object to suicide bombings and terrorism. I’m no rocket scientist, bit I’d say that’s a logical conclusion, mostly because of the fact that by and large suicide bombing and terrorism = killing civilians.
It’s like Bob thinks that once the terrorism caveat is added, the percentages would increase.
Questioner: “Do you think the killing of civilians is justifiable?”
Response: No.
Questioner: Okay, well what about suicide bombing and terrorism?
Response: Isn’t that the same…Ooh suicide bombing! Mashallah, yes for sure.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:23 am
“Do you actually expect anyone to believe that only 5% of Pakistanis support killing civilians (when hundreds of thousands openly marched for the bodyguard who killed a politician for ‘blaspheming against the blasphemy law, to name but one actual example)?”
Firstly, it wasn’t “hundreds of thousands”. It was 40,000. Although that too is a completely unacceptable number of people, it is quite different from what you’re saying. Also, this information is completely irrelevant to what Danios is saying. 35,000 people joined a Facebook page supporting the murderer Raoul Moat in the UK last year. After government pressure shut down the page, another went up which got 12,000 members, with many leaving messages supporting his actions and denouncing the police for hunting him down. By your logic, we should then conclude Britain is a violent society.
Anyway, your Pakistan example doesn’t work here as the rally was primarily protesting reform of the Blasphemy Law. I don’t understand how that disproves the poll result which showed that 5% of Pakistanis support killing civilians.
Now for something interesting. Nearly 63 million Pakistanis signed a petition in 2008 condemning terrorism and the killing of civilians. Based on that, why is the 5% figure so hard to believe?
http://www.yehhumnaheen.org/cc.php?finalpage_os=index.php
August 7th, 2011 at 10:28 am
You’d think that those who said no to killing civilians period would also object to suicide bombings and terrorism. I’m no rocket scientist, bit I’d say that’s a logical conclusion, mostly because of the fact that by and large suicide bombing and terrorism = killing civilians.
Of course it is odd to draw that conclusion. Many Pakistanis would justify civilian deaths in the tribal territories of Pakistan on the basis that that military action needs to be done to end the conflict. I guarantee you that if Pakistanis were polled specifically asking if civilian casualties in that region – though regrettable as they may be – are justified and occasionally necessary to end the conflict (such as in airstrikes), Pakistanis in much larger percentages would answer affirmatively. (And I won’t even go into India or ‘East Pakistan)
Danios’ latest thread is slop, through and through.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Pakistan has a population of about 170 million.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:31 am
NassirH,
Can you find another way to get off, and not do it on this board with JengaBob/Jihadbob/JustBob and all his other aliases.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:31 am
Of course it is odd to draw that conclusion.
You just don’t get it do you?
August 7th, 2011 at 10:36 am
“Which turns out you concede male civilians of besieged cities may be executed and women and children who spread ‘propaganda’ of Military forces may be killed as well.”
Historians agree that the Mongols utilized propaganda, as evidenced by the scholars they paid to write about their vicious conquests. But it seems you would rather adopt an ahistorical view and instead pretend that Ibn Taymiyya opined something about “Muslim occupation” (when it was actually the Mongols who were occupying majority Muslim lands). As for male prisoners, it doesn’t support Spencer’s conclusions because, among other things, the context is basically impossible to replicate today.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Can you find another way to get off, and not do it on this board with JengaBob/Jihadbob/JustBob and all his other aliases.
Ditto to you re: your spamming, BMD.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Cynic, whatever I “spam” is on topic, JBob and NassirH have these same old arguments in every thread.
By the way, if you thought anything was spamming why didn’t you say so earlier, instead of as a lame attempt to defend whatever it is you’re defending. What are you defending? NassirH’s right to entertain JingaBob?
August 7th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Firstly, it wasn’t “hundreds of thousands”. It was 40,000
I think there was a rally of ~40,000 in one city in one day following the assassination.
Regardless, it was clear that those who supported the assassination of Salman Taseer were drawn from the 95% of Pakistanis who supposedly were surveyed opposing the murder of civilians for any circumstance.
The bottom line is that I’d much rather take my ‘chances’ in the US blaspheming against Jesus (with 50%+ of Americans wanting to kill people) than stand on any corner in Pakistan and blaspheme against Muhammad.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:50 am
^Bob, the statistics Danios was giving was not to do with the percentage of people that want to kill people but the percentage of people who think it’s sometimes okay for civilians to be killed (like in war situations).
It has absolutely nothing to do with blasphemy, vigilantism, murder, death penalty etc.
Silly Bob.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:58 am
To be honest, I thought that was obvious. Bob, I think you’re the only one who thought that the above statistics imply that 64% of Mormons want to kill people or that 21% of Muslims want to kill people. If that was the case then half of America will have killed off the other half.
The bottom line is that Muslims are the least likely to support any action that will kill civilians (and hence want any fighting to be between soldiers only) than Jews or Christians.
August 7th, 2011 at 11:00 am
Obviously Bob is trying to move the topic to something different entirely: blasphemy laws, vigilantism, and the death penalty. In Bob’s own words: “Please don’t try to change the subject.”
Also, it seems that Bob “learned” about Ibn Taymiyya and his assertions regarding spies and propaganda from Spencer. Funny thing is that much of Ibn Tamymiyya’s writings contradict Spencer’s assertions (indeed they completely undermine his argument relating to jihad). Oh, and one more thing about the killing of male prisoners on the discretion of the caliph or imam. “Some scholars forbid the killing of captives” (p. 419 Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia)
August 7th, 2011 at 11:03 am
@BMD
I dunno. I thought the “find another way to get off, and not on this board” was very ironic, I’m not defending anything.
August 7th, 2011 at 11:06 am
You’re correct for the death penalty but I disagree with you on vigilantism/mob violence and assassinations.
I’m just waiting to see where Danios plucked the % figures for Muslims in Muslim countries.
Actually, this is the question posed to European Muslims:
Like Muslims elsewhere in Europe only a tiny minority of French Muslims (16%) say that suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets in defense of Islam can often or sometimes be justified.
That would include assassinating someone for blasphemy.
In the Palestinian figures, the question was only asked if they support suicide bombings to kill civilians, whereas the Israelis were asked a more generalized question regarding civilian death.
I don’t know where the rest of Danios’ figures come from, but I believe it relates only to suicide bombing or at best actions carried out by certain terrorist groups who have lost favor in many parts of the Muslim world following the invasion of Iraq where Muslims subsequently became less likely to support terrorism.
but the percentage of people who think it’s sometimes okay for civilians to be killed (like in war situations).
We don’t know this because we do not yet have all the different surveys Danios threw together to make these comparisons. European Muslims were asked different questions than European non-Muslims. For European Muslims, they were asked if it’s allowable to kill civilians to defend Islam. I can say with certainty that the equivalent were not asked of European Christians or Jews. The question asked of European Muslims also included suicide bombings, so it was also worded differently in addition to it being a separate question. If suicide bombing was explicitly mentioned in a question asking European Christians and Jews, then I suspect their %’s in answering affirmatively would have been significantly lower.
In order to draw accurate comparisons you need to ask the same question and the question worded in a same/similar/corresponding manner. Danios has apparently failed to do this. His entire conclusions provide no evidence and it is a sloppy type of conclusion that would never fly if Robert Spencer had done such a thing.
August 7th, 2011 at 11:16 am
blasphemy laws
No, not blasphemy laws but mob violence / assassinations by members of the general public against those accused (or the communities they belong to – Christian, Shia, Ahmadi) of blasphemy/apostasy/proselytizing or whatever else.
The title in the OP says Muslims are less likely to justify killing civilians than Americans and Israelis. Am I to believe only 5% of Pakistanis are ‘ok’ with killing Israelis (suicide bombings/terrorism/war) but a much larger percentage is ok with attacking Ahmadis for holding heretical views or gunning down Pakistani politicians?
August 7th, 2011 at 11:28 am
I’ll also add that there’s also no ‘on the ground’ evidence that militaries in Muslim majority nations behave any better than the miliataries of Western nations.
If the actions of the West in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yugoslavia is a product of Western support for killing civilians, then what does it say of the Muslim world where their militaries universally behave in a much more indiscriminate manner? (And yes, Pakistan, Turkey, Bahrain and Iran, etc are democratic nations in case someone wants to factor out this observation on the basis of many Muslim nations being dictatorships, as if that proved the civilian population could not also support the actions of their military).
August 7th, 2011 at 11:44 am
@JengaBob
You have a sever case of allergy to the truth.
It seems you have not read the article well. This poll mentioned is about “killing civilians” and not about “free speech”. You switched the subject because the truth didn’t please your hateful ego.
Danios never said that since Muslims did better in specific poll, they are angels and are more likely do better in all other polls like those about “free speech”.
The point of the article, which is EXPLICITLY mentioned in the article, (spoon-feeding for loons who can’t conclude like yourself) is that Muslims do not have the biggest share in the evil found in this world, at least not in some aspects!
August 7th, 2011 at 11:48 am
As usual, Bob is fulfilling the role of Tireless Rebutter:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm
He realizes how incredibly damaging the articles on this site over the past few weeks have been on the “Blame Islam” movement. First Norway, now all of this polling shooting his positions down in flames.
So he feels that it’s his duty as a bannerman for the Islamophobes to fill the comments section with as much obfuscatory bullshit as possible to make it look as though he’s casting serious doubt on the article, when Danios’ case is clear and straightforward.
August 7th, 2011 at 11:52 am
I don’t see what you’re saying, a Muslim who wants me to convert to Islam is still a civilian.
If I supported someone to go up and kill that person (or attack the family/community that person belonged) would mean that I don’t oppose murdering civilians.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
@JengaBob
“(And yes, Pakistan, Turkey, Bahrain and Iran, etc are democratic nations in case someone wants to factor out this observation on the basis of many Muslim nations being dictatorships, as if that proved the civilian population could not also support the actions of their military).”
So you’re saying these countries are democracies? Can I quote you on that?
August 7th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
What Bob is saying is “this data can’t be true because it just doesn’t feel right.”
These Islam-bashers rely on people’s prejudices and fears to move them emotionally. Take an anecdote from here, throw in a passage from a random book of Fiqh there, sprinkle in some statements from the most ignorant Muslims, and you got yourself an argument. This can be used to dismiss any defense of Islam or the Muslims, no matter how unrelated it may seem to the topic at hand.
No need to be scholarly. No need to be just or reasonable…Just remember your research methodology (Islam=bad), and you’ll have a whole comments section of anonymous applauders. This seems to be the approach people like Bob have taken.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Wow Bob. Quite a few slip-ups here.
“I’m just waiting to see where Danios plucked the % figures for Muslims in Muslim countries.”
All the links are provided in the article. The one you’re asking for was taken from a website Robert Spencer linked to. That website clearly says they were using the following Pew poll:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1338/declining-muslim-support-for-bin-laden-suicide-bombing
“I don’t know where the rest of Danios’ figures come from, but I believe it relates only to suicide bombing”
Nope. The question asked dealt not just with suicide bombing but all “forms of violence against civilian targets”.
“European Muslims were asked different questions than European non-Muslims.”
What the hell are you on about? European non-Muslims aren’t even in the comparison. They weren’t asked in that poll. Danios gave the link to the Pew article “The French Muslim connection” in which only the opinion of French Muslims about suicide bombing was collected. Where did you get this absurd theory that Danios set up a false comparison between European Muslims and non-Muslims. Take a look at the article: only the opinions of Americans, Israelis and Muslims was compared. All Danios says is “The conclusion we draw from this is that Muslims in Western countries (such as United States, the U.K., France, Germany, and Spain) are far less likely than Jews and Christians in America to justify the targeting and killing of civilians”.
See, nothing to do with European Christians and Jews — it even says so in the title! So rather than lecture people on how to draw “accurate conclusions” and how they should ensure the questions were the same etc., perhaps you should just read what they’ve written first. Silly Bob.
“Danios has apparently failed to do this. His entire conclusions provide no evidence and it is a sloppy type of conclusion that would never fly if Robert Spencer had done such a thing.”
No. You have failed to read the article. And it’s not a question of “if” Spencer had done such a thing. He has shown his cut-and-paste scholarship many times. BTW, Spencer actually quoted the same Poll Danios was using for the Pakistan statistics! So you can’t whine about those figures because your hero has given them his seal of approval.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“(And yes, Pakistan, Turkey, Bahrain and Iran, etc are democratic nations in case someone wants to factor out this observation on the basis of many Muslim nations being dictatorships, as if that proved the civilian population could not also support the actions of their military.)”
This is completely false, especially the part about the mentioned majority Muslim countries being “democratic.” The only country in your list that could accurately be called democratic is Turkey. Bahrain is not democratic at the least (i.e. a minority rules a majority). In Iran, free and fair elections are nonexistent. Your point also fails in another regard: civilians in Pakistan, Turkey, Bahrain, and Iran have far less control of their military forces than those in the U.S. and Israel. Indeed, the military has pulled off many coups in both Turkey (1960, 1971, 1980 and arguably in 1997) and Pakistan (1958, 1977 and 1999). In Bahrain, the “military” is currently being used to suppress the majority of the population.
“You’re correct for the death penalty but I disagree with you on vigilantism/mob violence and assassinations.”
In other words, you’re desperate to include “vigilantism/mob violence and assassinations” since they apparently buttress your views. Why not link to a poll regarding the aforementioned instead of relying on conjecture? Or is 40,000 people protesting indicative of the majority of the population? I doubt many Pakistanis would support vigilantism when asked, especially in comparison to Tea Party folk and the like.
Regardless, vigilantism is forbidden in Islam [1] [2].
“In order to draw accurate comparisons you need to ask the same question and the question worded in a same/similar/corresponding manner. Danios has apparently failed to do this. His entire conclusions provide no evidence and it is a sloppy type of conclusion that would never fly if Robert Spencer had done such a thing.”
If this is your premise for objecting to the article then you fail for several reasons. First, in almost every instance (including those where Muslims and non-Muslims were asked the exact same questions), Muslims were less likely to justify killing civilians (indeed they were often far less likely to justify killing civilians). This fact is incontrovertible notwithstanding all your obfuscation and smokescreen.
1. Crone, Patricia. God’s Rule: Government and Islam. New York: Columbia UP, 2004. 294. Print.
2. Cook, Michael. Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. 215. Print.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
This study also shows that Muslims in general are less likely to justify killing civilians than Americans.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
Also note that Bob did exactly what LibertyPhile did on the other thread; in order to palliate the results of the polling, he pointed to a dozen other things to obfuscate the issue.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
^ I haven’t taken polls asking different questions and combined them into one broad survey.
Danios’ own article includes a quote where European Muslims were asked if killing in the name of Islam were justified. We have not seen evidence that a different survey of European non-Muslims asked the same question with regards to their respective religious beliefs and violence.
Another example is where Danios compared a poll surveying Palestinian views on killing civilians in suicide bombings with a separate poll asking Israelis if they believe it acceptable to target and kill civilians without regard to any single method of attack. The problem here is that Palestinians could still support attacks on civilians but not suicide attacks. Or that suicide attacks – where civilians are often exclusively the target – is supported for different reasons by Palestinians than the Israeli who may support the Israeli military targeting fighters in the heat of a battle but accept the probability that civilians will become involved due to the nature of fighting an enemy that often times will be found in residential areas rather than an open field.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
My God. This is so childish. These are freaking polls! Who gives a damn what they say. No need to have a debate over it.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“If this is your premise for objecting to the article then you fail for several reasons. First, in almost every instance (including those where Muslims and non-Muslims were asked the exact same questions), Muslims were less likely to justify killing civilians (indeed they were often far less likely to justify killing civilians). This fact is incontrovertible notwithstanding all your obfuscation and smokescreen.”
Exactly! Fine, Bob, let’s dismiss all the data from Muslim countries because (according to you) they were asked different questions. So now we’re left with statistics for America where we can clearly see Muslim Americans are the least likely to support the killing of civilians.
Can you deny that Bob? No. The Muslim and Non-Muslim Americans were asked exactly the same questions.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Your “point” fails because, in pretty much every poll, Muslims were far less likely to justify killing civilians. Here are even more polls that substantiate this view:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/polls_surveys_and_statistics_relating_to_islam_and_muslims_1995_to_200/0012599
The fact remains that the above mentioned polls went against your preconceived notions, which is why you’re miffed at the results. Most of your objections to the above surveys/polls is entirely conjecture (e.g. most Pakistanis are okay with vigilantism or that the “heat of battle” must be taken into context). Is there any doubt what your reaction would be if the results were reversed? Would you give Muslims the benefit of the doubt?
August 7th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
“Danios’ own article includes a quote where European Muslims were asked if killing in the name of Islam were justified. We have not seen evidence that a different survey of European non-Muslims asked the same question with regards to their respective religious beliefs and violence.”
*Duh* because that was not the bloody point of the article!! The article is only comparing the percentage of Muslims around the world that support sometimes killing civilians vs Americans and Israelis.
You seem to be changing your claims pretty fast now. Just a minute ago you said European non-Muslims were asked a different questions (hence spoiling the comparison that wasn’t actually being made) and now you claim they weren’t asked at all. In any case, their opinion does not matter and Danios conclusion (as stated in the title) still stands.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
All the links are provided in the article. The one you’re asking for was taken from a website Robert Spencer linked to. That website clearly says they were using the following Pew poll:
Actually, the link you provided asked Muslims whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam is justifiable.
Your link:
Moreover, majorities or pluralities among eight of the nine Muslim publics surveyed this year say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians can never be justified to defend Islam; only in the Palestinian territories does a majority endorse such attacks.
Which poll were non-Muslims asked if suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians to defend [insert religion] justifiable?
Am I to find a similar poll asking European and American Christians and Jews if suicide bombing and forms of violence against civilians in the name of Christianity / Judaism justifiable?
I also notice that your link says 87%, not 95%, of Pakistanis oppose violence against civilians. So, where did Danios’ figure that 5% of Pakistanis support violence against civilians come from?
Where did you get this absurd theory that Danios set up a false comparison between European Muslims and non-Muslims.
If they were asked different questions then there is a false comparison. European Muslims were asked:
Like Muslims elsewhere in Europe only a tiny minority of French Muslims (16%) say that suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets in defense of Islam can often or sometimes be justified.
So, were European non-Muslims asked if suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets in defense of Christianity can often or sometimes be justified?
August 7th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Your “point” fails because, in pretty much every poll, Muslims were far less likely to justify killing civilians. Here are even more polls that substantiate this view:
No, the point fails because in most of the %’s Danios uses, Muslims and non-Muslims were not asked the same question.
August 7th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
“So, were European non-Muslims asked if suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets in defense of Christianity can often or sometimes be justified?”
Hey moron, for the last time, ‘European non-Muslims” are not in the article at all. Seriously, are you stupid? Here is the Conclusion that Danios is trying to make “Survey Shows Muslims in Every Country Less Likely to Justify Killing Civilians than Americans and Israelis”. So why the hell should he include any data from European non-Muslims.
“I also notice that your link says 87%, not 95%, of Pakistanis oppose violence against civilians. So, where did Danios’ figure that 5% of Pakistanis support violence against civilians come from?”
Read the article. The table right at the bottom and look at the data for 2009.
“No, the point fails because in most of the %’s Danios uses, Muslims and non-Muslims were not asked the same question.”
What about America — the country that Muslim opinions are being compared against?
August 7th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
“…it is a sloppy type of conclusion that would never fly if Robert Spencer had done such a thing.”
Ermmm…no. Spencer, for example, claims that Muslims believe that the “gates of ijtihad” are closed and then cites jurists (e.g. Ibn Taymiyya) who opined otherwise. There are numerous other examples; Spencer’s work is full of many holes.
“I also notice that your link says 87%, not 95%, of Pakistanis oppose violence against civilians.”
In other words, a mere 8%. I don’t know why you’re surprised that the results of polling aren’t static, though.
“So, where did Danios’ figure that 5% of Pakistanis support violence against civilians come from?”
The poll which Spencer himself cited. See “The article cited by Spencer reads….”
Again, despite you obfuscation, the incontrovertible fact remains that Muslims are less likely to justify killing civilians. Here’s another study that buttresses this view:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
August 7th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Here’s Bob’s conundrum. He’s confused as to why the opinions of European Muslims regarding civilian murder were included in the article, but not compared with their non-Muslim (European) counterparts.
Here’s why. Muslims are considered monolithic by islamophobes and are believed to be the same wherever those barbarians may reside. You know, the whole texts and teachings canard.
But other than that, when only American Jews, Christians and Muslims were compared people like LibertyPhile bright up the red herring of “but but, American Muslims are more moderate (OH SHIT MODERATE MUSLIMS EXIST NOW!)”.
But apart from that, what is the point you’re trying to make with your “ZOMG THE QUESTIONS WERE WORDED DIFFERENTLY FOR THE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS!!!”. What does any of that prove?
August 7th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
What about America — the country that Muslim opinions are being compared against?
Is that the only example you can cite where you know for a fact that Muslims and non-Muslims were actually asked the same question?
Hey, at least we agree that for the rest of the poll results, non-Muslims and Muslims were asked different questions. The conclusions drawn from the comparisons between Americans/Israelis and European Muslims and Muslims in Muslim majority countries are therefore invalid.
That’s my entire point. Danios is throwing together different polls where different questions were asked and then comparing the results.
August 7th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I acknowledge I made mistakes in mentioning European non-Muslims and the 13% figure of Pakistanis. The rest of what I said – the overall main point that remains unchallenged – stands.
Different questions were asked of Americans/Israelis to Muslims in Europe and Muslims in Muslim majority countries. Unfortunately, no one has disputed this or given it much thought.
August 7th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
“Is that the only example you can cite where you know for a fact that Muslims and non-Muslims were actually asked the same question?”
Polls in which non-Muslims and Muslims were asked the same question were presented, but you ignored them completely. A severe case of epistemological closure, no doubt.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103618/palestinians-israelis-favor-nonviolent-solutions.aspx
August 7th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
This study also has the same results.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
August 7th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
^Actually, the author of your piece makes the same sort of mistake Danios makes in this thread.
He compares two different sets of poll questions and compares the conclusions. Muslims were never asked in the abstract whether killing civilians can be justified, but whether killing civilians to defend Islam is justified – and the poll questions explicitly mention suicide bombings as an example for Muslims to think of as a form of killing civilians.
The poll asking Americans does not ask them if killing civilians to defend Christianity is justified nor does it mention – say, Haditha or some other massacre – for Americans to reflect upon before answering the question.
The polls asked different questions and are worded in different ways. This is sloppy journalism that doesn’t on the Christian Science Monitor.
August 7th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
So Bob, what’s the conclusion to your exhaustive arguments?
“Muslims are still violent barbarians. Nice try with all of your polls though. Trying to confuse me haha.”?
‘Cause that’s what I see.
August 7th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
“Muslims were never asked in the abstract whether killing civilians can be justified, but whether killing civilians to defend Islam is justified – and the poll questions explicitly mention suicide bombings as an example for Muslims to think of as a form of killing civilians.”
Goal posts moved again… lol, I thought Muslims were fighting in the name of their religion, now they’re not?
August 7th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
And then there are people like Pamela Geller, who does not believe in the concept of “innocent civilians” (when they are Muslim and/or Arab).
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/07/the_innocent_ci.html
August 7th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Like I’ve already stated, this needs to stop. Anyone who puts any sort of weight into these polls just legitimizes the agenda behind them. If you are going to be basing your opinion of a whole group on a simple poll then I truly feel sorry for you people.
And its funny because lots of the commenters on this site brushed off the poll from last year that claimed over 60% of Americans did not want a community center built next to Ground Zero. But when it comes to these polls, they are monolithic and should be deemed as certain facts. Both premises are bull*&$!. You can’t be hypocritical when it comes to this. Just ignore these findings in general. They prove nothing and add no substance to any topic. All of you have been going around in circles all afternoon. This is exactly the type of garbage the mainstream media are suckers for.
August 7th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Goal posts moved again… lol, I thought Muslims were fighting in the name of their religion, now they’re not?
The poll questions European Muslims and Muslims in the Muslim world were asked were different from the questions asked of Americans and Israelis.
August 7th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I find the Islamaphobic sudden conversion to nuanced thinking amusing.
Were they different questions? Yes.
Do the polls support the usual Islamaphobic narrative? No.
Are the majority of American protestant Christians in favor of using military force to sometimes TARGET civilians? Yes.
Are the majority of American Muslims in favor of using military force to sometimes TARGET civilians? No.
Does a larger percentage of American Muslims or a larger percentage of American Protestant Christians think individuals or small groups can be justified in TARGETING civilians? American Protestant Christians.
Does this poll get Islamaphobe underwear in a bunch? Yes.
August 7th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Clearly, JengaBob (formerly known as JihadBob, JustBob etc.) finds these polls deeply troubling. A look at the thread reveals his ever-evolving argument, as well as the fact that he never read the article in its entirety. His first comment asked whether or not “the Muslim respondents asked if killing civilians was justified in the context of suicide bombings/terrorism.” Now he complains about the fact that suicide bombings/terrorism were invoked when Muslims respondents were asked—a complete reversal! Also note that he attempts early to move the goalposts by mentioning sectarian violence in the Muslim world. (Incidentally, that’s his usual argument; if Geller or Spencer say something completely wrong and bigoted, for example, he brings up some incident to “refute” the article.)
“Actually, the author of your piece makes the same sort of mistake Danios makes in this thread.”
Showing that facts don’t coincide with common Islamophobic assumptions?
Odd how you completely ignored my other link in which the exact same questions were purported to both Israelis and Palestinians, revealing that the latter were less inclined to violence.
“Muslims were never asked in the abstract whether killing civilians can be justified, but whether killing civilians to defend Islam is justified – and the poll questions explicitly mention suicide bombings as an example for Muslims to think of as a form of killing civilians.”
Ah, so now the surveys are flawed because they mention suicide bombings? In other words, if Muslims and non-Muslims are polled regarding whether or not killing civilians is justified and the results appear more negative for the latter, the fact that suicide bombings were invoked as an example undermines the whole survey? The same basic question was asked, with only the wording different.
As I’ve mentioned before, your objection to the polls is based almost entirely on conjecture. You seem to think that Muslims are just as likely as Americans and Israelis to justify militaries killing civilians—a premise that falls flat for several reasons. First, it’s Muslims who have largely been on the receiving end of “professional terrorism.” Second, when Muslims and non-Muslims are asked the exact same question, it’s Muslims who reject justifying killing civilians.
August 7th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
This poll — about the opinions of Americans and Iranians regarding attacking civilians — seems to concur with results mentioned in article.
____________________________
Both Iranians and Americans were asked a series of questions about attacks on civilians. Taking these questions together, it appears that Iranians reject attacks on civilians more overwhelmingly than do Americans.
At the most general level, respondents were asked: “Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”
A very large majority of Iranians (80%) take the strongest position that such attacks “are never justified,” and another 5 percent say they are rarely justified. Only 11 percent call them sometimes (8%) or often (3%) justified.
Americans largely concur but at lower levels of intensity. Forty-six percent say that such attacks are never justified, while 27 percent say they are rarely justified. Twenty-four percent see them as sometimes (19%) or often (5%) justified.
August 7th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Johnny K:
“And its funny because lots of the commenters on this site brushed off the poll from last year that claimed over 60% of Americans did not want a community center built next to Ground Zero. But when it comes to these polls, they are monolithic and should be deemed as certain facts.”
I see what you’re saying, but the situations are different. While people here certainly had mixed, even dismissive responses to the polling on the GZ “Mosque,” I don’t recall many questioning the numbers themselves.
The Islamophobes have no such recourse, because the polling directly addresses the central thesis of their entire existence on the internet: the idea that Islam is a uniquely violent, intolerant religion that is a threat to Western democracy. The polling, which comes from Gallup, whose reputation they can’t touch, as they’re the first to slobber over any Gallup polling that makes Muslims look bad – points to precisely the opposite conclusion. Sure, it’s only one poll, but as far as I’m aware, it’s the only one of its kind to address the issue this broadly and directly, and so they’re at a complete loss to spin it, which is why they’re floundering about the way LibertyPhool and Bob are.
August 7th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Also note that it’s been several days since this polling went live, and not a single mention on JihadWatch. Ditto Geller’s hate site.
Strange, isn’t it?
August 7th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
@JengaBob and LibertyPhile I allready posted this on the other article but here u go again
Mail’s Wikileaks ‘revelation’ about Muslim students is their own 2008 story
The Daily Mail’s latest Wikileaks ‘revelation’ about British Muslims is actually a story they published in 2008, and it’s as dodgy now as it was then.
Share506
reddit this
Comments (66)
Spot the difference: Today’s Daily Mail carries the headline “The latest WikiLeaks revelation: 1 in 3 British Muslim students back killing for Islam and 40% want Sharia law.” If that sounds awfully familiar, it should: back in 2008 the paper revealed that “one third of British Muslim students say it’s acceptable to kill for Islam,” and that “40 per cent want to see the introduction of Islamic sharia law in Britain.”
The Mail in 2010 claim the figures are from a “a survey revealed by the WikiLeaks’ publication of U.S. diplomatic cables,” but in fact the cables simply repeat a survey published in the, er, Daily Mail two years ago.
The figures were dodgy in 2008, and they’re dodgy now, painting a spectacularly misleading picture of the results of a poll of British Muslim students conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion. Unfortunately the original poll is no longer online, but luckily I worked through some of the actual questions two years ago (Edit: Now found. Many thanks to Press Not Sorry on Twitter for digging out where the poll results had moved to.)
Let’s take the two big assertions, summarized neatly in the Mail’s 2010 article: “1 in 3 British Muslim students back killing for Islam and 40% want Sharia law.” What questions were actually asked?
“How supportive, if at all, would you be of the official introduction of Shari’ah Law into British law for Muslims in Britain?”
Very supportive – 21%
Fairly supportive – 19%”
The headline conveniently drops the clause “for Muslims”, and in 2008 the clause was buried from the article completely. 2010′s reporting is fractionally better, but still implies a black & white debate when in reality the question accomodates a range of views – what does “fairly supportive” mean, for example?
But the biggest and clearest misrepresentation is the claim that “one third of British Muslims students say it’s acceptable to kill for Islam.” This is such a blatant distortion that it’s hard to explain how journalists could twist the results of the poll in such a perverse way by accident. The actual question asked was:
“Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?”
Yes, in order to preserve and promote that religion – 4%
Yes, but only if that religion is under attack – 28%
32% said that it was acceptable to kill in the name of a religion – not Islam, any religion. Of those, 87.5% said “only in self-defense”, while the tiny remainder said yes to an answer that includes the confusing conflation “preserve and promote”. I’m curious to know what percentage of Christians would give similar answers, and what proportion of human beings in general if we substitute “religion” for “philosophy” or “way of life”.
In fact Kenneth Ballen at the Christian Science Monitor tackled this point quite neatly in 2007, in his article on “the myth of Muslim support for terror,” pointing to opinion polls that showed, for example, that:
“…only 46 percent of Americans think that ‘bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians’ are “never justified,” while 24 percent believe these attacks are ‘often or sometimes justified.’”
You could report that as “54% of Americans think it’s fine to kill civilians in the name of capitalism!” but then you would be as stupid as the ubiquitous anonymousity who lurks under the name “Daily Mail Reporter.” [Note: Edited to correct missing words and failure to add up properly]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/dec/22/1
/\ See also
August 7th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
@JengaBob and LibertyPhile I allready posted this on the other article but here u go again
Mail’s Wikileaks ‘revelation’ about Muslim students is their own 2008 story
The Daily Mail’s latest Wikileaks ‘revelation’ about British Muslims is actually a story they published in 2008, and it’s as dodgy now as it was then.
Share506
reddit this
Comments (66)
Spot the difference: Today’s Daily Mail carries the headline “The latest WikiLeaks revelation: 1 in 3 British Muslim students back killing for Islam and 40% want Sharia law.” If that sounds awfully familiar, it should: back in 2008 the paper revealed that “one third of British Muslim students say it’s acceptable to kill for Islam,” and that “40 per cent want to see the introduction of Islamic sharia law in Britain.”
The Mail in 2010 claim the figures are from a “a survey revealed by the WikiLeaks’ publication of U.S. diplomatic cables,” but in fact the cables simply repeat a survey published in the, er, Daily Mail two years ago.
The figures were dodgy in 2008, and they’re dodgy now, painting a spectacularly misleading picture of the results of a poll of British Muslim students conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion. Unfortunately the original poll is no longer online, but luckily I worked through some of the actual questions two years ago (Edit: Now found. Many thanks to Press Not Sorry on Twitter for digging out where the poll results had moved to.)
Let’s take the two big assertions, summarized neatly in the Mail’s 2010 article: “1 in 3 British Muslim students back killing for Islam and 40% want Sharia law.” What questions were actually asked?
“How supportive, if at all, would you be of the official introduction of Shari’ah Law into British law for Muslims in Britain?”
Very supportive – 21%
Fairly supportive – 19%”
The headline conveniently drops the clause “for Muslims”, and in 2008 the clause was buried from the article completely. 2010′s reporting is fractionally better, but still implies a black & white debate when in reality the question accomodates a range of views – what does “fairly supportive” mean, for example?
But the biggest and clearest misrepresentation is the claim that “one third of British Muslims students say it’s acceptable to kill for Islam.” This is such a blatant distortion that it’s hard to explain how journalists could twist the results of the poll in such a perverse way by accident. The actual question asked was:
“Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?”
Yes, in order to preserve and promote that religion – 4%
Yes, but only if that religion is under attack – 28%
32% said that it was acceptable to kill in the name of a religion – not Islam, any religion. Of those, 87.5% said “only in self-defense”, while the tiny remainder said yes to an answer that includes the confusing conflation “preserve and promote”. I’m curious to know what percentage of Christians would give similar answers, and what proportion of human beings in general if we substitute “religion” for “philosophy” or “way of life”.
In fact Kenneth Ballen at the Christian Science Monitor tackled this point quite neatly in 2007, in his article on “the myth of Muslim support for terror,” pointing to opinion polls that showed, for example, that:
“…only 46 percent of Americans think that ‘bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians’ are “never justified,” while 24 percent believe these attacks are ‘often or sometimes justified.’”
You could report that as “54% of Americans think it’s fine to kill civilians in the name of capitalism!” but then you would be as stupid as the ubiquitous anonymousity who lurks under the name “Daily Mail Reporter.” [Note: Edited to correct missing words and failure to add up properly]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/dec/22/1
August 7th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
/\ See also
August 7th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
JN – All these polls aren’t indicative of reality. Do I feel more unsafe about my well being around Christians as opposed to Muslims? I really don’t. At the same time, do I really think 3/4ths of New Yorkers were opposed to the community center? I don’t believe that either. I guess I just hang around the right people – I doubt thats it.
August 7th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Which reminds me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4
That said I find that Gallup are generally pretty accurate as polls go; they certainly (normally) word their questions well and use local staff to both design and collect the data. Their is certainly some evidence of truth and reality in them.
Also Johnny K; I think it may be the people you are with. Try approaching certain Christians and saying you are Muslim or worse a convert from Christianity or, God forbid, an atheist! Sure, they aren’t killing people yet but sometimes I feel that, sadly, it is only a matter of time. I was reading some relatively mainstream loon sites yesterday, the comments sections from these so called ‘Christians’ were as vile as anything I’ve seen by so called ‘Muslims’. Oh and of course, in the US these people tend to be the ones with guns and 6 years worth of food and ammo**… so yeah there is cause for concern. Remember old Pammy and her email from Norway about people stockpiling ammo? It’s real.
**(Might I add that I’m a proud ‘prepper’ becuase I think it’s best to be ready for whatever the world throws at you, not all of us are nutty religious types. I’m religious but just insane.)
August 7th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
It is intellectually dishonest to equate polls with any variation in wording at all, no matter how small. Word order and the simple use or on-use of “a” or “the” can have profound effects.
“For instance, the order of questions can affect how a person responds to some items on the poll. And question wording, which is more art than science, can have an even bigger impact”. (http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Polling.html)
And that’s not even to mention the issue of translations between different languages and the different semantic ranges that supposedly equivalent words in two different languages may cover.
The only way to be able to make an honest, intellectually valid, claim would be to have ONE poll that consulted professional translators to design the questions, have control groups like truly bilingual native speakers, and try to have representatives of each religion in each language group.
These poll results can easily be explained by observing just how much more common it is for non-Muslims to find Muslims in civilian clothing trying to kill them than vice versa. When Muslims experience violence from non-Muslims, those non-Muslims are wearing uniforms.
How many Americans and British soldiers have seen Muslims in civilian clothing setting off bombs and shooting at them? At least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands by now. And they’ve told their friends and family about that.
This article is intellectually dishonest.
August 7th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
“…The survey is of American Muslims, who are unlikely to be representative of Muslims in Muslim countries or of Muslims in Europe.”- LibertyPhile
Apply critical thinking. This survey is ALSO of American Mormons, Christians, Jews, Athiests and Agnostics who are unlikely to be representative of Christians and Jews in Asia and Europe where anti-Muslim sentiments are higher. You basically have the polls for the less violent Mormons, Christians and Jews. Could it be indoctrination? What are these people taught as children by their parents?
August 7th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Abdullah67 Says:
August 7th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
“What Bob is saying is “this data can’t be true because it just doesn’t feel right.”
These Islam-bashers rely on people’s prejudices and fears to move them emotionally. Take an anecdote from here, throw in a passage from a random book of Fiqh there, sprinkle in some statements from the most ignorant Muslims, and you got yourself an argument. This can be used to dismiss any defense of Islam or the Muslims, no matter how unrelated it may seem to the topic at hand.
No need to be scholarly. No need to be just or reasonable…Just remember your research methodology (Islam=bad), and you’ll have a whole comments section of anonymous applauders. This seems to be the approach people like Bob have taken.”
That’s the money quote!! can I quote you on my blog?
As for the article, Danios is on point with his conclusions, and if people understood exactly what he was doing(exposing the hypocrisy of Islamophobes through the medium of poll analysis), there would be no argument about the uselessness of polls.
That being said I do find it interesting that, just as with the Norway terrorism incident and the rush of the Islamophobesphere to demand nuance from us and not claim this as an act of Christian Extremism, we see the jahils on this site imploring us to use nuance in our analysis of polling data.
However we must bear in mind what I think is Johhny K’s point. All polls are inherently biased since they are presented with the logistics obstacle of being unable to polls every one they should. These polls are hardly representative and only represent the opinions and answers of THOSE POLLED. It is erroneous to conclude anything other than “according to those polled, Muslims in every country less likely to justify killing civilians than Americans and Israelis”. This caveat as “disclaimer” in the beginning of the previous phrase must be duly noted.
Insha’Allah I will be doing a series on my blog soon about the misuse of statistics and polling data to advance the Islamophobic narrative.
Ramadan Kareem—read one juz’ every day
August 7th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
@LibertyPhile:
I had a quick look at the links you gave but can see no support for your claims. I don’t have time just now but will look again as soon as I can.
That’s funny, since *you* were the one who directed *me* to them. *You* were the one who was using them as a proof against Muslims, and who have in the past reproduced these exact polls to vilify Muslims.
But now, somehow–magically!–you’ve never seen these polls before and just “had a quick look” at them, and aren’t too familiar with them and “don’t have the time now” but will certainly get back to us. Haha.
These are the polls that you and other Islamophobes like you rely on and *have* relied on. In fact, you yourself once compiled them.
Could it be that you’re now just bumbling around, looking for some way to get out of this?
And I recall a survey of students in the UK which addresses this question but I haven’t yet found my copy or the reference.
You vaguely recall. Yes, we’ll certainly take your word for it. In fact, I have already provided you a very reliable poll of British Muslims: only 16% of them think it’s sometimes justified to target and kill civilians, far lower than the 58% of Christian-Americans who do.
Does that table include non-American non-Muslims?
Yet again moving the goalposts. This is your tacit admission that Americans and Israelis are more likely than Muslims in every country in the world to think it’s sometimes justified to target and kill civilians.
I haven’t seen any posts about what European non-Muslims think of this issue, but it really has very little impact on the matter: my point is that the U.S. and Israel have become militaristic countries, certainly more so than today’s Europe.
You really are desperately trying to grasp at straws here…finding anything that you possibly can to find an “out.”
* * * * *
Webdawah said to JengaBob:
You can scoff at the statistics all you want, but if the results had Muslims at the top, you probably won’t question it.
That’s absolutely correct, Webdawah! You hit the nail on its head. If the data had shown Muslims at the top, then it would be the greatest and most irrefutable proof in the world.
In fact, it’s worse than that, since LibertyPhile responded with these very polls as a “counter-proof” to my initial article involving Muslim-Americans. Up until that point in time, these were amazingly accurate polls to them. Once I showed them that these polls damn their arguments, suddenly there is something wrong with the polls.
@JengaBob:
That’s my entire point. Danios is throwing together different polls where different questions were asked and then comparing the results.
That’s funny, because it was LibertyPhile (with you cheerleading) who linked to a website citing these “different polls” as a counter-proof to my initial article. LibertyPhile wanted to show that unlike Muslim-Americans the Muslims in Europe and the Muslim world were OK with targeting/killing civilians. So, the comparing two different polls was done by you guys. Once I showed that your counter-proof damns your argument, suddenly you cry foul that we can’t possibly compare two different polls.
This entire conversation clearly shows your bias, agenda, and deceit. Whatever supports your argument is accepted no matter how spurious, whereas whatever goes against your argument–no matter how factual–is rejected.
August 7th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Jack Cope – I see what you are talking about but those mainstream loon Christian right wing sites still represent the fringes of the political spectrum. Sure, they may get a decent amount of web traffic but so did Revolution Muslim. I doubt those websites support the views of the majority of their representative groups.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
I wish I shared your confidence in saying that. Said groups are already a powerful majority within the US Military; I have a good relationship with the MRFF (we trade articles and data) and they have been documenting this for years. While it is true that they are probably small in number they still pose a large threat and have far more political and military clout than any other extremist group. For example, in the past week the MRFF has managed to (barely) get the USAF to remove a training program for Missile Launch Officers (the guys who press the button to launch ICBMs at the end of the world) which was pushing fundamentalist Christian propaganda (basically that Jesus says it’s A-OK to nuke stuff). That is more disturbing than some guy in a cave I find! I’ll recommend reading the MRFF’s site, Mikey Weinstein is very very good (and the ‘Inbox’ section is a good source of ‘Christian’ hatemail):
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/
August 7th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Danios 1. Loons 0
FiNISH HIM!
FATALITY!
DANIOS WINS!
Wow danios’ reply just destroyed JB and LP. Great post Danios and great reply. The ‘phobes can’t take what they dish out…
August 8th, 2011 at 12:02 am
Once I showed that your counter-proof damns your argument, suddenly you cry foul that we can’t possibly compare two different polls.
I think you have an over active imagination. I never drew *comparisons* of separate polls that asked separate questions that I can recall.
But I have accepted your ‘challenge’, let’s look at the actual results on the ground to determine the factual accuracy of the polls in question.
Would you rather be an open Christian in ‘moderate’ Egypt and Pakistan or an open Muslim in the United States? In which country do you think you and your community would be safer from attacks if you or someone in your community provoked the general population in some, say if you began to openly make offensive statements of Jesus (in the United States) or Muhammad in Pakistan and Egypt?
And I’m not talking about you being arrested and sentenced to death in Pakistan, but about the general populace attacking you, your family and any random ‘Christians’ they come across.
Even though we’re to believe only 5% of Pakistanis support killing civilians (for some reason Pakistanis have suddenly become the most moderate of Muslims), I’ll take my chances in America where more than 50% of the general population supposedly justify killing civilians in certain circumstances. What say you?
August 8th, 2011 at 1:04 am
Terrorism?
———————————-
COPLEY, Ohio (AP) — A northeast Ohio man ran through his small town neighborhood Sunday shooting eight people, including his girlfriend and her brother, before he was shot and killed in an exchange of gunfire with police, authorities said.
Eight people, including the gunman, were killed. Witnesses told reporters at least one of the victims was a child.
Police did not have a motive and did not release the names or ages of the gunman or the victims but provided a chronology of the shootings that began around 11 a.m. in a middle-class neighborhood of Copley, a town of about 14,000 west of Akron.
“A person running through the neighborhood and firing a gun” prompted calls to police, Copley Police Department said in a news release late Sunday. At a home, the gunman shot his girlfriend, ran to a home next door and shot her brother and four others, then chased two people through some yards and shot one of them, police said.
He went into a third home and shot another person before leaving and exchanging gunfire with a police officer and a former police officer.
One of the man’s victims was taken to a hospital. The person’s condition was not known Sunday evening.
The names and ages of the victims and the gunman weren’t being released until police could tell family members, some of whom are out of state, Copley police Sgt. Eric Goodwin said.
The Akron Beacon Journal reported that Copley School Superintendent Brian Poe said a township trustee told him two Copley High School students were killed during the shootings and a third youth, an 11-year-old, was also killed. Poe said the trustee told him the 11-year-old was not a Copley student.
A neighbor, Gilbert Elie, said he was getting ready for church when he heard gunshots and cries for help in the wooded neighborhood. He went to a house across the street and said he found a shocking scene: the woman who lived there lying in the driveway, her husband shot near the garage, and their young granddaughter and another woman shot in the front seat of a vehicle, the windows apparently blown out by gunfire.
Elie said his neighbors Russ and Gerdie Johnson live at the home.
A third woman came out of the house next door and tried to talk to Elie, he said, but their brief exchange ended abruptly when a man followed her out of the house and shot her, sending the 75-year-old Elie running for safety behind a truck.
“She was talking to me, and he come up behind her and shot her, so I figured, maybe I’m next,” he told The Associated Press.
He hid until he could see the gunman was gone, then returned home. Police arrived, and Elie said he heard a second round of shots coming from behind the houses and assumed officers had killed the gunman.
August 8th, 2011 at 1:20 am
Jahil,
you’re whole argument is a calculated deceptive deflection…support of killing civilians means in terms of war, whether the actors are profession terrorists(armies)or “amateur terrorist”. Expanding the argument into the vigilantism of attacking Christians is your little canard/red herring.
Besides I don’t think Muslims are going to be making offensive statement towards ‘Isa(as) in any country, but *some* Christians seem to think that making offensive statements about Muhammad(saws)is acceptable. You can’t expect to get away with that in a fake democracy like Pakistan. All this special pleading reminds of the whole “if we can’t build a church or synagogue in Mecca, then no more mosques in the West. Back to irhabwatch(“jihadwatch) for you.
In the words of DAM:
“min irhabi?”
August 8th, 2011 at 1:34 am
@jengabob
I dont know why even you dont find that only 5% of Pakistanis supporting killing of civilians realistic… Do the math: Population of Pakistan is 187 million. 5% of that is 9.35 million, much more than the “hundreds of thousands” that you found odd.
August 8th, 2011 at 2:46 am
” I’ll take my chances in America where more than 50% of the general population supposedly justify killing civilians in certain circumstances.”
Tell that to the two Egyptian Coptic Christians who were harassed during a “Ground Zero Mosque” rally for looking too much like Muslims:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/07/ground_zero_mosque_hate
Or all the victims of 9/11 revenge attacks… Or the victims of Islamophobic attacks…
Plus, this entire idea of comparing Muslims in America to Muslims in Pakistan or Muslims in Somalia is absolutely ridiculous and beside the point. Do we ever compare Christians in America to Christians in Nigeria, who burn children because they think they’re witches by the way?
August 8th, 2011 at 3:35 am
@JengaBob:
You have suddenly and dramatically moved the goalposts yet again. Both articles (as well as the entire Understanding Jihad Series) were about war and terrorism, i.e. how warlike a nation is. In this regard, the U.S. and Israel are extremely warlike, more so than the Muslim world. Specifically, U.S. and Israel foreign policy are terrible.
As for discrimination and persecution of minority populations within its borders, the U.S. is much better than most countries in the world. This is something that the U.S. deserves commendation. Stated another way: Muslims inside U.S. are treated well, whereas Muslims living in the Muslim world are killed by the U.S. Of course, due to right-wing nut jobs like yourself and the two recent regimes (Bush and Obama) America’s commitment to civil rights–which was historically quite good–has been downgraded from a triple A+ rating to an AA+.
With regard to Israel, however, the Israelis treat non-Jews (Arabs) worse than most Muslim countries treat their non-Muslim residents, especially with regard to the number of people who are killed or expelled. Even in terms of discrimination, the situation is pretty bad in Israel.
To sum it up, the U.S. and Israel get a very poor grade when it comes to war, terrorism, and foreign policy. Meanwhile, the U.S. is pretty good with regard to its minority populations inside of its borders (including Muslims)–a fact that has been recently threatened due to right-wing nut jobs like you and the two last regimes. On the other hand, Israel’s foreign and domestic policy stink: it not only wages wars against its neighbors but actively persecutes those minorities within its borders.
The fact is, however, that you have moved the goalposts because you want desperately to change the topic to something else.
August 8th, 2011 at 4:27 am
I guess Americans said it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians is because they want to preemptively strike those evil 5% Pakistanis which had the same idea.
August 8th, 2011 at 5:40 am
Bob’s getting gang raped, poor chap.
August 8th, 2011 at 6:55 am
Link182
LOL
August 8th, 2011 at 8:49 am
“As for discrimination and persecution of minority populations within its borders, the U.S. is much better than most countries in the world. This is something that the U.S. deserves commendation. Stated another way: Muslims inside U.S. are treated well, whereas Muslims living in the Muslim world are killed by the U.S.”
To be fair, it’s not just the U.S. responsible for the deaths of Muslims in Muslim countries, it’s oftentimes the governments themselves. It’s also true that minorities in many Muslim countries are treated terribly, and it’s not something we should try to downplay.
Nonetheless, the insistence of Islamophobes on comparing a country like the US to, say, Saudi Arabia,a rentier state with no foundation for democratic accountability, is intellectually irresponsible and absurd.
All that needs to be done to silence them on this point is to examine the treatment of minorities in non-democratic, non-Muslim states that lack any significant protections of civil rights. It becomes quickly apparent that they are running a double standard.
August 8th, 2011 at 8:52 am
lmao @ people in denial. Tough to take, I understand.
August 8th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Also the reason why the results aren’t suprising is because atleast in Islam, Civilian’s in particular can’t be targetted under any circumstances.
In a war which involved nuclear weapons, the Muslims would certainly be at a disadvantage against the Christians/Jews who would pretty much drop a bomb on civilians to weaken the Muslims. We on the other hand wouldn’t be able to do this.
But in the pats we’ve STILL won wars, thanks to Allah
August 8th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Can we use the same logic we use with pakistan here?
===========================
Westboro Baptist Church Plans To Picket At Norway Funerals
(“Huffington Post,” August 4, 2011)
Topeka, USA – The Westboro Baptist Church, a radical religious group from Kansas, announced in a press release that it intends to picket the funerals of the victims of the Norway massacre. “Norway must repent or perish,” the document reads. “WBC will picket at the funerals of the Norway dead to warn the living: they died for your sins.”
The Topeka-based church was founded in 1955 by Fred Phelps, and believes “the modern militant homosexual movement” poses “a clear and present danger to the survival of America, exposing our nation to the wrath of God as in in 1898 B.C. at Sodom and Gomorrah.” The organization became notoriously famous in 1998, when members of the group demonstrated at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, who was tortured and murdered because he was gay. Since 2005, the group has also targeted funerals of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, arguing that the soldiers’ death are a “righteous” punishment against an evil nation. According to the church’s website, the organization has staged 46,228 demonstrations since June 1991
August 8th, 2011 at 11:50 am
or
Mexico City, Mexico – A Bolivian-born man clutching a Bible and claiming a divine mission hijacked a plane in Mexico with more than 100 people aboard on Wednesday, but the incident ended quickly and without bloodshed.
Jose Flores, who told police he was a Protestant minister, seized the AeroMexico Boeing 737 after take off from the Caribbean resort of Cancun demanding to speak to Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
Flores, 44, smuggled a false bomb on board and threatened to blow up the aircraft if he could not warn the president of what he said was an impending earthquake, police said.
“He said he is a minister and that it was a divine revelation that made him carry out this action,” Security Minister Genaro Garcia told reporters.
The plane landed safely in Mexico City, its original destination, and police stormed the aircraft after the passengers had been allowed off, but not the crew.
August 8th, 2011 at 11:56 am
These statistics won’t work with hateful loons. Hate does not understand statistics because hate is an instinct, not a mental process based on mindful observation of facts.
August 8th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Same anti muslim logic
Because it show muslims are less likely to support killing civilan deaths and is maybe “pro muslim” stats it must not be true …. If this was other way around and it did show muslims supported civilan deaths Then it is FACT no if and or anything else and we would prob hear about it from BOB 24/7
August 8th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“These statistics won’t work with hateful loons”
It’s not meant for loons but meant for those who are confused with all the misinfo. they’re getting from bigots.
August 8th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
@JengaBob
“say if you began to openly make offensive statements of Jesus (in the United States) or Muhammad in Pakistan and Egypt?”
Now, this is the crux of the matter, anyway. If you’re going to change the goal posts, why don’t you realize that Muslims gain nothing by making offensive statements of prophet Jesus. Why would they?
What Muslims want is reciprocity. It’s true! I personally know of no Muslim who makes offensive statements of prophet Jesus. It is part of their belief system to respect and revere the prophets. Hence, Muslims fail to understand why non-Muslims, especially Christians, do not respect their prophet. It’s only fair.
If you would, you would understand the importance of the Prophet for Muslims and how they view him. If you do not understand it, you do not understand the Muslims. Things cannot get any simpler than that.
August 8th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Like Bob said muslims are treated so well but these devil Muslims in america and across the water mistreat there non muslim bro like crap
——————————-
CAIR-MI Asks FBI to Probe Threat Against Muslim Driver
Man allegedly shouts racial slurs, points handgun at woman wearing Islamic scarf
(SOUTHFIELD, MI, 8/7/11) — The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) today called on the FBI to investigate an alleged bias-motivated threat against a Muslim woman driver this morning in Ann Arbor.
The 21-year-old Muslim woman, who is of Palestinian heritage and wears and Islamic head scarf (hijab), reported to CAIR-MI that a white male driving a truck pulled up to her vehicle while she was stopped at a red light and began honking his horn. According to the Muslim driver, the alleged assailant then shouted racial slurs such as “You don’t belong here,” “Your people need to be killed,” and “You’re a terrorist.” She also reported that the alleged assailant swerved his vehicle toward hers and pointed a handgun at her.
After the assailant reportedly saw the victim using her cell phone to call 911, he sped off. The victim provided the Ann Arbor Police Department with the alleged assailant’s license plate number. (It is not clear in which state the vehicle is registered.)
===============
Now since this women was not killed this does not count as Hate racism bigotry all that guy did was point a gun at her…..
August 8th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Also
===========
Blasphemous’ Philippine art riles Catholics
(AFP, August 3, 2011)
Manila, Philippines – An art exhibit featuring a Jesus Christ poster with a wooden penis glued to His face has sparked protests in the mainly Catholic Philippines.
Bishops and lay groups have demanded the state-run Cultural Centre of the Philippines close the exhibit on grounds it is blasphemous, immoral, illegal and offends the country’s Catholic majority.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines said on its website that Christian lay groups were also preparing a lawsuit.
“Those responsible for the public exhibit… have a liability because they offended the religious beliefs of a country that is 85
August 8th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
@ JD:
Wait wait wait… this happened in Michigan? Maybe the police should be on the lookout for Debbie Schloosel. Debbie’s a middle aged man right? At least that’s what I thought from the pictures
August 8th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
If you’re going to change the goal posts
Sorry, what goalposts am I moving? The questions asked respondents if killing civilians were ever justified.
An unruly mob lynching some Christians is no different from a jihadist detonating his explosives in a church or Shia Mosque….
But as Danios said, the proof’s in the pudding is in the eating.
So far I don’t have any takers for people who would rather openly proselytize in Pakistan as Ahmadis or Christians than in America as Muslims.
@JD, check this article from Pakistan yesterday:
Karachi: August 7, 2011. (PCP) Arnold Archie Dass, age 38, was gunned down in oldest Karachi city Christian colony named Drigh Road on August 6, 2011.
The armed Muslim gunmen were waiting for Arnold Dass at Hazara Chowk in Drigh Road, and sprayed bullet in front of dozen of eye witnesses on Arnold Archie Dass when he approached in his car on way to his home in afternoon.
August 8th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Because it show muslims are less likely to support killing civilan deaths and is maybe “pro muslim” stats it must not be true ….
I’m sorry, I have discussed the credibility of the results from Muslim countries and Muslim communities in Europe.
My personal opinion is that I don’t believe Pakistanis are several times more ‘moderate’ than American Muslims. That belief defies all logic and common sense.
But my issue with this thread wasn’t to attack the credibility of the polls but in Danios’ use in comparing the results of polls that asked *different* questions.
Non-Muslims were not asked the same questions that European Muslims and Muslims in Muslim majority nations were. That was what was disingenuous and dishonest.
August 8th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Great article. I would just like to add this article that I read in Newsweek a good while back, where Fareed Zacharia (on p.3) states the following:
“The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, where only 12 percent of Jordanians view suicide attacks as “often or sometimes justified” (down from 57 percent in 2005). In Indonesia, 85 percent of respondents agree that terrorist attacks are “rarely/never justified” (in 2002, by contrast, only 70 percent opposed such attacks). In Pakistan, that figure is 90 percent, up from 43 percent in 2002. Gerges points out that, by comparison, only 46 percent of Americans say that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,” while 24 percent believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified.”"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/11/the-jihad-against-the-jihadis.html
August 8th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Looks like Bob’s going in circles, again. Note that as always he skirts around opposing points, sometimes ignoring them completely or choosing to quote comments out of context (which, for example, he does to Danios’ “If you’re going to change goalposts…”).
“But my issue with this thread wasn’t to attack the credibility of the polls…”
Funny, that’s what you usually do. Whenever a poll’s results contradict your preconceived notions you reject it out of hand. In fact, that’s precisely what you did on this thread (i.e. you attacked the “credibility of the [poll]”):
“Do you actually expect anyone to believe that only 5% of Pakistanis support killing civilians (when hundreds of thousands openly marched for the bodyguard who killed a politician for ‘blaspheming against the blasphemy law, to name but one actual example)?”
Incidentally, it turned out that the “hundreds of thousands” part was either completely fabricated or a manifestation of your ignorance. Other commentators have explained the fallacy of using the above-mentioned protesters as indicative of the majority of Pakistan’s population.
“Non-Muslims were not asked the same questions that European Muslims and Muslims in Muslim majority nations were. That was what was disingenuous and dishonest.”
We can gauge that Muslims are generally less likely to justify killing civilians (than Americans and Israelis) because in every poll presented where they are asked the same question this was the result.
Your whole contention is supposedly that the questions were worded differently, yet you were presented with polls in which Muslims and non-Muslims were asked the same questions (e.g. the poll that gauged the opinions of Palestinians and Israelis) and subsequently ignored them. That was disingenuous and dishonest.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103618/palestinians-israelis-favor-nonviolent-solutions.aspx
Of course, there’s also the fact that you invoked (in the previous thread) polls that asked different questions in order to palliate the results of the recent Gallup poll. Hypocrisy much?
“Sorry, what goalposts am I moving? The questions asked respondents if killing civilians were ever justified.”
Yes indeed, you moved the goalposts away from war and terrorism to discrimination and sectarian violence. You did this because the American and Israeli militaries have killed far more Muslim civilians that vice versa. In other words, you’re again choosing to ignore an incontrovertible fact because it doesn’t support your argument.
August 8th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
@JengaBob says ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’.
August 8th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
@JengaBob
You seem to choose your “feelings” over facts. Should I tell you what I feel about you or you suffice with the facts?
It’s not our fault that the truth hurts and does not fulfill your hateful aspirations. Your logic is reversed. You wish deep in your heart the Muslims voted 100% for terrorism to prove you were right. You want the world to adjust to your fantasy instead of you adjusting your world view according to the real world.
August 8th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Yes indeed, you moved the goalposts away from war and terrorism to discrimination and sectarian violence.
So sectarian violence isn’t terrorism? Hmmm, what strange views you have. I don’t see why one should not count sectarian attacks against local Christians or Ahmadis but count only count those who support/engage in attacks against Westerners. What difference does it make – and how were the poll questions worded where respondents wouldn’t also think to include ‘sectarian’ attacks when they say they condemn killing civilians?
As I said, the proof is in the pudding is in the eating.
Incidentally, it turned out that the “hundreds of thousands” part was either completely fabricated or a manifestation of your ignorance. Other commentators have explained the fallacy of using the above-mentioned protesters as indicative of the majority of Pakistan’s population.
Uh-huh. Would you say fewer Pakistanis marched in support of Mumtaz Qadri than openly mourned for Salman Taseer? Would you say fewer religious scholars and clerics refused to condemn or outright condoned the attack than condemned it?
If you’re going to claim that the 40,000 or 100,000 (my claim) of Pakistanis marching for Qadri couldn’t possibly represent a much larger pool of people who condoned his action than I can say the same to your claim if you can’t show that millions of Pakistanis openly held demonstrations across Pakistan remembering Salman Taseer and condemning Mumtaz Qadri. Turn about is fair play.
The bottom line is that a Pakistani politician was gunned down and tens of thousands – if not more – of Pakistanis from across Pakistan marched to support the killing. Hundreds of so-called ‘moderate’ Barelvi clerics and religious scholars, never mind Deobandis, refused to condemn Taseer’s murder. Pakistani lawyers, who, a few years previously defiantly opposed Pervez Musharraf, showered rose petals for Qadri as he was taken to his first court appearance.
That doesn’t sound like a fringe minority to me. Or if that is a fringe minority where only 5% of Pakistanis are extremists, why does the United States look thousands of times better by comparison? 50%+ of Americans are extremists, dontchya know?
August 8th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Reaction to Qadri’s actions – note that over one weekend in one city alone, 50,000 came out to demonstrate for Qadri:
It is a response that has shocked the country’s liberal elite. A member of Taseer’s own security team has repeatedly confessed to killing him, yet Qadri has been rewarded with a national outpouring of approval—including garland-throwing and public praise, with fawning YouTube videos and Facebook fan pages appearing within hours of the murder.
The response has been so overwhelming that authorities furtively moved up Qadri’s hearing to Monday to pre-empt more gatherings of adoring crowds. (It was originally scheduled for Tuesday.) This weekend in Karachi, 50,000 people came out in support of the blasphemy law Qadri was supposedly defending when he shot Taseer more than 20 times in the back.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280700/
August 8th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Is this really surprising? The United States is the greatest purveyor of violence, to borrow a line from MLK, in the world. The U.S. government is literally responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people around the world over the last 60 years. And the majority of Americans have supported this violence!
And those who contend that Islam is inherently violent are, generally, the greatest supporters of the violence unleashed by the American state…of course they do not display the slightest manifestation that they are indeed experiencing any cognitive dissonance because of these contradictory positions! But this lack of cogitative dissonance is a fundamental component of right-wing psychology.
Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
Iraq 2003-present
Afghanistan 2001-present
Pakistan 2007-present
The list of U.S. bombing campaigns since World War 2. These campaigns have killed, literally, millions of innocent people! Americans are in no position, no position, to lecture anyone about violence and war”
August 8th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/091130_walt_chart.png
===============
Things are not plain black and white as you make them out to be there are many factors
US foreign policy
Crusader mentality of both sides which has created extremists
who do these hit and run “revenge” attacks for what is going on in ______ country . It does not make it a all out war on __________(insert group here)
Poverty
Uneducated
unemployment
A guy just went out and shot 100 people in Norway. No he did not attack muslims why? Hedid not attack the dirty water, but the tap itself
August 8th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Mass killers often turn the gun on themselves, but Anders Behring Breivik, the gunman in Norway who killed 93 people on Friday, has said he wants to explain his motives in the courtroom.
But should his motives be classified as the symptom of a deranged mind, or do they indicate something more widespread in the European psyche?
Norwegian philosopher Lars Gule believes he argued with Anders Breivik on an online forum, and he “did not stand out with a particularly aggressive or violent rhetoric… he was quite mainstream”.
“When it comes to opinions and statements, he was not alone… it shows some of the warped sense of reality that is operating” in certain Norwegian communities, he said.
Matthew Goodwin, author of New British Fascism, said that he was “struck by the similarities” between Breivik’s manifesto and some far-right parties in Britain.
“There are also large sections of the public… who are very concerned over some of the same issues – the role of Islam in European society, immigration, multiculturalism.
“They might not endorse violence, but I think there is a pool of wider potential there.”
August 8th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
It may take a while to sort out the statistics but here is some qualitative input regarding Islamic views on violence from what I believe is an authoritative and honest source.
“Islamic experts assure me there is no prohibition of warfare during Ramadan. On the contrary, many of Islam’s great conquests occurred during this holy month, including the first clash between Muslims and infidels, which occurred in 624 when Muhammad led his troops to victory in the battle of Badr. War for the furtherance of Islam and against non-believers is considered ethically acceptable by scholars, even during the month of fasting and prayer.” [Abdel al-Bari Atwan editor-in chief of the London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/31/chance-ramadan-islam-conquests-libya
I wonder if he really knew (or cared) what he was saying “War for the furtherance of Islam ….”
August 9th, 2011 at 2:20 am
“Inside Muslim Minds” by Prof Reza Hassan OAM is a good read for those who like statistics.
August 9th, 2011 at 2:47 am
Bob-
DOES DANIOS REALLY HAVE TO WASTE HIS TIME WRITING ANOTHER ARTICLE JUST TO REFUTE YOUR IMBECILIC STATEMENTS???!!
Gosh, I was just cringing at your absolute bigotry in your posts. Why can’t you just ACCEPT that the above results in the several polls are FACTS????
August 9th, 2011 at 3:13 am
@LibertyPhile:
It may take a while to sort out the statistics but here is some qualitative input regarding Islamic views on violence
Translation: I cannot refute what you said, and therefore I will change the topic altogether…
August 9th, 2011 at 3:14 am
@Farlowe: Excellent book, but it’s by Prof. Riaz Hassan, not Reza Hassan, for those interested in chasing it up.
August 9th, 2011 at 3:36 am
@ LibertyPhile;
Read a good article about “World Conquest” here;
http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60:al-islam-world-conquest-and-democracy&catid=69:debates&Itemid=64
Here’s an excerpt;
“The reverence for life and the conditions by which life can be taken are specified very clearly in the Qur’an. Here are a few verses illustrating this:
“…if anyone slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people…” (5:32)
“Unto G’d belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He giveth life and He taketh it. Except for Him ye have no protector nor helper.” (9:116)
“Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin. Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils). Nor take life – which G’d has made sacred – except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive.)” Qur’an (17:31-33)
No where in the Qur’an are Muslims endorsed to wage war against others just because they don’t believe in Islam. The endorsement to fight is always against those who are committing wrongs and for self defence. Life is considered to be very sacred in Islam. G’d is the Author of life and in Islam only He can take life and give the conditions by which life can be taken. The above verses are very clear about what those conditions are. There are many places in the Qur’an where Muslims are specifically commanded to fight in self defence and to protect the weak and oppressed.
Such as;
“Fight in the cause of G’d
Those who fight you, <<<<< ——- SEE THIS LINE!!!
But do not transgress limits;
For G'd loveth not transgressors. (2:190)
"And slay them
Wherever ye catch them,
And turn them out
From where they have
Turned you out;
For tumult and oppression
Are worse than slaughter;
But fight them not
At the Sacred Mosque
Unless they (first)
Fight you there;
But if they fight you,
Slay them.
Such is the reward
Of those who suppress faith. (2:191)
"But if they cease,
G'd is Oft-forgiving
Most Merciful.” (2:192)
One can search the whole Qur'an and look at every verse regarding fighting and war and never will the waging of war for conquest or the killing of innocent lives be endorsed. Compare that to the Bible and the Talmud."
Also, You may ask that if Islam "condemns terrorism and violence", than why does verse [verse 9:5] say "slay the infidel". In [Verse 4:91], sets out an guideline in which verse 9:5 has to abide and says that innocent civilans are to be excluded;
1. If they withdraw not from you (in an aggressive attack posture) ,
2. nor offer you peace (have declared intentions for war and have decline your offer for peace) ,
3. nor restrain their hands (armed with weapons).
http: // submission.org/#/d/War_System_in_Islam.html
August 9th, 2011 at 4:29 am
And it took Israel 62 years to do so, LATMATv. I know it is American media doctrine to view Hezbollah as completely evil, but the fact of the matter is that Hezbollah has treated Israeli prisoners of war far better than Israel treats Palestinian prisoners of war, Hezbollah was viewed favorably by Lebanese Christians and Muslims during the fiasco in 2006, Hezbollah (and Hamas) more often than not keep true to their cease-fire agreements UNTIL Israel breaks it first, thereby issuing a retaliation that Israel then retaliates to, and then blames it on the Palestinians and Hezbollah as if they started the whole conflict.
August 9th, 2011 at 4:51 am
Yes, sorry. I couldn’t check my copy of the book because it is buried somewhere in a room full of piles of books and removalist boxes. I tried to remember his name and I got it wrong. His name is (Prof.) Riaz Hassan.
August 9th, 2011 at 6:16 am
Remind me never ever EVER go to Utah.
August 9th, 2011 at 6:31 am
There seems to be a correlation between groups who see themselves as “exalted above others” as opposed to groups that believe in the communal whole of society.
Mormons are also the group most likely to kidnap other children (via adoption) as well as legally keep children with adoptive parents as opposed to their true families.
August 9th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
@JengaBob
About Mumtaz Qadri: First let me say I don’t agree with celebrating him.
But maybe you should consider what the US has done to Pakistan because not everything is about Islam. The US has robbed (through the IMF) and destabilized Pakistan for a long time. America’s drones kill innocent Pakistanis everyday.
The more the US meddles and destabilizes Pakistan, the more you can expect to see people turn away from “liberalism,” which many associate with the West.
Just because the majority are Muslims doesn’t put it at the feet of Islam. Look what horrors are going on in the DR of Congo, and that’s a Christian country. I don’t see anyone blaming the religion in that case.
Also, as far as suicide bombers, the world record is held by the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, described as a “secular group of Hindu origin,” so again, this is not an “Islamic” thing. (SOURCE: “Dying to Win”)
I live in the US, and I’m not sure why we’d NEED what is called terrorism or suicide bombing. We have tanks, F-16 fighter jets, Hellfire missiles, Apache helicopters…etc. etc. and we use them ALL THE TIME on plenty of innocent people on the flimsiest pretext. I wonder if we should blame Christianity since it’s the major religion here, or maybe just American/Western culture in general?
Let’s not forget darling Madeline Albright saying “the price was worth it” when asked about the US starving 500,000 innocent Iraqis to death. That has to rank as one of the most calloused, evil things ever said…before the US went on to kill even more Iraqis…til the present day!
Americans/Westerners have a Teflon sense of self righteousness that floors me. Maybe some self examination is in order before we start pointing fingers at Muslims?
August 9th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
US drone attack kills 21 ‘militants’ in Pakistan
Map of federally administered tribal areas
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Pakistan drone attacks ‘kill 30′
A US drone attack has killed at least 21 militants in north-western Pakistan, local intelligence officials said.
The drone fired two missiles, destroying a vehicle and a compound near Miranshah town in North Waziristan tribal district, on the Afghan border.
The dead militants include some foreigners and are believed to be part of the Haqqani network, officials say.
The group is believed to be behind a number of attacks against US troops in Afghanistan.
North and South Waziristan are regularly targeted by drone missiles.
The US says the region provides sanctuary to al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents who are involved in attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan.
“The dead included local Taliban as well as some Arabs and Uzbek nationals,” news agency Reuters quoted an unnamed intelligence official in North Waziristan as saying.
Initial reports said four to five militants were killed, but officials later said the toll had gone up after more bodies were pulled out from the rubble.
The attack on Wednesday morning was one of the biggest in recent weeks.
Last month, drone strikes killed at least 30 people in less than 24 hours in the area.
Drone attacks have escalated in the region since President Barack Obama took office in 2008. More than 100 raids were reported in the area last year.
The US does not routinely confirm drone operations, but analysts say only American forces have the capacity to deploy such aircraft in the region.
Pakistan publicly criticises drone attacks, saying they fuel support for militants. But observers say the authorities privately condone the strikes, although there have been recent signs that they want to limit the scope of such attacks.
A number of militants, some of them senior, have been killed in the raids, but many civilians have also died.
August 9th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
/\ Like i said stuff like this fuel the crusader mentality
August 10th, 2011 at 5:39 am
Drones don’t know civilians from militants. They are indiscriminate and they have killed many innocent people.
I’ve read several times that 90% of casualties in modern warfare are innocent civlians. America is in such
deep denial, we call our innocent victims “collateral damage.”
August 10th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Hey roberto, I figured I’d take you up on your challenge. Since religious minorities have it so easy in this country, I figured I’d share this story:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/fox-news-pulls-facebook-post-death-threats-aimed-215422479.html
“The response followed a similar incident late last month, when Fox News’ Facebook page received a deluge of hateful comments after Blair Scott, the communications director for American Atheists, appeared as a guest on Fox’s “America Live” to discuss the group’s lawsuit seeking to halt the inclusion of a crucifix at the World Trade Center Memorial.
The network deleted the post after identifying more than 200 threatening comments–including death threats aimed at Scott. Fox News has more than 2.2 million Facebook fans.
“We make every attempt to keep our Facebook page as safe as possible,” Peter Drace, Fox News VP and creative director of promotion, said in a statement to The Cutline. “And we take immediate steps to remove all hateful and dangerous language.”
Blair appeared on Fox on July 28; the post, which appeared on the Fox Facebook page later that night, was removed early on July 30, Fox said–but not before an atheist blogger managed to capture screenshots.”
You read that right. What did these guys do? They petitioned to ban a cross from being erected at the former WTC site. Now ask yourself, does that merit death threats? You do realize that there were Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, probably even a few Wiccans or Satanists who died in those attacks. But dare to point that out and you become an evil traitor who hates America…
August 10th, 2011 at 9:46 am
Hey roberto, I figured I’d take you up on your challenge. Since religious minorities have it so easy in this country, I figured I’d share this story:
Challenge accepted:
Muslims attacked Christians in the village of Nazlet Faragallah, in the southern Egyptian Minya province, on Sunday evening. The attack continued until the early hours of Monday morning, August 8. One Copt was murdered and homes were looted and torched when Muslims from Nazlet Faragallah together with Muslims from four neighboring villages started their violence at approximately 8 PM, after breaking their Ramadan fast.
According to eyewitnesses, thousands of Muslims entered the village from all sides, firing automatic weapons (mostly in the air), looting and throwing Molotov Cocktails at several homes. “They even destroyed our irrigation pumps,” said one witness.
The first attack was on the house of Father Youanes, pastor of St. George Church, which lies at the head of the village. He was beaten and his home was looted and torched….
August 10th, 2011 at 9:50 am
You do realize that there were Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, probably even a few Wiccans or Satanists who died in those attacks. But dare to point that out and you become an evil traitor who hates America…
Actually, other religious symbols were present at the memorial – I believe Jewish and Buddhist religious symbols. But it was a cross from fused steel beams of the WTC wreckage that prompted the atheist group to come out in opposition…so, in actuality, it was Christianity that was being singled out in your story.
Nice try but fail on so many levels (and you really wouldn’t want to compare this story to the hypothetical reaction an analogous story would cause in the Muslim world, do you?).
August 10th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Quick correction, other religious symbols are not present at the WTC memorial site.
August 10th, 2011 at 10:26 am
^and that correction then destroys the argument you were trying to make…
August 10th, 2011 at 11:44 am
@JengaBob: You’re cherry picking. Why do you only limit the argument in your comparison to the U.S.? These polls show Muslims *everywhere* are less likely to condone killing of innocents than Christians or Jews.
The U.S. has one of the highest standards of living. This fact in general increases the morale of the general public, making people less prone towards sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is often an outlet for people dissatisfied with their socio-economic situation; where they blame their problems on “other” groups. Furthermore, the U.S. is far more democratic than the corrupt and/or autocratic regimes of the places you mention. This means the majority of American Christians and Jews have more control over the U.S. armed forces. In other words, they do not need to “take matters into their own hands” as they can simply vote like-minded individuals into office who can then order soldiers to attack Muslim countries and fulfill all of their anti-Islamic genocidal fantasies for them.
August 10th, 2011 at 11:53 am
@JengaBob: So with that set up. Let’s add some other non-Muslim majority countries into your tangent/argument shall we? How comfortable would you feel being Muslim in the former Yugoslavia? Chechnya? Nigeria? Israel? Etc…
August 10th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
It appears that the only source of little bob’s story is some seedy website called “Assyrian International News Agency” (no bias there!). I looked for it on reputable Arabic (like Aljazeera and Al-Ahram, who both report these kinds of stories) and English news sources but couldn’t find it. It’s likely that, considering the history of the Islamophobic blogosphere, it’s completely fabricated. Unfortunately, no one has the time to check if every “incident” proliferated by the loons is based in reality.
Funny thing is that when I was looking through the JW archives, Mr. Bob Spencer said that the exact same church had been “torched.” The source of the story was, again, Assyrian International News Agency” (which recently published an article blaming Breivik on Muslims).
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/robert_spencer_pamela_geller_and/0018701
August 10th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Well, I checked al-Ahram, which is generally the best Egyptian paper (and one of the best Arabic-language papers in general), but couldn’t find anything on this story:
http://www.ahram.org.eg/27/Egypt.html
For what it’s worth, Minya is a real province in Upper Egypt, and there appears to be a Mar Girgis (St. George) Church in the area. But then Mar Girgis is also a very common name for Coptic Churches, right up there with St. Mark! LOL. Lacking any actual EGYPTIAN sources, it makes this somewhat questionable. Not impossible, especially given the violence that has happened in Egypt in recent years, but much of that has been covered in the Arabic language media.
Worth noting, at least one noteworthy Egyptian paper (al-Watan) is Coptic owned…
August 10th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
@NassirH:
I really feel bad for our Assyrian cousins. Yes, they have had injustices done to them, just as have had the Kurds, Armenians, Bedouin and Turkomans in the exact same corner of the Middle East. But many of these displaced Assyrians who grew up in Northern Europe have adopted this racist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim mentality that will only hurt their people more in the end.
The Assyrians are quintessentially Middle Eastern. Their blood is the same blood as Arab Iraqis and Syrians. They look the same, wear the same clothes, eat the same foods. Like I said, we’re all connected. When they start supporting people like Breivik, they are supporting racist thugs. Those same people don’t distinguish between Muslim and Christian Arab. They want a monocultural Europe, and that vision doesn’t include anyone from the ‘east’. In their minds, it’s as much about ‘race’ as anything.
I know that Breivik wouldn’t have hesitated to kill Assyrians alongside Kurds and Iraqis. The Assyrians should know the kinds of monsters they are willing to associate with, and that these same people would just as soon strip them of their mother culture, tongue and faith to ‘assimilate’ them into ‘white Christian Europe,’ another absurd, fabricated concept in and of itself.
August 10th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
A lot of this depends on how “innocent” is defined.
I would suggest to you that to Muslims the word “innocent” applies only to other Muslims.
August 10th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
I searched Google News for stories related to “Minya” and there are many reliable news sites which have covered the incident. All of the news sources contradict Bob’s version of the events which conveniently leaves out some major facts.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/copt-killed-clashes-egypt-road-accident-144236728.html
As the AFP report shows, this was a simple argument over a road accident that then heated up, a mosque was damaged, houses were burnt and people were wounded. Though an unfortunate series of events, it was certainly not what Bob was trying to make it out to be.
August 11th, 2011 at 5:18 am
@Baloney
Don’t aver and just “suggest”. Back it up by facts and statistics.
August 11th, 2011 at 5:54 am
I know that Breivik wouldn’t have hesitated to kill Assyrians alongside Kurds and Iraqis.
Breivik’s own vision contradict your fairy tale:
Breivik clearly explains that his “Knights Templar” is “not a religious organization but rather a Christian ‘culturalist’ military order.” He even calls on the “European Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu community” to join his fight against “the Islamization of Europe.”
All of the news sources contradict Bob’s version of the events which conveniently leaves out some major facts.
No contradiction. The news source itself leaves out some important facts, such as a priest’s home being targeted and Muslims attacking a Christian village.
I also didn’t see in the report where it said a Mosque was damaged but at least the report stated several Christian homes were burned and one Christian death.
So, the score is one dead Christian, 4 wounded Muslims (possibly including some attackers) and an untold number of wounded Christians.
August 11th, 2011 at 9:30 am
“No contradiction”
Yes there is. You made it seem like Muslims spontaneously decided to attack a Christian village after breaking their fast whereas all the other news sources make it clear that it was an argument that started it all.
“I also didn’t see in the report where it said a Mosque was damaged”
Like I said, the incident was reported by many news sites (but I could only link to one) and they mention that the mosque was damaged after an argument over a road accident outside turned violent. The AFP report I linked to says that someone opened fire on a mosque and its worshippers whilst the Associated Press says rocks were thrown at the mosque windows.
“but at least the report stated several Christian homes were burned and one Christian death.”
“at least”? What do you mean by that? Were you expecting them not to mention this important detail?
“So, the score is one dead Christian, 4 wounded Muslims (possibly including some attackers) and an untold number of wounded Christians.
Wow. So this is a “score” to you.
The conflict was resolved, by the way, but maybe you’re only interested in the “score”:
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/485109
August 11th, 2011 at 11:06 am
^these loons think of this as a game, hence, the word “score”. I’m sure these guys are so excited when a bad Muslim kills! This way, they can blame the religion instead of the criminals. WHat a shame!
August 11th, 2011 at 11:26 am
“No contradiction. The news source itself leaves out some important facts, such as a priest’s home being targeted and Muslims attacking a Christian village.”
You’re seriously delusional. The news report Mosizzle linked did in fact mention that homes in a Christian village were attacked. The hate site “AINA,” on the other hand, made it as if the evil Mooslims attacked the Copts spontaneously. It didn’t mention the source of the conflict, nor did it mention that some Copts also partook in violence. It’s clear that the AINA distorts incidents for ideological purposes, which is why Spencer uses it as a news source.
August 11th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Is jenga whatever a troll? In that case….please don’t feed the trolls. They eat valuable time and resource.
August 11th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
@Talisman. JengaBob is a troll that feeds on himself.
August 14th, 2011 at 7:26 am
Well, I responded earlier but my comment never went through.
Yes there is. You made it seem like Muslims spontaneously decided to attack a Christian village after breaking their fast whereas all the other news sources make it clear that it was an argument that started it all.
There’s yet another version of events you can read here:
http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/egypt/article_116115.html
My second article says Christians threw stones at Muslim worshipers *AFTER* Muslims attacked Christian worshipers in a similar manner. The Christians shouldn’t have thrown stones but I suppose they were feeling oppressed and sought revenge against the people who had earlier attacked them. As a response, the article says Muslims from local villages invaded the Christian villages and burnt and raided several Christian homes, including the home of a priest. Eight Christian homes were burnt in total and several more were vandalized/attacked.
The conflict was resolved, by the way, but maybe you’re only interested in the “score”:
This is what a Human Rights Activist in Egypt (not a ‘biased’ Copt) is quoted in the article saying about the reconciliation meetings:
Based on the concept of traditional tribal meetings, such reconciliation meetings are ostensibly meant for parties to come to amicable solutions outside of court. In reality however, the meetings are used to deny Copts their rights when they are attacked, human rights activists in Egypt say.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
I have searched all over (including at gallup’s own site) and have not found this survey. I’ve found other articles that all give you the hat tip for “finding” this. I’m left with no other conclusion than to assume you make up polls to support your false claims and your bobblehead readers fall for it. Have fun being a sad excuse for a human being.
I’m an atheist.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
@Lance:
Considering all the links are provided in the article itself, I don’t think you really “searched all over.”
August 29th, 2011 at 12:06 am
I also doubt that they are ‘atheist’, lots of the peeps like to pretend that they are (you may recall Laurence on this site) to hide their intentions. Damage control Lance!
August 29th, 2011 at 8:36 am
Lance, you must be blind and dumb!
March 11th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
In checking independent surveys on the Internet it appears this complete OPED is a fabrication of someone’s imagination. Surveys of Christian Americans have found that less than 1% believe that killing in name of religion is acceptable. Followers of the Koran are far more likely to support killing in the name of religion, in some cases up to 33%. It appears that this site makes up statistics to smear those that they despise, hate or disagree with. My guess is student activists or atheists.
March 11th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
@Gene
“In checking independent surveys on the Internet it appears this complete OPED is a fabrication of someone’s imagination.”
This article refers to a Gallup Poll, and the sources are linked. It’s not a “fabrication.”
“My guess is student activists or atheists.”
That’s a new one! At least you’re original.